I've heard just about enough of Mitt Romney's claim that this presidential election is all about "jobs and the economy."
The Economic Policy Institute has run the numbers and finds that President Obama’s budget would boost economic growth far more than Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s.
Obama’s plan would create 1.1 million jobs in 2013 and 280,000 jobs in 2014, while Romney’s budget would create 87,000 jobs in 2013 and lose 641,000 jobs in 2014, provided that his plans are deficit-financed, according to a new EPI study.
I can hear those conservative knees jerking from here.
Romney and Ryan have a plan to cut income tax rates by 20% and eliminate the estate tax altogether. R&R claim that their plan will be revenue neutral....nothing added to debt or deficits. To accomplish that goal, the GOP hopefuls will eliminate tax deductions (broadening the base) . Problem is......even if all deductions for the top earners are eliminated entirely, it's still not enough savings to offset the deep tax cutting.
And that's where the Obama camp responds with ads saying Mitt will raise taxes on the middle class by $2000. Because Mitt will not provide any specifics on what deductions will be cut....he has allowed Obama to exploit the issue.
Point being that there's no mathematical way to give tax cuts favoring the top earners....make the cuts revenue neutral.....without punishing the middle and working classes with tax increases. The numbers just don't add up.
While Obama's plan is to grow jobs through passage of the American Jobs Act...which provides $142 billion in temporary spending....Romney's slashing of government spending by $250 billion his first year, austerity measures proven to be an utter failure in European countries,...."would be a drag on growth in the near term. The drag would be bigger if Romney makes his tax reform revenue-neutral, as he’s promised."
Expansionary austerity is a true oxymoron. Cutting government spending during a recessionary period highlighted by high unemployment will only deepen and prolong the recessionary period....ask Spain. Cutting means you have less to work with, not more.
Cutting tax rates on the uber-wealthy doesn't and won't create zillions of new jobs and we have the previous decade as a working case study to prove it. While taxes have been at record lows for a decade, job growth has not exploded. In fact, from 2001-2009, our nation had virtually no net job growth.
And don't get me started on eliminating the estate tax which only "hits about 2 out of every 1,000 estates, and these estates are the wealthiest of the wealthy,"
In contrast, Obama would raise tax rates on those earning over $250,000 per year and leave other tax rates as they are for now. Obama would increase government spending for the sake of job creation, which is exactly what the government should do during high unemployment periods accompanied with low borrowing rates.
The choice is clear.