Some analysis of Mitt Romney’s tax plan, via Matt Yglesias:
Mitt Romney has a problem. Like every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan, he wants to enact a large tax cut. That’ll cost the government a lot of revenue. So he’s been saying he’ll pay for it by “broadening the base” and eliminating tax deductions. The problem is that as the Tax Policy Center has found, this means most people will actually end up paying higher taxes under Romney’s plan. Households earning less than $200,000 a year will, on average, see their taxes raised.
Team Romney’s new argument of the day is that the TPC failed to account for the fact that the Romney tax agenda will supercharge growth. The problem is that the TPC did in fact consider this, going so far as to use the very tax cut friendly model developed by Harvard economist Matthew Weinzierl in partnership with his colleague Greg Mankiw, an economist, Romney advisor, and Bush administration operative. The numbers just don’t add up.
Because Yglesias is a Keynesian, he takes this in the direction of arguing Romney should just run a deficit, since a deficit is what the economy needs right now. And Yglesias is probably right that it would help (though there are better things to spend a deficit on). But I think that’s the wrong point to emphasize here.
The right point to emphasize is that Romney’s platform revolves around screwing over most of America to for the benefit of rich guys like himself. There are a lot of anti-Romney stories out there floating around, but isn’t this the big point the swing voters need to here? That Romney wants to raise their taxes?