The Washington Post reported on the independent analysis of Governor Romney’s proposed tax plan…
Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday.
The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.
The awesome Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog put together this lovely chart, as only he can do. It gives us a nice visual of who benefits from Romney’s plan and who pays for the new yachts and summer homes for the rich.
The chart breaks down the tax burdens starting at the bottom 20% of wage earners and ends with the 99 – 99.9 group. He left off the top .1% because it would be “off the charts”, so to speak. You may notice that everyone pays more in taxes right up until you get to the top 5% of the population. According to the analysis, those who make $3 million dollars a year would get a TAX CUT of $250,000.
The President didn’t waste any time in letting people know how he feels about Governor Romney’s plan.
We tried that whole giving massive tax breaks to the rich during the Bush administration, it helped bring us to the brink of a depression. Let’s not go there again, please!
Cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles
I have to imagine that a whole lot of Republican primary voters are going to have buyers remorse once they start digesting some of the great ads that Democrats are producing. There is so much content to work this election, it’s exciting. This type of ad, real people talking about the impact of Romney’s business model on their lives, will resonate with a lot of people.
The leader of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, has given his blessing to Mitt Romney for his recent comments reaffirming his disdain for public workers — the great people who protect us and educate our children. Here is a reminder of exactly what Romney said.
“[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
Rush Limbaugh, in his infinite wisdom, helps to explain the Republican position for us all. This is the Republican party in 2012.
“Nobody’s opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers — but they aren’t private sector jobs,” Limbaugh said. “They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there’s no growth in the economy. “If you add those jobs — and if there aren’t other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we’re adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers — we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It’s also Ignorance and Sophistry 101.”
In Rush’s warped mind, I’m sure it makes perfect sense and it’s an easy sell to his mindless listeners. This zero sum argument plays well with people who lack critical thinking skills because it reduces it to a concept they’ve already accepted, the idea that if some benefit, others suffer. The problem is, it makes no sense at all. If the public sector creates more police, firefighter and teacher jobs, it has no effect on whether private sector jobs are created. Why would it? The private sector creates jobs when there is a demand for their products, as Nick Hanauer’s Ted Talk so eloquently lays out.
Limbaugh also injects another often unsaid conservative concept, that public employees don’t contribute to the economy at all. Steve Benen addresses this issue with his usual style.
But if Romney and Limbaugh actually, sincerely believe what they’re saying, I’d just ask them to consider one question: do they believe teachers, police officers, and firefighters spend money?
I mean, really. Limbaugh argued with a straight face today that cops, firefighters, and teachers may work and contribute to society, “but there’s no growth in the economy” as a result of their jobs. In other words, there are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders, but they never buy things and they never invest, so when they get laid off en masse, there are no economic consequences whatsoever.
I’m glad that Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh have taken this tact, because the vast majority of the American people disagree with them on the importance of police, firefighters and teachers.
Personally, I make a point to thank police, firefighters and teachers for the tough jobs they do. I also think they are vastly underpaid.
Cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles
“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.” – Mitt Romney
The problem with a candidate like Mitt Romney, who will say anything at anytime with no regard for what came before, is that it catches up with you. Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly shows us a great example of this.
…Here’s a gem from Iowa earlier today:
“Medicaid. You wonder what Medicaid is; those who aren’t into all this government stuff. You know, I have to admit, I didn’t know the differences between all these things until I got into government. Then I got into it and I understood that Medicaid is the health care program for the poor, by and large.”
I see. So, Mitt Romney, despite two degrees from Harvard, learned what Medicaid is when he became governor in 2002. He was 55 years old at the time.
Before he “got into government” and discovered what Medicaid is, Romney helped run a health company, which relied heavily on funding from — you guessed it — Medicare and Medicaid. What’s more, in his book, Romney boasts about having been a health care consultant, where he developed an expertise in how to deal with entitlements.
So he either really didn’t know about Medicaid, even after running a health company, or he’s just making shit up for whatever audience he’s talking to. More from Steve Benen…
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. “Romney didn’t mean what he said this morning,” you’re going to tell me. “He was only saying he didn’t understand Medicaid so that he could pretend to relate to the people in the audience. This wasn’t ignorance; it was pandering.”
Perhaps. I can’t say with certainty what Romney is ignorant of, and what he only pretends to be ignorant of.
This is going to be a fun year.
I’ve been listening to Steve Benen and Bill Simmon’s podcast at polyscifiradio.com and Steve had an excellent description of Mitt Romney in a nutshell. It’s one of those “file away in the vault” summations that might come in handy if Romney becomes the nominee. This part of his rant is the flip side of how Mitt is the presumptive nominee, but it reveals how difficult it is going to be for Mitt to rally the GOP. It’s going to be fun running against Mitt if he is the last man standing in the GOP primary.
Mitt Romney is a French speaking Mormon, vulture capitalist and his real names is Willard. There’s no way in the world that the Republican party is going to nominate a French speaking Mormon, vulture capitalist named Willard for the presidency.
The party’s voters don’t like him as evidenced by these polls that show he can’t quite break the ceiling. They don’t like him, they don’t trust him because he’s flip flopped on more issues than any politician I can ever think of.
And you look at those issues that he flip flopped on – he was pro-choice, pro gay rights, pro gun-control, pro “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants.
Ah, moderate on all these issues. He believes that climate change is real and should be dealt with, which Republicans consider to be ridiculous. He distanced himself from Reagan – as a candidate.
He attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers as a candidate – for governor and he helped create the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act, which Republican voters hate with the heat of a thousand suns.
He was for the bank bailout before he was against it. He was for the stimulus before he was against it. He was against the auto industry rescue before he took credit for it.
You combine those factors and I would argue that he’s about as appealing to Republican voters as I am.
I assume you are all readers of The Washington Monthly where Steve Benen resides. If not, you are missing out on some of the best writing and political analysis on the internet.
Cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles
From the DNC, just a little reminder of what Mitt Romney said. And he decided to come to Michigan so we could keep the story going, nice work Mitt. Is this a sign of things to come in your campaign?