Mary Matalin Calls Paul Krugman A ‘Liar’ For Telling The Truth

THINK PROGRESS

During a roundtable discussion on George Stephanoupolos’ This Week Sunday morning, GOP political consultant Mary Matalin got into a heated exchange with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, calling him a “liar” for previously referring to Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan as a “voucher” program:

MATALIN: You have mischaracterized and you have lied about every position and every particular of the Ryan plan on Medicare, from the efficiency of Medicare administration, to calling it a voucher plan, so you’re hardly credible on calling somebody else a liar.

But this is exactly what the Ryan proposal is — turning Medicare from a “defined benefit” into a “defined contribution” plan. Seniors would get a voucher from the federal government that they could use to help pay for a selection of private plans.
Although the Romney/Ryan campaign has shied away from this phrase in favor of the euphemistic “premium support,” Ryan himself has specifically referred to his proposal as a “voucher” program in the past.

Hero Congressman Defends America From Commie Socialist Nuns

Nuns are so sweet and all, trying to help others and whatnot, but they really should maybe think twice about all the barnstorming they are doing around the country lately until they take a class in civics, or math. This barnstorming, it is dividing America, says Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Money), a Romney surrogate from Colorado who spoke to ThinkProgress after the debates last week. The nuns should probably work on job creation, rather than on just coddling the poor and turning them into a gigantic moocher class. READ MORE »

Linda McMahon supports non-existent federal law protecting marriage equality

RAW STORY

A Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut on Sunday declared her support for “America’s law” protecting equal marriage rights for LGBT people, even though no such federal law exists.
“I absolutely support America’s law for same-sex marriage,” Linda MacMahon said during a debate with Democratic opponent Chris Murphy. “And I wouldn’t pretend to try to impose my will or rights on others. I think everyone should have the freedom to make that choice.”
“America doesn’t have a law protecting same-sex marriage, in fact it has the exact opposite,” Murphy pointed out. “The United States has a law that discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. And the fact that Linda McMahon spent only about 20 seconds answering that question tells you that she’s not going to stand up to her party in Washington when it comes to these issues that right now are being dominated by the social right in Washington. There is a war being waged against gays and lesbians, and I was proud to stand on one side of that war.”
McMahon responded by promising to stand against her party on abortion restrictions and “equal rights for all.”
Following the debate, Murphy told reporters that McMahon’s lack of knowledge about marriage laws showed “how weak her commitment is to standing up to the Republican right wing.”
“Linda McMahon clearly didn’t understand the law today on gay marriage, but she also revealed that she’s not really willing to go to Washington to fight her party,” he explained. “It would be a disaster for the people of this state if they sent a Republican to Washington who is going to gladly empower the agenda to destroy civil rights for minorities in this country.”
For her part, McMahon explained after the debate that she had changed her position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “because with now gay marriage approved in the state of Connecticut, I just don’t think it’s fair. And so, I would vote to repeal DOMA.”

Romney, Phoney

Romney on Israel/Palestine.
Foreign Policy Speech …

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

Private Fundraiser …

“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way … the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish … [S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

More here from the Mojo Tapes.
 

Josh Marshall

Hero Arkansas Rep. Pens Fabulous Paean To Slavery And Nazism

Arkansas Representative Jon Hubbard (R-Dixieland) would just like to go on the record and clear a few things up. For example, the era of Political Correctness has led to a profound mis-characterizations of slavery, which was actually a blessing in disguise (but only for black people) because have you SEEN Africa? He hears it is a total shithole. And Nazis — were they REALLY so bad?  And if you think he’s stupid, it’s not his fault; you can blame integration. Jon Hubbard feels these things so strongly that he has written them down in a book that is widely available on Amazon, a few excepts of which are included after the fold.
READ MORE »

Alasdhair And Stella AT Gwyneth Paltrow Birthday Party

The Old Vinyl Factory Sessions:James Mccartney

The son of musical royalty Paul and Linda McCartney, James visited us exactly 50 years after Love Me Do, the debut single by a then little-known band from Liverpool called The Beatles, was on the presses here in Hayes. Melodic and charming, James’s songs are rock n roll meditations on family, friends, spirituality and love. Expect his debut album in early 2013.

theoldvinylfactorysessions.com/artist/james-mccartney

Rocking

GOP LEADERS ENDORSE MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT - SHARE THIS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Why Obama Now

Mitt Romney debates himself

Tea Party Voter Suppression Group Under Investigation For Possible ‘Criminal Conspiracy’

THINK PROGRESS

The Tea Party organization launching a multi-pronged voter suppression effort this election is under investigation by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) for a possible “criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.”
Cummings sent a letter to True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht warning her that the Ohio branch of the group, in suing to throw thousands of students, trailer park residents, homeless people and African Americans off the voting rolls, may be violating the law:

At some point, an effort to challenge voter registrations by the thousands without any legitimate basis may be evidence of illegal voter suppression. If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.

