The Great Debate

It’s Saturday and Meg left at the crack o’dawn to attend a neuroscience seminar. I have until four or five this afternoon to sip coffee and procrastinate with extreme prejudice.
Debate: Romney 1, Obama 0
Minutes before the first presidential debate on Wednesday evening, I wrote the following to my hordes of Facebook readers (that is, all 26 of them: more of a “gaggle” of Facebook readers):
“Time to watch Obama trounce Romney! This should be good.”
Well, I was wrong.
Romney won the debate in terms of rhetoric; Obama won in terms of actual facts. Unfortunately, debates aren’t judged solely on facts, so the debate went to Romney.
I’ll paraphrase:
Obama: Mr. Romney wants to lower taxes by 20% for everyone, which would result in a shortfall of 5 trillion dollars over the next ten years. This wouldn’t be good for the economy and isn’t a viable plan.
Romney: I don’t know where you’re getting your data, but my tax plan will lower taxes for everyone and won’t result in a 5 trillion dollar shortfall.
Obama: But you’ve been saying you’d lower taxes, and if you do the math…
Romney: Your mama. Also, China should stop paying for Big Bird.
Obama: But…
Romney: And one more thing: stop acting like one of my sons. I can tell when you’re lying.
Obama: Look, you’re the one who has been running the last 18 months saying you’ll cut taxes by 20% for everyone, which means you will reduce taxes on the wealthy and result in a 5 trillion dollar deficit in 10 years.
Romney: Ahha! That’s where I have you. Yes, I’m going to reduce taxes, but—get this! I’m going to take away deductions and loopholes, so the end result will be small business growth and everyone else pays the same rates as before! Beat that! Also, I want to end this segment and start the next one, because I’m loud and demanding.
Jim Lehrer, Moderator: Erm, Um, But Mr. Pres…
Romney: Too late! Also, let’s stop Obamacare! No offense, Mr. President.
Obama: No offense taken. Continue on.
Romney: And further, death panels. DEATH PANELS. I don’t want the government to control my health. Also, let’s repeal the Dodd Frank Act.
Obama: Hey, I happen to like the Dodd Frank Act. We need regulations and stuff to prevent financial collapse. Just look at the collapse that happened during eight years of Bush.
Romney: But the Dodd Frank Act doesn’t say what a ‘qualified mortgage’ is. I say let’s repeal and replace!
Lehrer: Replace with wh—
Romney: It doesn’t matter! Let’s get rid of red tape! Small Business! Middle Class! DEATH PANNELS! Also, ‘trickle-down government.’
Obama: What? I was looking down. You can’t just made up catch phrases willy-nilly.
Lehrer: I’m going to have to insist we talk about the next segment. Let’s talk about–
Romney: My turn again! Let’s talk about how Obama caused businesses to shut down.
Obama: I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the cause of the financial collapse that happened in the Bush years.
Romney: But you’ve been president for four years. You clearly have caused the country to only get worse, as the unemployment and middle class and things and stuff show.
Obama: But it’s hard work to turn it around. It’s going to take more hard work.
Romney: Not good enough, sir, not good enough. Under my presidency, I would repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, and get Republicans to work with Democrats again. And that’s just on the first day after I get elected.
Obama: That’s going to be a busy first day, and you won’t even be acting president yet.
Romney: I’m just that awesome.
Jim Lehrer: Time’s up. I’m sorry I’ve been such a bad moderator…
Romney: You really were. Thanks, Jim.
Obama: Yes, thanks. [shakes Romney’s hand and whispers into his ear]: Suck my balls.
Romney [shaking hands back, whispers to Obama]: I have special underwear.
Romney’s Tax Plan
A lot of the debate went into Romney’s tax “plan,” and by “plan,” I mean whatever Romney has told the public, which may not contain facts and may contain traces of peanuts.
Paul Ryan explained to Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview on Sept 30 that the tax cut would not really lower taxes:
WALLACE: So how much would it cost?
RYAN: It’s revenue neutral…
WALLACE: No no, I’m just talking about cuts. We’ll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates.
RYAN: The cut in tax rates is lowering all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent.
WALLACE: Right, how much does that cost?
RYAN: It’s revenue neutral.
[…]
WALLACE: But I have to point out, you haven’t given me the math.
RYAN: No, but you…well, I don’t have the time. It would take me too long to go through all of the math. But let me say it this way: you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class. For things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to getlower tax rates.
So, from the Romney camp is that they would cut taxes by 20%, but this would not result in any income loss because they would simultaneously stop about 20%-ish in deductions and loopholes.
Which ones? Well, that’s too complicated and would involve math.
How do they figure the math on that? Here you go:
·         In 2013, the total federal revenue from income taxes is expected to be $1.7 trillion dollars.
·         If you cut taxes by 20%, that would reduce the annual federal income from $1.7 trillion to $1.36 trillion dollars, a loss of $340 billion dollars a year.
·         Without making any adjustments for inflation, this amounts to $3.40 trillion dollars less over the next ten years ($340 billion dollars x 10).
·         Add to this that Romney wants to increase military budget by $2 trillion, and this arrives at $5.40 trillion dollars.
·         Round $5.40 trillion dollars down to the nearest trillion, and that gives you $5 trillion.
As Romney adamantly insisted in the debate, he will not add to the deficit:
And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the — the revenues going to the government. My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.
Okay, I’ve seen the arithmetic from the Democrat’s camp. Where’s the math from Romney?
The entire full five-point “Job Plan” from Mitt Romney’s website is exactly eight pages, which includes this:
·         Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.
o   Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporate income tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.
o   Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
This isn’t an explanation. Unless they can explain how they’re going to cut taxes across the board by 20% and keep it “revenue neutral,” then we can assume that the 20% tax cut would cost at least $3.40 trillion dollars over 10 years.

Jayne Cobb once said, “Ten percent of nothing is—let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin’. Carry the nothin’…”