Ten Miles Square


May 03, 2012 10:43 AM Mitt Romney Vows To Raise Taxes

By Jonathan Bernstein

What I would do? People ask me, `What would you to get the economy going’? and I say, `well look at what the president’s done, and do the opposite.

That’s Mitt Romney’s new version of his economic plan, via Political Wire.

Let’s see…Barack Obama cut taxes in the stimulus bill; guess Romney would have raised taxes there. He extended Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2010 — for most of it enthusiastically; he was dragged to extending them for upper-level taxpayers. So I’m not sure whether Romney would end them for everyone, or only for taxpayers who aren’t rich. Maybe a reporter will ask him about it? And then we have the payroll tax cuts more recently. I guess Romney, doing the opposite, would have raised those, too.

It’s also not clear whether keeping interest rates low counts as “what the president’s done” or not, so again one would have to ask Romney whether he would have pushed for high interest rates, too, as many Republicans have advocated in order to prevent the hyperinflation that was going to start in 2010 or whatever. He certainly would have let Detroit die…oh wait, is today Thursday? Not sure what his position on that one is today.

To be fair: he certainly would not have imposed the ACA tax increases that will kick in after a while. Or…I think there was a cigarette tax increase? Yup. So that becomes a tax cut. But outside of that, it’s pretty clear what Mitt Romney would have proposed in 2009 and will be proposing should he be president in 2013: tax increases as far as the eye can see.

[Cross-posted at A plain blog about politics]

Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who writes about American politics, especially the presidency, Congress, parties, and elections.


  • Fast Eddie Texas on May 08, 2012 10:06 AM:

    Oh, yes. All president Obama has done is cut taxes... Wait... extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" is not cutting taxes. It is just not raising them. Obamacare has some extremely drastic tax increases, especially in the area of capital gains. Maybe Mitt meant that he wouldn't offer 1 year tax credits in order to enduce hiring. Business professionals know that a 5 and 10 year plan is necessary to effectively budget, and not knowing what kind of hellish new tax or odious regulation makes it difficult to do that. I am also pretty sure Mitt meant that he would not put together a group of people who are not elected with powers that are not granted by the constitution (I am looking at you, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).
    Maybe Mitt meant that he would not hire and protect an Attorney General who is stupid enough to sell a gaggle of guns to Mexican drug cartels and then try to blame the gun store owners. Or, if you believe the official version, sold a bunch of guns with the intent of following them, and then losing them into the Mexican criminal world.
    Maybe Mitt would have not spent the billions to bail out General Motors, which GM squandered, then went through bankruptcy. If GM had gone straight to bankruptcy, then a whole bunch of taxpayer money would not have been wasted. Oh, and maybe the Unions wouldn't have been allowed to steal a bunch of money from American debt holders. People who had those bonds in their retirement account because they believed in the American system, and never thought the government would arbitrarily give 40% ownership to the Unions.
    Or maybe what Mitt meant was that he wouldn't have asked for almost a trillion dollars for shovel-ready projects that turned out to be a taxpayer funded slush fund for democrat causes, like Solyndra. Or Fisker (you're welcome, Finland). Or Cash for Clunkers.
    Oh, and I doubt that Mitt would offer the prime minister of a friendly power a bunch of DVDs as gifts.
    I also somehow think that whatever Mitt does, it will be treated as stupid, or evil, or corrupt by the media in this country, while the stupid, evil and corrupt things that Obama does will be ignored. Anyone who brings attention to the stupid, evil and corrupt things that Obama does will be branded "racist."

  • renrph on May 19, 2012 9:32 AM:

    Anyone who thinks that everyone who takes issue with Obama's missteps is automatically branded a racist is either ignoring much of what he or she hears/reads or just taking in opinion very selectively. The serious lefties who supported Obama with heart and soul in 2008 have taken after him with brickbats for his attempts to walk the middle ground and his continuation of GWB's evil, oppressive civil rights record. I haven't been called a racist for these objections. A moonbat, a radical, out to lunch, whatever, but racist? Uh-uh.