True the Vote released a statement affirming their support for the Ohio voter purge advocates on Monday:

True the Vote stands by the well-intentioned efforts of these citizens and is disgusted by the attempts of some within government and media to warp what should have been a simple, legal process into a calculated partisan charade.

The most radical voter suppression efforts — including voter ID laws, voter purges, gerrymandered districts and restrictions on voter registration — have been killed in the courts or delayed til after the election. In many cases, judges concluded that minorities would be disproportionately affected by these efforts. Indeed, an analysis of the failed voter purge in Texas, True the Vote’s home state, found that African American and Latino names were much more likely to be flagged for removal, and African American districts received more letters questioning their eligibility to vote than any other districts.
Rather than rely soley on these initiatives, True the Vote is also mobilizing a national network of volunteer poll watchers to challenge and intimidate voters on Election Day. In light of the misinformation and questionable tactics disseminated in these volunteer trainings, Rep. Cummings is seeking “the data you have been using to challenge voter registrations, the training you have been providing volunteers to conduct these activities, and the manner in which you have been determining where to deploy your resources in select jurisdictions.”

STEELERS FOOTBALL 10-07-12

STEELERS vs EAGLES
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2012
KICKOFF - 1:00 PM - FOX
Steelers Game Notes

Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate

WASHINGTON (AP) — When conspiracists suggested Friday that the Obama administration had engineered a sharp drop in unemployment to aid President Barack Obama's re-election, the response was swift.

Career government officials, economists and even some Mitt Romney supporters issued a collective sigh.
The staffers who compute the U.S. unemployment rate work in an agency of the Labor Department. Officials who have overseen the work say it's prepared under tight security with no White House input or supervision.
"To think that these numbers could be manipulated. ... It's impossible to do it and get away with it," said Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that calculates the unemployment rate.
"These numbers are very trustworthy," said Hall, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and whose four-year term ended in January.
The figures that produce the unemployment rate are crunched by several dozen people at the bureau. The only BLS employee appointed by the White House is the commissioner, who operates independently of the White House.
The job is now vacant but is being handled by Acting Commissioner John Galvin, who has worked at the BLS for 34 years.
Yet conspiracy theorists came out in force Friday after the government reported a sudden drop in unemployment a month before Election Day — to 7.8 percent for September from 8.1 percent in August.
Their message: The Obama administration would do anything to ensure a November victory, including manipulating unemployment data. Labor Department officials, joined by Democrats and some Republicans, called the charges implausible.
That didn't stop the chatter. The allegations were a measure of how politicized the monthly unemployment report has become near the end of a campaign that's focused on the economy and jobs.
The conspiracy erupted after former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, a Republican, tweeted his skepticism five minutes after the BLS announced the unemployment rate at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," Welch tweeted, referring to the site of the Obama campaign headquarters.
The drop in unemployment was announced two days after Obama's lackluster performance in his first debate with Romney.
Republican Rep. Allen West of Florida soon announced via Facebook that he agreed with Welch.
"Somehow by manipulation of data we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the presidential election," West wrote. "This is Orwellian to say the least."
The Obama administration was forced to defend Labor's statisticians and economists against accusations that came without supporting evidence.
"No serious person ... would make claims like that," said Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
The monthly jobs report is prepared with raw data collected by Census workers. The workers interview Americans in about 60,000 households or visit them door-to-door.
People are asked whether they're employed and, if so, whether their jobs are full or part time. The Census workers gather other information about the respondents' education, age and gender and ask whether they're self-employed.
Most of the interviews are done in the week that includes the 19th day of the month. The resulting pile of data is transferred securely by Census to BLS about a week before the jobs report is due.
The office suites where the report is prepared and compiled goes on lockdown. Employees can't access the area without a hard pass. Staffers working on a paper copy of the report are expected to keep it under lock and key if they aren't at their desk — even when they go to lunch.
The security isn't just about keeping the data free of political pressure. The unemployment figures, if leaked early, could improperly move financial markets.
Tom Nardone, a 36-year veteran of the BLS, oversees the report's preparation. The goal, Nardone said, is to make the report as accurate and "apolitical" as possible.
"We strive to be like Joe Friday, just presenting the facts," he said.
A draft of the report is completed by early Wednesday before the Friday when it's released. Several groups of staffers review it. That Wednesday is usually the earliest that the commissioner of the BLS gets involved.
On Thursday afternoon, the report is sent to the White House's Council of Economic Advisors. Krueger provides a copy to the president.

