Ah, the debate. Those of us who support Mr. Obama were shocked by his apparent lack of combativeness in the first debate. But then I thought back to what I learned when going for my Master’s degree in Communication years ago: at the time of the very first televised debates, voters who watched on TV (the majority) gave the clear victory to Kennedy. Those, however, who listened on radio gave the edge to Nixon.
Now, I am not going to compare our current president with Tricky Dickey. But in reading excerpts of the recent debate, it becomes clear that Mr. Obama did land some body blows.
Specifically, let’s focus on the sword play around the “$5 trillion tax cut.” The president said that’s how much Mitt’s tax cut plan would reduce revenue over the next decade, and independent non-partisan studies back up that claim (well, they actually come up with “only” $4.8 trillion, but a little rounding is permissible).
The former governor says his proposal is “revenue neutral.” That means while the federal government would be taking in much less money via taxes, his plan will “pay for” those reduced revenues by having the government spend much less. In other words, one dollar less in tax will be offset by one dollar not spent. This is the crux of the issue. But HOW will he pay for those tax cuts? If he cannot offset those tax cuts, he explodes the deficit.
Mr. Obama pounced: “He is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”
That is correct. In TV and radio interviews, in press interviews, both Mr. Romney and Rep. Ryan sidestep the specifics. They want us to trust them. They have some secret sauce that will magically close deductions and loopholes, and the Congress will happily go along.
For anyone who knows anything about real-world politics, this is insane. Armies of lobbyists would swamp Capitol Hill fighting furiously to preserve their favorite tax break. And they will win many of those fights, just as they always have in the past.
Mitt gave a great performance at the first debate. But that’s all it was – a performance. The more his script is analyzed, the more we see that it was a sad charade.
For a balanced look at how the math does and doesn’t add up, check out this article from Bloomberg News.
Thanks for caring about the truth.
Ken
Sanity First! 