Princeton Economist: Obama misrepresenting my study on Romney's Tax Plan

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html
Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney's tax plan:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

You can check the math that shows Romney's plan is mathematically possible here.

there are sooo many sets of numbers that they become almost meaningless imo... especially from the govt.

i hope that people look at their own situations to assess the results. wages are stagnant ... the cost of living is rising... unemployment isn't improving enough to change reality ... the fed reserve is pumping out funny money... we are tethered to a fiscal cliff in europe ... and the scope and intervention of our govt is growing. I'm not saying romney will do anything substantially different... just that those are facts.

And it is possible for little green men to live on mars.....a straight 20% across the board tax cut, elimination of capital gain taxes, elimination of the estate taxes, elimination of the ATM, and only off setting the same with a capped deduction on schedule b......no economist in America believes this will result in revenue neutral result.......sure we can point to 1/10 of 1/10 of 1% and call it a plan, but even a non economist can apply the smell test. Let us go a step further....let us eliminate deductions completely.....who do you think that is going to hurt proportionally higher....a 1% who just had their tax rates cut by an additional 20% or a person in the middle class. This is not rocket science.....this is fantasy land. Revenues have to be increased to address the deficit. Government has to be slowly made smaller, and as jobs are eliminated in Government, the private sector needs tax credits which allow job creation in the private sector to outstrip the loss of government jobs.....it really is that simple, but this fantasy that the platform has presented.

Lets just try to do this ourselves
ATM will generate 11% of all income tax or around 131 billion raised in the next few years
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/amt/revenue.cfm

the estate tax when repealed will cost 50 billion a year
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2128

Capital gain revenue accounts for 7-12% of the revenue raised, or for arguments sake about the same as ATM 131 billion
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2128

The federal government collects 2.2 trillion in 2010 in income taxes, as we see above some of that is from capital gains, ATM, and estate taxes, so for the sake of argument we will only take half of the revenue or 1 trillion, and apply a 20% reduction or 200 billion.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Romney's platform is talking about a little over 500 billion a year loss revenues which in order to make it revenue neutral in deductions....you need to recapture 500 billion in deductions......this is simply impossible, but let us talk about saying it is possible....let us enter fantasy land and say if we do not allow any taxpayer to take schedule B deductions.....who will this hurt.....the 1% or the 90% of Americans who actually work for a living.......Nobody who has not been dropped on their head can argue stealing 500 billion from America will not proportionately benefit the wealthy who simply are stealing America as they ship their assets overseas into foreign accounts, and invest in foreign factories which further destroy America.....500 billion more deficit because of a gift to the wealthy.....the entire platform throws away fiscal conservative principles and busts our budget. Romney can get up and lie, Obama can stumble around, but the stone cold reality will not go away.....we will go further in debt.

Regardless if you like Romney's ideas or not, if Obama is going to quote an economist to bash Romney's tax plan, he needs to at least not misrepresent what the economist actually said.

No actually exchanging second hand opinions of so called economist will not cut it.....we need specifics as to what deductions are going to be eliminated to make a 500 billion dollar a year giveaway to the rich good for the American middle class. If they can show me the specifics, I will be honest and give credit where credit is due, but our deficit is not about 6% slackers who are skating on the system give aways.....it is about Romney saying anything but the truth to make sure the low wattage voters with their hate of Obama will vote against their economic interests....specifics.

deep breaths seagoat... it must suck that obama actually has a record now to run against now.

but the left doesn't care how bad it is... apparently nothing matters. sooo... you've got that going for you. cheers..!!

PkrBum wrote:there are sooo many sets of numbers that they become almost meaningless imo... especially from the govt.

i hope that people look at their own situations to assess the results. wages are stagnant ... the cost of living is rising... unemployment isn't improving enough to change reality ... the fed reserve is pumping out funny money... we are tethered to a fiscal cliff in europe ... and the scope and intervention of our govt is growing. I'm not saying romney will do anything substantially different... just that those are facts.

Plus, Romney wants to extend our stay in Afghanistan, intervene in Syria and saber rattle with Iran, dole out aid only to those nations who support Israel and increase DOD expenditures for more stuff to make the MIC thrilled. I agree with much of what you say although stagnant wages, rising cost of living is not new as these too are the facts.

Whether you like Romney or not, misrepresenting what an economist said, for your own political gain, is still wrong.

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:there are sooo many sets of numbers that they become almost meaningless imo... especially from the govt.

i hope that people look at their own situations to assess the results. wages are stagnant ... the cost of living is rising... unemployment isn't improving enough to change reality ... the fed reserve is pumping out funny money... we are tethered to a fiscal cliff in europe ... and the scope and intervention of our govt is growing. I'm not saying romney will do anything substantially different... just that those are facts.