Hilda Solis, Obama's labor secretary, doesn't see the report until around 8 a.m. Friday, a half-hour before its public release.

A week later, Labor releases the raw data on its website. Many academics use the data, which is stripped of all identifying information, for their own research.
The commissioner is the BLS' only political appointee. And even he or she operates independently of the presidential administration. The Obama administration has selected a new commissioner: Erica Groshen, a vice president at the New York Federal Reserve. She has yet to be approved by the Senate.
On Friday, Romney refrained from discrediting the government data. But plenty of conservatives did that work for him.
Conn Carroll, an editorial writer at the Washington Examiner, tweeted: "I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect."
Rick Manning, communications director of Americans for Limited Government and a former public affairs chief of staff at the Labor Department, said "anyone who takes this unemployment report serious is either naive or a paid Obama campaign adviser."
Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, weighed in with a statement saying the report "raises questions for me, and frankly it should be raising eyebrows for people across the country."
Conspiracy theories are nothing new for Obama. He has been dogged by discredited claims that he wasn't born in this country and that he is Muslim.
On Friday, one leading Republican sided with Obama's team in rejecting the latest accusations.
"Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief," Tony Fratto, a strategist who was a top communications official in the Bush White House, tweeted.

Foreign Firm Gives $1 Million to Romney Super-PAC

Michael Beckel, Center for Public Integrity


This story first appeared on the Center for Public Integrity's website.
A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation to a Republican super-PAC has raised legal concerns and opened up the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision to new criticism.
Restore Our Future, the super-PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney's run for president, received a $1 million donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.
Fairfax Financial's founder is Indian-born V. Prem Watsa. Watsa serves as CEO and chairman and owns or controls 45 percent of the company's shares. He is also the chairman of the board of OdysseyRe, the American subsidiary.
The law says that any foreign national is prohibited from "directly or indirectly" contributing money to influence US elections. That means no campaign donations, no donations to super-PACs, and no funding of political advertisements.


But campaign finance law is not as clear for US subsidiaries of foreign companies as it is for individuals.
Most of the regulations on political spending by subsidiaries of foreign companies were written before corporations were legally allowed to fund political advertisements or donate to super-PACs. And Republican members of the Federal Election Commission have thwarted the implementation of new rules regarding the practice.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is among those concerned about foreign-controlled corporations "exploiting loopholes in existing law" to influence US elections. He calls the practice a "direct threat to our democracy."

"You can bet that wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign commercial entities have an agenda when they spend millions to sway the outcome of an election," Whitehouse told the Center for Public Integrity in a statement. "And you can bet that agenda is not promoting the interests of middle-class American voters."
OdysseyRe's donation "raises some legal red flags," says Paul S. Ryan, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center.
The law lays out clear rules for political action committees associated with US subsidiaries of foreign companies, Ryan says, but it is hazier on spending allowed in the wake of Citizens United.
"I would be very wary if I was a corporation based in the US, owned wholly by foreign nationals, of contributing to a federal political committee or making independent expenditures," he said.
He faults the FEC for failing to "provide clarity and guidance in this controversial and important area of the law."
Ellen Weintraub, the Democrat who currently serves as the FEC's vice chair, agrees with Ryan that the commission's leadership in this area has been lacking.
"We should make some decisions about what we think the appropriate role of these organizations is in this brave new world of corporate money in politics," she said.
"By not addressing [these issues] in a rulemaking, we're leaving uncertainty out there," Weintraub continued. "And when there's uncertainty, there's always a risk that folks may try to use that uncertainty to their own advantage."
Officials with OdysseyRe and Fairfax Financial maintain that no US laws were broken.
Paul Rivett, Fairfax Financial's vice president of operations, said that OdysseyRe's Canadian parent company had "no role" in the decision to donate to Restore Our Future. Peter Lovell, general counsel of OdysseyRe, likewise said the firm's contribution was executed by a subcommittee of the company's board of directors comprised only of US nationals.
"Neither our Canadian parent nor any other foreign nationals were part of the decision-making process to contribute to the super-PAC," Lovell said...........................

