I remember Crowley asking him what he would do if the numbers didn’t add up, and Romney saying “of course they add up.”
No, that misses the point as well. So long as he continues to assert this position, however illogical it is, he hasn’t shifted his position. People seem to REALLY want to debate this particular perceived non sequitur, though it has nothing to do with the point made.
Yes, exactly. I’m paraphrasing, but she followed up with, “Well, just suppose the offsets don’t add up. Just suppose. In that hypothetical, what would you do?” And Romney’s response was, “Of course they add up.” If ever there was an opportunity to dial it back, that was it. “Well, Candy, in your unrealistic hypothetical, I suppose I’d need to ratchet back the tax cut…” But he wouldn’t concede even that much.
In response to Obama’s claim that the cuts won’t add up, Romney said this (while also avoiding saying how much he would move the rates):
The only way to make this make sense, in context, is to understand him to be claiming that if the economists are correct, he won’t make the cut.
He then said
Reducing the taxes paid by high-income Americans was exactly what he claims would help the economy throughout the primaries. Saying he won’t do so is absolutely a policy shift, since these are the only tea leaves we have for determining what deductions he is going to eliminate.
If Romney wants to remain revenue neutral (as I understand it, continue to have the same amount of taxes collected in a few years as in the past - maybe I’m already misunderstanding), what difference does it make with rates vs. loopholes? Why is it better to cut the tax rate from 25% to 20%, but now taxpayers can’t claim X,Y, and Z as deductions, than to leave it at 25% but allow X,Y, and Z as deductions? If “the rich” continue to pay what they see as the same amount in the future as before, why are they going to vote for him based on this tax plan (not taking into account other reasons they would support him)?
Because tax loopholes are distorting and because they increase the administrative burden of taxes. And because, in theory, it will be a net effective tax cut for certain small businesses.
The claim is that you can keep it revenue neutral and make it a net effective cut because of the boost to the economy of cutting taxes. In other words, voodoo economics.
I don’t know how else to say it. Romney does NOT concede this point and therefore your conclusion is illogical. He did not dial back his position AT ALL. Per him, he can cut taxes by 20% and there will be enough loopholes for the rich to eliminate to make this “deficit neutral.” Again, that doesn’t mean his position is logical (or not). It just means he didn’t change it.
You’re misunderstanding. He’s saying he won’t change their percentage of the tax burden. Which would be true in across-the-board 20% tax cut, the position he has held and has not disavowed.
If he prioritizes revenue neutrality over achieving a uniform 20% cut, that’s vague enough to be taken in directions that most Americans won’t be happy with. Say, a cut of the top marginal rates, elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction, and a middle class tax hike. This would be extremely regressive, yet revenue neutral, while also achieving what I believe to be his true priority, which is tax cuts for the wealthy.
If you say he wouldn’t dare raise taxes on any bracket, I’d say you can’t trust him not to when his supposed “plan” changes depending on how closely it’s scrutinized. In other words, if he’s making it up as he goes along, and if he doesn’t feel bound to propose a plan that adds up arithmetically, how can we speak with any confidence on what his plan really is?
He doesn’t value one over the other! He sees nothing in conflict. If this position seems untrustworthy or sketchy (or whatever word is the buzzword today), that’s fine. But it is not a change in position!
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying because my conclusion does not rely in any part on Romney conceding that a 20% won’t be revenue neutral.
He’s saying that no economist can say his plan will be anything but revenue neutral. The only thing that can mean is that he will not implement any plan that isn’t deficit neutral. What alternative interpretation do you propose for what that comment means? That he will silence anyone that questions his plan? That all economists are mute?
That’s not what it means to say “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.” If your position is that he slightly misspoke, that may be the case. But since the whole argument is whether he was passing his policies off as more centrist, I think his accidentally misrepresenting his own position is beside the point.
That he thinks he can cut rates by 20%, limit deductions, and make the math work out. He’s on the record as saying he can do all three. Just because you can infer something, does not mean that Romney is implying it.
Richard, I suspect we’re both missing each other’s points. I interpret that this way: “I will implement no plan that isn’t deficit neutral. Luckily the very plan I have on the table fits the bill!” He was not addressing the logical disconnect you perceive because he doesn’t concede it. He needn’t silence economists because, I don’t know, they will now see the light given how forecfully he is delivering the message. Whatever. But he wasn’t changing his position.
I think he slightly misspoke, but we understood his meaning. I think President Obama would have gleefully pounced if he thought Romney was disavowing his tax cut proposal, which includes the rich for sure. But spinning your position as more centrist, if that’s what he was doing, is NOT the same as changing his position. A 20% across-the-board tax cut is a 20% cut, however it’s described. “Middle-class tax relief that ensures the rich pay the same % of the burden.” “Enormous tax relief for the rich.” Both accurately describe it. That’s semantics, not shifting.
Rasmussen has Romney down by 2 in WI
My sense of the polling today is that the national tracking polls have moved a point or so in Obama’s direction but Romney has had some good state polls from Rasmussen in Florida, Virginia and Iowa. I suspect this will cancel each other out in 538 which will remain at roughly 70% for Obama.
The policy is the rate cut and the change to deductions. We don’t know the distribution of the second one. So if you say that the distribution of deductions will be such that the rich don’t see a tax cut, that’s a shift in policy. See what I’m saying?
On the “no economists can say” line." I understand your position. I disagree that in context it’s reasonable to understand Romney to be simply disagreeing with the economists who question the plan. Instead, he’s saying that their rightness or wrongness is irrelevant, since his bottom line is that he will do nothing to cut revenue.
But he’s also saying he won’t not cut rates by 20%. (If that makes sense!)
I don’t know how the total tax burden on the rich will change across all the income categories as a result of his tax change proposals:
[quote]
[ul][li]Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates[]Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains[]Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains[]Eliminate the Death Tax[]Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)[/ul][/li][/quote]
But eliminating loopholes, combined with the other cuts, at least hypothetically allows for the rich to maintain their share of the overall burden. Doesn’t feel like a shift in policy so much as an assurance that everything proposed will cause no harm.
I don’t see it that way, obviously, especially given his absolute refusal to concede the possibility that he might have to dial back the tax cut. I don’t see any other way to interpret it, frankly.
It does to me! 
Let’s be clear that we’re talking about whether Romney was presenting his policies in the moment of the debate as different from what they previously were.
If the question is whether Romney’s bottom line really is no cuts unless the revenue is there, then I agree with your point that the second debate suggests that is not his bottom line (or that at least he hasn’t taken a position on what his bottom line is).
But if the question is whether Romney appeared to suggest in the first debate that the “no revenue cut” principal takes precedence over the size of the cut, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Yes, I’ll have to respectfully disagree. I don’t see him making any priority judgment there, because he would assert there is no need to.