CNN news 2012-10-18 加文本

cnn news 2012-10-18

I’m Anderson Cooper. Welcome to the podcast. Mitt Romney says study shows his tax plan won’t hurt the middle class, won’t hurt the budget. What about those studies? We’ll take a look at them in Keeping Them Honest, also ridiculous. Let’s get start.

Ahead of tomorrow’s big presidential debate we are taking a look at Mitt Romney’s tax plan and his claim it will cut rates without ballooning the budget deficit. We are interested in it for two reasons tonight. It was a major subject on the Sunday shows where Romney advisors continued to defend it and no doubt it will be a big topic tomorrow night. Keeping Them Honest, though, a bipartisan study found the math doesn’t work and other studies which the Romney campaign counters with, well, they’re coming under fire tonight as well. Take a look.

Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.

It’s very questionable, some of them, some of them are blogs, some of them are from the AEI, an independent group. Those are not…

I, I, these are very credible sources, and…

One of them is from a guy who is a blog from a guy who was a top advisor to George W. Bush. And these are hardly nonpartisan studies.

That was top Romney advisor Ed Gillespie, more on that in a moment, first, though, I just want to begin at the beginning, with what Mr. Romney has been promising.

Under no circumstances will I raise taxes on the Middle class of America. We’re going to keep our taxes down.

What Mitt and I are proposing is a five-point plan.

There will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit but I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle income Americans, the combination of limiting deductions and credits and exemptions.

You can cut tax rates by 20% and still preserve these important preferences for middle class taxpayers. It is mathematically possible.

So that’s the promise. Keeping Them Honest, though, neither he nor his running mate Paul Ryan have ever specified which tax deductions they’ll cap, which loopholes they’ll close, or frankly give out many details at all. Their campaign advisors didn’t either this weekend. Despite that handicap, a bipartisan panel of three authors of the Tax Policy Center examined the plan and concluded that there’s really no way of making the numbers work, that is unless the middle class pays more. Thousands of dollars more per family, according to the authors, the Romney campaign called the study biased and began saying that academic support of its own. Take a look.

The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton, at AEI and a couple at the Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, you can remain revenue neutral. Now you cite a study. There’s six other studies that looked at the study you described and say it’s completely wrong.

Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.

What gives? If you’re not right about your projections?

Well, because, first of all, I’ve got Princeton, Harvard, Wall Street Journal and AEI all saying actually that we can bring down the rates.

Six studies have guaranteed, six studies have verified that this math adds up.

Keeping Them Honest, though, not quite. The suggestion is that these are full blown academic studies. Actually, three are blog posts, one is a Wall Street Journal op-ed. In the Wall Street Journal piece, Martin Feldstein, who’s also a campaign advisor, makes the math work but only by using a different definition of middle class than Mr. Romney uses in his own plan. In another study cited by Mr. Romney, Princeton economist Harvey Rosen assumes the tax cuts would generate enough economic growth to offset the cost but for many, that is, that’s a rather large assumption. One it’s also by the way questioned by many conservative economists as well. Bottom line, though, that word assume. Every one of these authors in each of these studies or so-called studies is making assumptions. As some may be solid assumptions, others dubious, but they are all just assumptions because neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan nor any of their surrogates have yet come forward with specific. Instead, we asked the Romney campaign if they’d like the opportunity to respond to the program. They declined for us tonight. Of course, the invitation stands.