Mitt Romney's Disdain For The Middle Class: He Said It, He Meant It

Coal Workers Say Murray Energy ‘Coerces’ Them To Make GOP Donations: ‘If You Don’t Contribute, Your Job’s At Stake’

THINK PROGRESS

“You’ve got a great boss,” Mitt Romney proclaimed to a crowd of coal miners at a campaign rally in August.
He was referring to Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, one of the largest coal mining operators in the country.
For Romney, that statement was particularly true. According to accounts from multiple coal miners, employees were forced to attend the event without pay. “Just for the record, if we did not go, we knew what would happen,” said one miner in a letter to a local radio station. Weeks later, Romney’s campaign featured images of the coal miners in a pro-coal ad. (The Obama campaign hit back this week with an ad claiming Romney used coal workers as “props”).
But that was just the tip of the iceberg. An expose from New Republic Senior Editor Alec MacGillis shows that Murray Energy is doing far more than requiring employees to spend uncompensated time at campaign events — the company is actually requiring them to donate to GOP candidates like Romney:

The accounts of two sources who have worked in managerial positions at the firm, and a review of letters and memos to Murray employees, suggest that coercion may also explain Murray staffers’ financial support for Romney. Murray, it turns out, has for years pressured salaried employees to give to the Murray Energy political action committee (PAC) and to Republican candidates chosen by the company. Internal documents show that company officials track who is and is not giving. The sources say that those who do not give are at risk of being demoted or missing out on bonuses, claims Murray denies.
The Murray sources, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, came forward separately. But they painted similar pictures of the fund-raising operation. “There’s a lot of coercion,” says one of them. “I just wanted to work, but you feel this constant pressure that, if you don’t contribute, your job’s at stake. You’re compelled to do this whether you want to or not.” Says the second: “They will give you a call if you’re not giving. . . . It’s expected you give Mr. Murray what he asks for.”

This spring, Murray organized a fundraiser for Mitt Romney, eventually bundling more than a million and half dollars for the candidate. According to the New Republic, employees of Murray Energy have donated more than $1.4 million to Republican candidates — with $120,000 raised for Romney this campaign season alone.
While employees say Murray does not explicitly force them to make donations, he makes it very clear what could happen if they don’t contribute some of their salary to Republicans. “We have been insulted by every salaried employee who does not support our efforts,” he wrote in one 2012 letter obtained by the New Republic.
And in a 2011 letter to company managers, Murray alluded to potential consequences if employees did not donate: “Please see that our salaried employees ‘step up,’ for their own sakes and those of their employees.”

Other national candidates supported by the “coerced” donations of coal workers include House Speaker John Boehner, Scott Brown, Rand Paul, David Vitter, and Congress’ most aggressive climate denier, Jim Inhofe. “Hopefully you will support every one of these friends of coal,” wrote Murray to his employees.
Murray, who is a fierce defender of the coal industry, is also a fierce climate denier. He has called climate change a “theory” and has blamed climate scientists for supposedly “perpetuating fraud.”
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney once proclaimed that coal plants “kill people” and established a “no regrets” plan to combat global warming. Today, with massive financial backing from the fossil fuel industry, Romney says that “we don’t know” what’s causing global warming. And in the presidential debate this week, he proclaimed “I like coal.”
Now we know why.

Hero Rep. Paul Broun Takes Bible-Based Stand Against Hell-Spawned Lies of ‘Science’

Speaking in front of a wall of glassy-eyed dead deer to an audience of glassy-eyed Christians at last month’s 2012 Sportsman’s Banquet at Hartwell, GA’s Liberty Baptist Church, serial Obama-speech-boycotter Rep. Paul Broun (R-JesusJesusJesusland) single-handedly disproved evolution and the Big Bang, and embryology, for good measure, revealing that they are “lies straight from the pit of Hell.” READ MORE »

Dow hits five-year high on jobs report

(Reuters) - The Dow Jones industrials index climbed to its highest level in nearly 5 years on Friday, after a surprise drop in the unemployment rate pointed to continued improvement in the labor market.
The S&P 500 rose for a fifth straight day and was also on course to close near a 5-year high. The index has appreciated nearly 17 percent so far this year, and is on track for its best yearly gain since 2009, when stocks rebounded after the financial crisis.
Labor Department data showed the jobless rate dropped by 0.3 percentage point in September to 7.8 percent, its lowest since January 2009, even as Americans came back into the labor force to resume the hunt for work. A separate survey of households found a big surge in hiring.
"What this suggests at the end of the day is that demand in the United States will hold up reasonably well," said Kevin Caron, market strategist at Stifel, Nicolaus & Co in Florham Park, New Jersey. "It wasn't so strong that it upset the apple cart for those that are looking for additional easing by the central banks."