Plus, Romney wants to extend our stay in Afghanistan, intervene in Syria and saber rattle with Iran, dole out aid only to those nations who support Israel and increase DOD expenditures for more stuff to make the MIC thrilled. I agree with much of what you say although stagnant wages, rising cost of living is not new as these too are the facts.

if history is any indication... what a candidate says while trying to get elected has very little to do with what he would do when elected. it was clear within a couple of years that bush was nothing close to what he promised... and although i agreed with most of obama's reversals... he has proven the same thing. why doesn't that bother the left? i refused to vote for bush in 2004 on that principle ... where are the standards for obama?

PkrBum wrote:

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:there are sooo many sets of numbers that they become almost meaningless imo... especially from the govt.

i hope that people look at their own situations to assess the results. wages are stagnant ... the cost of living is rising... unemployment isn't improving enough to change reality ... the fed reserve is pumping out funny money... we are tethered to a fiscal cliff in europe ... and the scope and intervention of our govt is growing. I'm not saying romney will do anything substantially different... just that those are facts.

Plus, Romney wants to extend our stay in Afghanistan, intervene in Syria and saber rattle with Iran, dole out aid only to those nations who support Israel and increase DOD expenditures for more stuff to make the MIC thrilled. I agree with much of what you say although stagnant wages, rising cost of living is not new as these too are the facts.

if history is any indication... what a candidate says while trying to get elected has very little to do with what he would do when elected. it was clear within a couple of years that bush was nothing close to what he promised... and although i agreed with most of obama's reversals... he has proven the same thing. why doesn't that bother the left? i refused to vote for bush in 2004 on that principle ... where are the standards for obama?

There so little to pick from when you consider the GOP field from the get go, President Obama is far from perfect but Romney . . . . wow!

The AARP said Obama lied about their Obamacare endorsement. Go figure...it's in print.

Nekochan wrote:Whether you like Romney or not, misrepresenting what an economist said, for your own political gain, is still wrong.

Misrepresentation or misinterpretation? It's possibly worse when economists lie about a plan being "plausible" when the math requires massive economic growth and unrealistic new job growth in order for the claims vs. reality to reconcile. He must be Art Laffer 2.0.

Now that the economist cleared up his study, will Mitt pledge not to fully implement his tax plan until after Obamacare is repealed in order to maintain his pledges not to increase the deficit? Doubtful.

Margin Call wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Whether you like Romney or not, misrepresenting what an economist said, for your own political gain, is still wrong.

Misrepresentation or misinterpretation? It's possibly worse when economists lie about a plan being "plausible" when the math requires massive economic growth and unrealistic new job growth in order for the claims vs. reality to reconcile. He must be Art Laffer 2.0.

Now that the economist cleared up his study, will Mitt pledge not to fully implement his tax plan until after Obamacare is repealed in order to maintain his pledges not to increase the deficit? Doubtful.

Hmmmmm . . . . good point and food for thought.

2seaoat wrote:No actually exchanging second hand opinions of so called economist will not cut it.....we need specifics as to what deductions are going to be eliminated to make a 500 billion dollar a year giveaway to the rich good for the American middle class. If they can show me the specifics, I will be honest and give credit where credit is due, but our deficit is not about 6% slackers who are skating on the system give aways.....it is about Romney saying anything but the truth to make sure the low wattage voters with their hate of Obama will vote against their economic interests....specifics.

Why don't you hold BHO to the same standards?

nochain wrote:

2seaoat wrote:No actually exchanging second hand opinions of so called economist will not cut it.....we need specifics as to what deductions are going to be eliminated to make a 500 billion dollar a year giveaway to the rich good for the American middle class. If they can show me the specifics, I will be honest and give credit where credit is due, but our deficit is not about 6% slackers who are skating on the system give aways.....it is about Romney saying anything but the truth to make sure the low wattage voters with their hate of Obama will vote against their economic interests....specifics.

Why don't you hold BHO to the same standards?

Isn't this the same COWH that after the debate went on the campaign trail and said...If you want to be President of the United States you have to be truthful with the American people....Must be a fine line between misrepresenting and telling lies...He also misrepresented a question from a female voter to use against Romney/Ryan and then the same lady went and listened to Ryan explain his position and she came away agreeing with what Ryan said and upset the COWH 'twisted' her question...Again...If you want to be President of the United States you got to be truthful with the American People....Like Fast and Furious...Murder of an Ambassador/Attacks on Embassy's and [Name] COWH Healthcare....truthful?....