Obama Campaign Can't Make Obama's Deficit Math Add Up Either
Mitt Romney has had a lot of trouble recently defending his proposal to reduce income tax rates, increase defense spending, close tax loopholes — and keep the whole thing revenue it neutral while working to reduce the deficit and eventually balance the budget. It's possible to do any of those things, but it's extremely difficult, at best, to do all of them together.
But Obama's big debt reduction plan, which he claims would reduce national debt by $4 trillion, is also highly problematic. It's packed with gimmicks, and what debt reduction it might achieve would mostly come from tax hikes. And pressed to defend the plan, Obama's campaign has serious trouble.
The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein went back and forth with Obama campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki in the debate spin room last night to highly amusing results:
In the spin room following the debate, I noted to Psaki that Obama's math has its own problems. He preserves roughly 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts in terms of revenue and the taxes he raises won't be enough to balance the budget or save Medicare or Social Security from cuts.
"President Obama is the only one who has a $4 trillion balanced plan, so part of that is $1 trillion in ending the Bush tax cuts," Psaki said.
In response, I noted the the supposed $4 trillion deficit plan included $1.1 trillion in war savings and $1.2 trillion from the debt ceiling compromise that had already been signed into law.
"I think the important piece is that Mitt Romney has a $5 trillion plan," Psaki began to reply.
I pressed her on Obama's own plan, that keeps 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts without tackling entitlements.
She said, "I think we're talking about a couple different things. His plan is a $4 trillion plan. Part of it is ending the Bush tax cuts, part of it is making tough cuts to programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He's happy to make tough cuts and he also wants to invest in education and other programs."
I responded that the claimed mandatory savings were mostly offset by nearly $500 billion in new spending on his economic proposals.
"Yep," she said. She told me, "I'm happy to send you a copy of the president's plan outlined with all of the specifics of that."
The conversation keeps going. But it doesn't get any better for the Obama administration. At this point, presidential campaigns should, for their own good, probably stop trying to debate policy with Klein, who last year similarly boxed in Mitt Romney on the details of his dubious ObamaCare waiver plan.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And yet the media spends all it's time talking about Romney's math, as if they don't even know that Obama has a purported deficit reduction plan too.
I'd like to see them do a side-by-side comparison.
I'll save you the trouble: neither of them reconcile.
Tell you what, if I were to run for President I would claim to have a $700 billion trillion debt reduction plan. Because honestly, who cares about the number?
Admittedly, Romney has tried being clever about it. He says "I don't want to cut taxes on the wealthy" but then said "The top 5% will continue to pay 60% under my administration" (referring to 60% of total income taxes, not 60% effective rates). While I have no problem with that because I am not a greedy prog motivated by envy and avarice, it is a bit disingenuous.
And how is that different from Obama, who says he won't increase taxes on the middle class, yet then proceeds to raise them anyway?
Obama's plan keeps 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts? I thought we couldn't afford to "spend" the government's hard-earned money in such a frivolous manner.
He wants to keeps the parts that actually lowered tax revenue, mainly the creation of the 10% bracket out of part of the 15% bracket.
The cuts above the (probable) laffer curve peak, on the other hand, he wants to get rid of.
So, basically, he wants to minimize tax revenue, partly in a good way and partly in a really, really bad way.
Why not tax the 1% at 100% of their income, since they've sinned by exploiting the workers? The government can give them back whatever it thinks they need to live.
This is not a bad idea if you consider the fact that after you take away everything from the 1% you've just created a new 1%.
I can't make anybody's 'deficit reduction' math add up. I wonder why that is? Maybe I'm just no good at the math.
I guess that business degree was a waste of time.
My liberal acquaintances get annoyed at me when I start doing math too. What's an MBA against feelings?
He's happy to make tough cuts and he also wants to invest in education and other programs.
He's going to balance the budget on the backs of cowboy poets.
And puppets.
Also, fried chicken
But not muppets.
I can't make anybody's 'deficit reduction' math add up.
It's easy. You just imagine a cut, project it over ten years, and use that number as if it is a one year saving. Presto!
"How do you balance the budget?"
"Well, first, assume a spending reduction and/or increase in tax revenue..."
Soulless hack tells blatant lies.
No film at 11, because what's the point.
She looks like she wants to kill whoever she's talking to by taking a giant bite out of their leg and waiting for them to bleed to death.
Dead looking eyes. Like Susan Atkins dead looking eyes.
Your eyes would look pretty dead too if you had no soul.