Campaign Surrogate Admits Romney Is Changing Positions Just To Win Votes

Trust - Obama for America TV Ad

Insanely Low New Unemployment Numbers Mean Barack Obama Did 9/11

Good news! The new Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment report came out, and more Americans are working, the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%, and jobs numbers were revised upwards in July and August.
Of course, Barry Obama had a bad debate on Wednesday, so how could the economy mysteriously be recovering two days after Obama lost the entire election, friends? It’s a CONSPIRACY. At least, that’s what a bunch of Republicans are saying. Ladies and gentlemen, we present to you … BLS Troofers, because of course they are.

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers
— Jack Welch (@jack_welch) October 5, 2012

Yes. They went in and tinkered a decades-old system to get a possible bump out of a positive jobs report. This is eminently logical. Also, they changed the buttons on Jack Welch’s clicker, because he simply cannot get the channel changed from this gonzo teen porn to the Hallmark Channel.
Hahahaha, we kid, Jack Welch is not a pervert, just an insane demagogue.
READ MORE »

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

THINK PROGRESS

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.
3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.
4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.
5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.
6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.
8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.
9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.
10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.
11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.
12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.
13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.
14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.
15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.
16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.
17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.
18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.
19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.
20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.
21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.
22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.
23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.
25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”
26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”
27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.

Update

Romney has now admitted that number 26 was not true.

Fact-checkers have ‘field day’ after Obama-Romney debate

WASHINGTON — A $5 trillion tax cut, a doubling of the deficit, a $716 billion Medicare raid. Were the slings and arrows of the first US presidential debate pin-point accurate attacks, or fact-defying hocus pocus?
A bit of both, to be sure. But with the figures flying Wednesday night, President Barack Obama’s campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki may have said it best when she noted on Thursday that “fact checkers are having a good day today.”
The men and women drilling into the proclamations, promises and platforms put forward by Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney called out the two White House hopefuls when their figures strayed into fantasy.
Many of the more flagrant manipulations of the facts in Denver were committed by the Republican challenger, according to congressional expert Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.
“The fact checkers will have a field day on Romney,” he told AFP. “He brazenly lied on numerous occasions and that could change the story line over the next several days.”
Among Romney’s apparent faux pas was his claim — repeated incessantly on the campaign trail — that the president is “cutting” $716 billion from Medicare as part of his landmark health care reform law.
“But the fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare,” according to FactCheck.org, which said in its online report Thursday that it “found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate.”
Medicare is still spending those funds, it’s just that Obama is doling them out to insurance companies and drug manufacturers more slowly, a move that nonpartisan analysts say extends the solvency of the government health plan for the elderly by eight years, to 2024.
The president stepped into a thicket early on when he suggested that “Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut.”
The Republican immediately objected: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.”
The claims of both men, it turns out, deserve scrutiny.
FactCheck rated Obama’s accusation “not true,” noting that “Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”
But exactly how he would do that is unclear. Romney has proposed slashing tax rates by 20 percent, eliminating the estate tax, and ending taxes on dividends for people making under $200,000.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center said the move would reduce revenues by nearly $500 billion in 2015, extrapolated out to about $5 trillion over a decade.
Romney insists he would keep his plan “revenue neutral” by broadening the tax base and closing tax loopholes and deductions for high earners, although the Republican candidate has been sketchy on the details.
“The Tax Policy Center has analyzed the specifics of Romney’s plan thus far released and concluded that the numbers aren’t there to make it revenue neutral,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column reported.
But Romney was right on target when he said Obama pledged to “cut the deficit in half.”
“That’s the case. It’s right there on YouTube. True,” said PolitiFact, the respected truth-in-politics project of the Tampa Bay Times.
Romney has consistently hit the president for not honoring that pledge, but he strayed into trouble when he said Obama “doubled” the deficit.
Not true, according to The New York Times “Check Point” column, which issued comprehensive analysis of the debate claims and counterclaims.
“For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year (Obama) was inaugurated,” according to the Times.
Romney also hit Obama for not doing enough on jobs when there are “23 million people out of work.”
A compelling criticism, to be sure, but Romney overstated the number of unemployed.
Citing Bureau of Labor Statistic figures, FactCheck pointed out there were 12.5 million unemployed in August, with another eight million “underemployed” and 2.6 million “marginally attached” to the work force because they have not actively looked for a job in recent weeks.
Fact checkers have an avid following among politicos inside the Washington Beltway, but a key question in the final weeks before polls on November 6 is whether voters embrace the efforts to fact-check the two candidates’ claims.

At First Debate, Mitt Romney Admits That He Would ‘Absolutely Not’ Support His Own Tax Plan

Family Outing

Mary McCartney: This Week I'm...

