 |
|
Mitt Romney is the most moderate candidate in the Republican primaries. Yes, even more so than the recently departed Jon Huntsman, whose tax-cut proposal was more radical and more regressive and whose endorsement of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget put him well to Romney's right on entitlements.
But compared with recent Republican nominees, Romney's policy platform is quite conservative and arguably even a bit extreme.
George W. Bush looks like a Kenyan socialist in comparison.
Romney hasn't just proposed to extend the Bush tax cuts. He's also proposed adding cuts worth more than $2 trillion.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan -- which, after extending the Bush tax cuts, lowers the corporate tax rate, eliminates the estate tax and repeals some high-income tax increases from the Affordable Care Act -- amounts to a tax cut of $600 billion in 2015.
The International Monetary Fund estimates America's gross domestic product will be $18 trillion that year. So, that's a tax cut of more than 3 percent of GDP.
In contrast, when Bush's first tax cut was passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would cost a shade over 1 percent of GDP.
By any measure, Romney's tax cuts are far, far larger.
They are also more regressive.
Bush's tax cut was, in theory, to be paid for out of the surplus. Today there is no surplus.
Romney promises to pay for his tax cuts but he opposes raising new taxes or cutting defense spending. That leaves domestic spending, most of which goes to seniors and low-income Americans.
Nor do his tax cuts make up the difference by distributing most of their benefits among low-income taxpayers.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romney's plan will mean an average tax cut of $164,000 for those in the top 1 percent and $69 -- no, that's not a typo -- for those in the bottom 20 percent.
So, in extending the Bush cuts and adding more of his own, Romney is proposing more than $6 trillion in new tax cuts that will disproportionately help the richest Americans. And he intends to pay for it through spending cuts -- such as block-granting Medicaid -- that will disproportionately hurt seniors and low-income Americans.
That's not a political attack, by the way. It's math. And it is math that makes his tax cut far more regressive than Bush's proposal.
Which is not to say Bush was a moderate.
Commentary
But compared with recent Republican nominees, Romney's policy platform is quite conservative and arguably even a bit extreme.
George W. Bush looks like a Kenyan socialist in comparison.
Romney hasn't just proposed to extend the Bush tax cuts. He's also proposed adding cuts worth more than $2 trillion.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan -- which, after extending the Bush tax cuts, lowers the corporate tax rate, eliminates the estate tax and repeals some high-income tax increases from the Affordable Care Act -- amounts to a tax cut of $600 billion in 2015.
The International Monetary Fund estimates America's gross domestic product will be $18 trillion that year. So, that's a tax cut of more than 3 percent of GDP.
In contrast, when Bush's first tax cut was passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would cost a shade over 1 percent of GDP.
By any measure, Romney's tax cuts are far, far larger.
They are also more regressive.
Bush's tax cut was, in theory, to be paid for out of the surplus. Today there is no surplus.
Romney promises to pay for his tax cuts but he opposes raising new taxes or cutting defense spending. That leaves domestic spending, most of which goes to seniors and low-income Americans.
Nor do his tax cuts make up the difference by distributing most of their benefits among low-income taxpayers.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romney's plan will mean an average tax cut of $164,000 for those in the top 1 percent and $69 -- no, that's not a typo -- for those in the bottom 20 percent.
So, in extending the Bush cuts and adding more of his own, Romney is proposing more than $6 trillion in new tax cuts that will disproportionately help the richest Americans. And he intends to pay for it through spending cuts -- such as block-granting Medicaid -- that will disproportionately hurt seniors and low-income Americans.
That's not a political attack, by the way. It's math. And it is math that makes his tax cut far more regressive than Bush's proposal.
Which is not to say Bush was a moderate.
Although, in fairness to him, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D were compromise proposals that attracted substantial Democrat support, particularly in the Senate.
It's not even to say that Romney, personally, is not a moderate. When Bush was president, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and his signature achievement was a health-care law that later served as the foundation for President Obama's efforts.
But the Republican Party has moved far to the right since 2000 and Romney has moved with it.
Bush wanted to pay down a surplus with spending cuts and expand Medicare. Romney wants to finance larger tax cuts by slashing domestic spending.
It's a more regressive policy that will be paid for in a more regressive way.
In today's GOP, even the most moderate presidential candidate is far to George W. Bush's right.
Commentary
What in the heck is guy smoking to say Mitt Romney is a Conservative he obviously has never stepped foot in Massachusetts then
No comments:
Post a Comment