Waiting? No, I've seen that bloodthirsty PR flak look before. She's contemplating eating Klein's liver out of his still-writing body.
"writhing"
I like the "still-writing" image.
Klein's final notes: "...omg, she's tearing open my stomach! she's pulling out my guts! she's eating it! aaarrrrgghhhh..."
Sir Bedevere: What is that?
Brother Maynard: He must have died while carving writing it.
King Arthur: Oh come on!
Brother Maynard: Well, that's what it says.
King Arthur: Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't have bothered to carve 'Aaaauuuggghhhh' 'omg, she's tearing open my stomach! she's pulling out my guts! she's eating it! aaarrrrgghhhh'. He'd just say it.
Sir Galahad: Maybe he was dictating it.
King Arthur: Oh shut up!
Glad to see that someone picked up on the direction I was going. Bravo Sir Loki!
Brave, brave Sir Loki, bravely ran away....
I didn't!
"....and his bowels plucked open and liver spilled out..."
Did you very nearly stand up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol?
"...omg, she's tearing open my stomach! she's pulling out my guts! she's eating it! aaarrrrgghhhh..."
Is this your screenplay for Troll 3?
"Waifing."
She's contemplating eating Klein's liver out of his still-writing body.
...with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
He's happy to make tough cuts and he also wants to invest in education and other programs.
Because no matter what, the teachers' unions must be paid. Oh had a recession, fuck you pay me. Oh, going broke and facing hyper inflation, fuck you pay me.
+1 funny guy
IT'S NOT FUCKING INVESTING.
It's investing in the votes teachers will give you.
Still not investing. That's purchasing.
Caveat emptor!
No, for 3 out of every 4 years it is investing, in the 4th there is a vote so that's when you get your dividend.
The contract could be for future delivery of votes.
It would be an investment if they were getting some sort of ownership interest or some kind of asset they could re-sell.
Its a tough call, really.
Increasing access to and standards of education don't increase economic productivity?
Math is hard.
/Psaki
Out of random curiosity I looked up the going rate for one of these on eBay.
$1200
If (when) I pay $1200 for a doll, it's going to do a lot more than say "Math class is tough."
You'll get the one that says "ow, stop that"?
No, the correct comment will be "ow, please be gentle".
Hey Peter, I don't think you got the memo. Reason isn't supposed to point out any flaws in Obama's policies; only in Romney's. John and other commenters told me so.
They're allowed to point them out, now that it's too far down the road to matter.
No, no, John would have said don't point out flaws in Romney's policies, only Obama's. Or if you're going to point out flaws in Romney's policies you must also, in the same article, point out flaws in Obama's.
Who is this John and how long has his voice been talking in your head?
I hear they have medication for that now.
I think he meant "Tulpa".
I thought they had to point our how much better it was under Postrel.
...and a sip for my homeys....
Did I imagine that Obama claimed that Romney's proposed changes to the corporate tax rate would cost $5 Trillion?
I looked it up - annual corporate tax revenue is $181.1 billion. Total tax revenue is about $2.2 trillion. Obama's math isn't even in the ball park.
It's not so much that he's bad at math, he's just bad at telling the truth.
Turn that frown upside down! He's not bad at telling the truth; he's bad at lying.
I'm sure it's 5 trillion over X years. I don't much care, seeing as how we need to get the deficit under control now, not in X years.
In five trillion years, the Earth and sun will be long gone.
Not if we invest in sustainable green energy.
If the corporate rate was cut to zero, it would "cost" 5 trillion over 27 years. Everyone watching a debate should assume all numbers are based on 27-year projections.
Math is hard enough without you mixing roman and Arabic numerals. If it's VxM^IV over X years just say so.
Can you imagine being a Roman engineer? No wonder they did everything geometrically.
As soon as anyone says "tax cuts that cost..." you can stop paying attention.
Hardly anyone who hasn't made up his mind by now is not going to "do the math." It is all about who can tell the biggest whoppers and look dreamy/presidential doing it. Anyone with a lick of sense doesn't believe either guy's plan or that either guy will actually propose it if elected.
Re: Romulus Augustus,
Much like how many Americans today choose their spouse/partner. No difference.
American men, perhaps. Women, I believe, still tend to do the math.
Romney's tax plan has taken a lot of hits, but the fact is that people don't really understand it. Romeny is proposing to lower tax rates as well as broaden the base. This is the same economic philosophy that is at the heart of the Bowles-Simpson Plan which most experts agree is the best grand bargain on the table. http://bit.ly/QsGN4Z
very nice