The photographer on her cultural week ahead

Reading Death and the Penguin by Andry Kurkov, a novel about a writer who adopts a penguin from the local zoo. Suddenly he gets a job writing obituaries and the whole thing turns into a thriller. It’s gripping, intellectual and unlike anything I’ve read before.

Eating at Terre à Terre, a fantastic vegetarian restaurant in Brighton that serves exctiting food and organic wine. terreaterre.co.uk

Watching Comes A Bright Day, a British independent film with a fantastic cast. It’s a love story set within a jewellery heist and although I’m biased – it’s my husband Simon Aboud’s first film – it’s brilliant.

Listening to my iPod on shuffle; a real combination of different genres. As a photographer and cook, I like things that have an energy to them. That can be anything from the Foo Fighters to Etta James to Jay-Z and Kanye West’s album, Watch the Throne.

Visiting The Micheal Hoppen Gallery, which has a very tasteful selection of limited edition photographs. I don’t often get time off from work during the day so when I do, a really good gallery is always my first stop.michaelhoppengallery.com

Escaping to Whitstable to visit friends. Living in the city, I find myself missing beaches and gorgeous views out to the sea. canterbury.co.uk

Buying vintage dresses from The Girl Can’t Help it, a great little vintage shop in Alfie’s Antique Market. It has wonderful pieces from the Thirties, Forties and Fifties. thegirlcanthelpit.com

Drinking at The French House, an old-fashioned pub in Soho where artists like Francis Bacon used to go. frenchhousesoho.com

'Food’ by Mary McCartney, published by Chatto & Windus is out now, £20.

Mary was talking to Francesca Teoh

telegraph.co.uk

FactCheck and Tax Policy Center:Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise

Experts say he can't cut rates without losing revenue or favoring the wealthy.

Tax experts — including one who supports Romney’s plan — say the Republican presidential candidate’s promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn’t mathematically possible.
That’s the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center in a report the Romney campaign attacked as “biased” (although the campaign previously praised the TPC as “objective,” when it issued a report critical of a rival’s tax plan).
And it’s also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.”
Romney has proposed very specific tax cuts. He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits primarily upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).
Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the “same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.”
But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.
So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear — it’s not possible.
Romney says this criticism ignores his separate plan to cut corporate tax rates, which he says will stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that cutting corporate taxes can do that, and the Tax Foundation expert (who supports Romney’s plan) suggests that more jobs would be an acceptable trade-off for a less progressive personal income tax system.
But how much growth to expect is debatable, especially because Romney proposes to cut only the corporate tax rate, not corporate taxes overall. He would offset the rate cut by eliminating tax preferences resulting in no loss of revenue. During the Bush administration, Treasury Department experts concluded that the corporate rate could be dropped to 28 percent without losing revenue (Romney proposes 25 percent), but that such a trade-off “might well have little or no effect” on economic growth.
Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. One of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study says that is “implausibly large” and even if it materializes it wouldn’t prevent a tax increase on middle-income taxpayers under Romney’s income tax plan.
There’s room to argue that the benefits of increased growth are a fair trade for a less progressive tax system. In fact, that’s exactly the case made by the Tax Foundation’s expert, who notes that “the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”
But Romney’s claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.

Analysis

The Evolution of a Tax Plan

Mitt Romney first revealed his tax plans on Sept. 6, 2011, in a 59-point economic plan titled “Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth.” The former Massachusetts governor proposed maintaining the Bush-era income tax rates, repealing the estate tax and lowering the corporate tax from 35 percent to 25 percent and broadening its base. The plan was criticized by the Wall Street Journal as “surprisingly timid.”
The campaign expanded it on Feb. 22, 2012, to include repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and cutting the marginal income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board. The Wall Street Journal quoted Romney as saying “he would direct Congress to make up lost revenue from the rate cuts by limiting deductions, mostly for wealthier Americans.”

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 23: In describing his plan Wednesday, Mr. Romney pledged to preserve popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations for middle-income families.
“For high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that so that we make sure that the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more,” Mr. Romney said. “We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it’s middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy.”

A couple of months later, Romney was overheard telling donors that he would “probably eliminate” the mortgage-interest deduction for second homes for high-income taxpayers and possibly eliminate deductions for state income taxes and local property taxes. But the Romney campaign later retracted those comments, saying that he was offering some possible options — not making policy proposals. He has yet to offer any specifics.

