A genuine question on Romney's tax plan and the deficit.

As applied by the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan plan, "the arithmetic tells us, no matter what they say, one of three things is about to happen."

The plan would be "cutting those deductions - one, they’ll have to eliminate so many deductions, like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that middle- class families will see their tax bills go up an average of $2,000, while anybody who makes $3 million or more will see their tax bill go down $250,000."

[...]

Another scenario that Bill Clinton sees is that the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan plan will "obliterate the budget for the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel. They’ll cut way back on Pell grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the programs that help to empower middle-class families and help poor kids. Oh, they’ll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research."

[...]

As Bill Clinton succinctly put it, "they’ll just do what they’ve been doing for more than 30 years. They’ll go and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they’ll just explode the debt and weaken the economy, and they’ll destroy the federal government’s ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments."

As Bill Clinton succinctly put it, "they’ll just do what they’ve been doing for more than 30 years. They’ll go and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they’ll just explode the debt and weaken the economy, and they’ll destroy the federal government’s ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments."

The first time I'd heard a number put to Romney's tax plan was in Clinton's speech where he put it at $5 trillion. I thought that was high so I hit a couple of fact check websites who all basically agreed it was true. So I went to Romney's website and the tax cuts he proposes really are gigantic. They'd have to be to be worth $5 tril over 10 years.

Has anyone from Team Romney ever addressed this number vs. the deficit in an honest way? Bill Clinton made the point that they would do one of three things. I'm chopping it up to get the gist, but it seems fairly straightforward and pretty much true.

So:

1. Completely end virtually all deductions including the sacred middle class cow of the mortgage interest tax deduction. When all is said and done, that's a straight up tax hike for most Americans. There's just no way to game the numbers to make it otherwise.

2. Raise defense spending (!?!) while slashing virtually every other government program.

3. Just straight up ignore the deficit and cut taxes anyway.

It seems to me that Clinton is right and those are the only three realistic outcomes. I have zero confidence in #2 because what I'm hearing from the Romney camp (and I'm just a dumb partisan lib) is "we've got a plan to cut government and we'll tell you what it is when you elect us" which is pretty much exactly what Bush said and didn't do. And #1 is political suicide and since I don't think Romney has the backbone for #2, he DEFINITELY doesn't have the backbone for #1.

What am I missing? Have Romney supporters made peace with this or have they come to a different conclusion? I don't understand.

If true, then Mr. Clinton is correct.

However, it takes two to tango, and how dramatic the cuts in spending will be will depend on both sides of the aisle. Neither side has shown a real commitment to the kind of cuts that are required.

Reagan proved over and over again that DEFICITS DON'T MATTER.

That's why he believed in tax cut AND spend.

When Ronald Reagan delivered his farewell address more than two decades ago, he cited one regret: a continuing deficit he had put the nation on track to eliminate.

"I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do," said Reagan. "The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments, and I'm going to hold my tongue."

In the days leading up to that speech, Reagan had indeed spoken repeatedly about the deficit, explaining its sources and how it could be eliminated with characteristic passion and analytical accuracy.

On Dec. 13, 1988, Reagan gave a speech to a group of his political appointees. He told them he believed that in the "Washington colony," as he called it, there was an "iron triangle" working to expand government beyond its constitutional limits and, in the process, drive up deficit spending.

"It sometimes seems to many Americans that what might be called a 'triangle of institutions' -- parts of Congress, the media and special interest groups -- is transforming and placing out of focus our constitutional balance, particularly in the areas of spending and foreign policy," Reagan said. "Some have used the term 'iron triangle' to describe something like what I'm talking about. And with apologies to them, I'll borrow that term."

Reagan predicted Americans would rise up against this "iron triangle" and take their government back.

"Fundamentally, the American people know what's up, and they don't like it," Reagan said. "They may re-elect their congressmen, but they trust Congress itself less and less. They may watch or read the media, but they stop believing it, and they show more and more dislike for special interest influence. The only question is: When will they say once and for all that they've had enough? The strength of our nation has never been with the Washington colony, but with the American people. The budget deficit is the colony's last stand."

About a month after this speech, Reagan introduced his final budget. He said it would put the nation "on track to a balanced budget and a modest surplus by fiscal year 1993."

How could this be -- given the fiscal crisis we face today?

As Reagan explained to his political appointees, economic growth spurred by the industry of the American people as well as by his tax cuts was causing federal tax revenues to increase. If growth in the federal government could be held to a slower rate than growth in federal tax revenues, the deficit could be eliminated.

"And why do we have deficits? It's not because of a lack of revenues," Reagan told his appointees in December 1988. "Federal revenues have grown by $375 billion since 1981, but spending has grown by $450 billion."

"So, the challenge before us is setting spending priorities, deciding where to spend some of the additional revenue, but not spending it all so we can reduce the deficit," he said.

http://townhall.com/columnists/te...page/full/

"we've got a plan to cut government and we'll tell you what it is when you elect us" which is pretty much exactly what Bush said and didn't do.

Actions speak much, much louder than words.

Reagan TALK: "Deficits do matter and I will bring down the deficit."

Reagan ACTION: Deficit TRIPLED under his watch.

Reagan Fact: Deficits DON'T MATTER.

Actions speak much, much louder than words.

Reagan TALK: "Deficits do matter and I will bring down the deficit."

Reagan ACTION: Deficit TRIPLED under his watch.

Reagan Fact: Deficits DON'T MATTER.

Has Reagan been resurrected and will be running against Obama?

If not, how does talking about Reagan have anything to do with Romney, or the alternative Obama?

Talking about debt in terms of percentage increase or decrease has no meaning. Washington increased public debt by ∞%! It was paid off though. Reagan increased the debt by about $1.76T during his 8 years. Roughly speaking, this is about $3.52T in today's dollars, about $440B/yr.

Obama has increased it by about $5.2T in 3.5 years, $1.49T/yr.

Reagan increased the debt by about $1.76T during his 8 years. Roughly speaking, this is about $3.52T in today's dollars, about $440B/yr.

Obama has increased it by about $5.2T in 3.5 years, $1.49T/yr.

Has Reagan been resurrected and will be running against Obama?

If not, how does talking about Reagan have anything to do with Romney, or the alternative Obama?