A $250,000 Cut for ‘Millionaires’

In March, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center did an analysis of Romney’s corporate, individual and estate tax plan and found it would cost $480 billion a year, or $4.8 trillion over 10 years, beginning in calendar year 2015. At that time, the Tax Policy Center said it did not attempt to gauge the impact of eliminating or reducing tax deductions, credits and exemptions “[b]ecause we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences.”
The TPC’s detailed calculations showed that — before any reduction of tax deductions — Romney’s plan would result in 99.97 percent of those making $1 million a year or more getting a tax cut (compared with what they pay now) and that the cuts would average $256,603 each. But further down the income scale, the benefit would be considerably less. For those making between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, 94 percent would see a tax cut, and it would average $1,226, before any loss of deductions or credits. These cuts are all in addition to those enacted during the Bush administration, and Romney would not allow those to expire as scheduled.
We should add here that TPC’s analyses are generated using the same sort of computer modeling of the tax system used by the U.S. Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office. We haven’t seen Romney dispute these figures. In fact, when the TPC issued findings on Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s tax plan earlier in the GOP nomination fight, Romney issued a press release calling the analysis “objective.”
Nevertheless, Romney has insisted that under his tax plan — once he releases the rest of it — the wealthy would pay the same share of the tax burden that they do at present. “I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest,” Romney told Bob Schieffer on June 17 on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Romney, June 17: … my view is the right way to do that is to limit them [tax preferences] for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One– one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the 1 percent or 2 percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now. I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I’m looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs.

But, when pressed for specifics, Romney told Schieffer that he will “go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions” will be eliminated or reduced. In that interview, he said the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued a report in December 2010 that proved it is “mathematically … possible” to reduce tax rates and reduce the deficit.
That’s true — but Romney failed to note that the commission’s illustrative tax-reform proposal “taxes capital gains and dividends as ordinary income” (see footnote on page 29), eliminating a tax break that benefits mostly those with high incomes. But Romney’s tax plan would “[m]aintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains,” taking that option off the table. Under current law, capital gains (profits on sale of stock or real estate, for example) are generally taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, while ordinary earnings from salaries or business are taxed at a top rate of 35 percent of income over $388,350. (If the Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire, the rate would return to 20 percent.)
So how can Romney design a revenue-neutral plan that would cut income tax rates without disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest, and still maintain the current low rates on capital gains and dividends? That was the subject of the Tax Policy Center’s latest report, which immediately renewed the debate over who would benefit — and who would not — under Romney’s tax plan.

A Tax Debate, Renewed

The Tax Policy Center issued its report Aug. 1. It’s called “On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform.” The report was co-authored by William G. Gale, a former staff economist in President George H.W. Bush’s White House in 1991-1992, and Adam Looney, a former senior economist in the Obama White House.
TPC makes clear that the report is not an analysis of “Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.”
Rather, the center studied the impact of “a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed.” The center determined that Romney’s proposals for individual and estate taxes would cost about $360 billion a year, beginning in 2015. Offsetting such steep revenue losses by curbing tax preferences “would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits,” TPC said.

Tax Policy Center, Aug. 1: Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit.

The center concluded it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan without providing “large tax cuts” to high-income households.

Tax Policy Center, Aug. 1: Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

That was true even though the TPC eliminated or reduced tax expenditures “starting at the top” in an attempt to maintain the progressive nature of the tax code — one of Romney’s stated goals. “Even after eliminating all available tax expenditures for households earning more than $200,000, this group still faces a net tax break.”
On the day of the report’s release, President Obama renewed his attack on Romney’s plan in a speech in Ohio.

Obama, Aug. 1: The bulk of this [tax cut] would go to the wealthiest Americans. A lot of it would go to the top 1 percent. Pay attention here — folks making more than $3 million a year — the top one-tenth of 1 percent — they would get a tax cut under Mr. Romney’s plan that is worth almost a quarter of a million dollars — $250,000 they would save under his plan.

It’s true that the report (page 19) said that those in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive a $246,652 net tax break. But, as we noted earlier, it’s not “under Romney’s plan,” as the president said. It’s under a set of assumptions used by the Tax Policy Center to raise $360 billion a year in revenue by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures.
The report, however, does support Obama’s larger point that Romney’s plan would likely disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
The Romney campaign dismissed the Tax Policy Center report as “biased,” saying it “ignores the positive benefits to economic growth” that would come from other parts of his tax plan — such as reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and broadening the base. In announcing his revised plan in February, Romney said that his entire tax plan — including the corporate tax cuts — will be paid for through a combination of cutting spending, broadening the corporate tax base, and placing “some curbs on personal tax deductions, exemptions and credits.”
It is true that the center’s report did not consider the impact of the corporate tax changes. The report said: “Any reductions in revenue due to the lower corporate rate would be offset by reducing corporate tax preferences. As a result, we examine only changes to the individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. We ignore the effect of the proposal to reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.”
William McBride of the Tax Foundation, a pro-business nonprofit, writes that reducing the corporate tax rate will spur 1 percent to 2 percent more economic growth.
But McBride also writes that TPC “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.” That’s not a bad thing, he argues, because the U.S. already has “the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world,” and it is “well past time to consider the costs and benefits of such an extremely progressive system.”
But there’s reason to doubt that Romney’s corporate tax-rate cut would produce the growth that Romney and McBride predict. McBride cited an economic study from 2004, which looked at data from 70 countries and cited estimates suggesting that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1 percent or 1.8 percent, depending on the method used.
But Romney would offset his rate cut by eliminating corporate tax preferences in order to bring in the same amount of revenue. When the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy looked at such a plan in 2007 (under President George W. Bush), it concluded that it was possible to cut the top corporate rate to 28 percent without losing revenue through various base-broadening provisions. But it also warned that “little or no” economic growth might result (see page 48):

U.S. Treasury, Dec. 20, 2007: [T]he Treasury Department estimates that the combined policy of base broadening and lowering the business tax rate to 28 percent might well have little or no effect on the level of real output in the long run because the economic gain from the lower corporate tax rate may well be largely offset by the economic cost of eliminating accelerated depreciation.

If accelerated depreciation is maintained, Treasury estimated that the top corporate rate could be cut only to 31 percent without losing revenue. That would result in a long-run increase of 0.5 percent in economic output, Treasury said.
The Romney campaign insists that economic growth will somehow make its tax plan work as promised, but we’ve seen nothing to support that. Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. Looney, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, calls that “an implausibly large estimate,” but nevertheless ran the study again assuming that growth rate and an additional 12 million jobs. The result, he told ABC News, is that it would offset only about 15 percent of Romney’s revenue loss from individual tax cuts.
“Even in that case, there’s still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low- and or middle-income taxpayers,” Looney told ABC News. “It’s smaller, but it would require a net tax increase on the middle class.”
The Tax Foundation’s McBride argues that a less progressive income tax system is still a good trade-off for increased economic growth. “[L]ower rates combined with a broader tax base should lead to significant economic growth,” McBride writes. “The benefits of such growth will benefit some more than others, but arguably the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job.”
Here we should note that the study McBride cites to support his prediction of a 1 percent to 2 percent increase in growth refers only to the effect of a corporate rate cut, not a cut in individual rates. That study, using data from 70 countries, concluded that tax rates on individual labor — whether it’s the average rate or the top marginal rate — “are not significantly associated with economic growth.”
But Romney is not arguing that more jobs and growth should compensate for a tax system that puts a greater burden, or a larger share of a reduced burden, on middle-income taxpayers. He’s promising that the share of taxes won’t change. He has failed to prove that’s possible. And based on available evidence, we don’t see that it is.
– by Eugene Kiely and Brooks Jackson
Correction, Aug. 6: Our original story stated that the Tax Foundation, as an institution, “supports” the Romney tax plan. In a formal sense, it does not, and we have removed that statement. We also note here that the foundation’s expert, William McBride, awarded a grade of “C-plus” to the Romney plan in a posting on the organization’s official blog on Feb. 24, just below the B-minus rating given to Ron Paul’s plan. “Ron Paul still receives the highest grade, mainly because his plan eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends and lowers the corporate rate to 15 percent,” McBride wrote.
In addition, the Tax Foundation’s general counsel, Joseph Henchman, has sent us word that he objects to our description of the Tax Foundation as “pro-business” (a description we have used in the past) and asks that we refer to it instead as “non-partisan.” He states, “[W]e are an independent organization guided not by business demands but by the principles of good tax policy.”
We are happy to note the objection, and we don’t question the foundation’s lack of direct ties to political parties. We agree that it is “nonpartisan” in that sense. But it is not neutral in the tax policies for which it has long advocated. So we will stand with our “pro-business” description, which we believe is obvious and justified.
Here’s why: The organization states that it was founded by “a small group of business executives” in 1937, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, out of concern for rising federal taxation and spending. The current board chairman is David P. Lewis of Eli Lilly and Company, the pharmaceutical giant. It states that one-third of its funding comes in the form of corporate donations, which make up the largest single category of revenues. Past winners of its annual “distinguished service awards” have included the CEOs of Honeywell, Eli Lilly, Exxon Mobil, Delphi Corp., Verizon, Texaco, Hewlett-Packard, Alcoa, General Electric and Koch Industries. Its president, Scott Hodge, has written: “Progressively higher income tax rates – ‘taxing the rich’ – cause many productive people to work less and retire earlier, draining the economy and destroying jobs.”............