Why Mitt Will Lose…Or Your Modern GOP In One Line Of Arithmetic

Ezra Klein sums up the entire GOP policy approach in one ‘graf:

The reason Romney’s plan doesn’t work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more. [bold in the original]

You can’t get simpler than that.  Mitt Romney wants to cut his taxes so much that he has only two choices left for the rest of his budget:  raise taxes on everyone else and/or allow the deficit to balloon.

I know.  Facts have a liberal bias, and numbers are f**king commies.  This is the GOP reality folks; now we get to decide if we choose to live within it.

Not much else needs saying, really, and I see that the Obama campaign is already on this one like barnacles on Romney’s yacht.  Do read the rest of Klein’s post, by the way.  It lays out the full failure of the whole Romney tax fiasco with admirable clarity. (h/t GOS)

Image:  Paul Klee, Red Balloon, 1922

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

40 replies
  1. 1
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Hey, a Klee that I understand and like!

    I do like the idea that numbers are commies. :-)

    Numbers from the bank, of course, are not. They are fritten-fratten right-wing mofos.

    Edited. [And first!]

  2. 2
    Brandon says:

    I am pretty sure Mitt’s yacht doesn’t have barnacles. He has a guy to do that that he probably pays shit wages to and takes glee in firing every few months. But I am darn sure he aint an illegal, he’s running for office for pete’s sake, he can’t have any illegals.

  3. 3
    BGinCHI says:

    IF the GOP’s goal is to make as much bank as possible and to fuck over everyone else who doesn’t live for money, then I think this is actually a winning strategy for them.

    Turns out Dubya was the last sane, reasonable GOP Presidential possibility. Apres that, the deluge.

  4. 4
    El Cid says:

    Apparently you heretically dissent from the sanctity of the transubstantiation of tax cuts for the rich into blessings for the commoners.

  5. 5
    Dave says:

    Hey, the Klee is the first piece you’ve decorated a post with that isn’t arcane, ancient, and revolting. Down with the hideous painting from the Dutch Golden Age, long live Modernism!

    Though obviously Klee’s red balloon has fuck all to do with Mitt Romney’s tax plan.

  6. 6
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @BGinCHI: Turns out Dubya was the last sane, reasonable GOP Presidential possibility.

    I understand why you say this, but Dubya was actually an absurd, issue-laden shithead sociopath. It’s just that the standards have slid so far even below that that it *seems* like he was sane and reasonable.

  7. 7
    Comrade Mary says:

    The balloon in that Klee is the wrong colour. I hate it. Make it stop!

    (Not really. I like.)

  8. 8
    SFAW says:

    The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together.

    Apparently, English is now a quasi-second language for me, because I have no fucking idea what this sentence means.

    “Tax expenditures that go to the rich”? Is there now a line item in the Fed budget “General Payments to Rich People Who Probably Don’t Need It”?

    Maybe I should read every third letter and decode it that way? It’s like trying to read Prof. Irwin Corey.

    I am sure that one of the esteemed-and-highly-intelligent Balloon Juice commenters can explain to me how stupid I am, because Ezra’s sentence means “X”.

  9. 9
    PurpleGirl says:

    @Dave: His last line in the post: allow the deficit to balloon.

    Hence, the red balloon.

    (I like the classic paintings, btw. Red balloon is appropriate, though.)

  10. 10
    BGinCHI says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist: That was exactly what I was saying.

    Peak Bush was a myth.

  11. 11
    PurpleGirl says:

    @SFAW: tax cut/loophole/credit/deduction = tax expenditure. I’m not sure when it began being talked of in this manner but it’s become the common jargon.

  12. 12
    jwest says:

    “The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together.”

    I like it. It’s short and snappy, almost falls of the tongue by itself and immediately paints a mental image in people’s minds.

    This is a stone-cold winner.

    And all the conservatives got is that old “You didn’t build that” line.

  13. 13
    dmsilev says:

    @SFAW: Tax expenditures are things like the mortgage interest tax deduction.

  14. 14
    catclub says:

    This is one that Romney would win, if elected. The second Santa theory would say that now (GOP in power) that deficits don’t matter, everybody gets a tax cut.

  15. 15
    Svensker says:

    Yeah, but those tax cuts to the rich will pay for themselves by making the economy BOOM. Really. A Romney spokesman said so. And then there will be jobs galore and everyone will automatically have a home with a lawn, a garage filled with 1.5 cars, and a chicken in the pot, and good honest Real American health insurance that they bought themselves with their wages from the jobs they got from those rich beneficent folks. See? That’s what you get when Romeny wins. If Obama wins = Death of America, aka a bicycle, tofu in the pot, and a 5th floor walkup with people who talk funny and cook with weird stuff for your neighbors, also, too, clinics with Death Panels! And long lines! The Choice Is Clear.

  16. 16
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I thought the safe word was “green balloons.”

    ETA: Effectively beaten to the punch by Comrade Mary.

  17. 17
    The Moar You Know says:

    “The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together.”
    __
    I like it. It’s short and snappy, almost falls of the tongue by itself and immediately paints a mental image in people’s minds.
    __
    This is a stone-cold winner.

    @jwest: You would.

    I prefer “Romney’s going to raise your taxes” as it’s all the things you wish it wasn’t.

  18. 18
    catclub says:

    @jwest: I think SFAW’s point was that ‘tax expenditure’ implies all that tax money only belongs to the big bad government and never really did belong to to the taxpayer.

    I agree. Just call them tax breaks.

  19. 19
    Felanius Kootea says:

    Love that Obama ad. Clear and to the point: Mitt’s plan lowers his taxes by raising yours.

  20. 20
    SFAW says:

    PurpleGirl, dms, et al, –
    Thanks. I guess I’m way behind the curve.

    That being said: I still think “expenditure” is a stupid way to phrase it. But what do I know?

  21. 21
    NonyNony says:

    I’m not sure what Mitt’s policies have to do with him winning elections, except in a tangential way. Stupid policies presented stupidly can convince the Very Serious Pundits that you’re stupid and therefore un-presidential. Stupid policies phrased in very smart jargon can convince the Very Serious Pundits that you are a Smart Man Who Has Smart Advisers which is totally presidential. Smart policies presented intelligently convinces the Very Serious Pundits that you think you’re smarter than them and gives them a sad.

    All of which is to say that policies matter in the sense that they convince the WaPo’s editorial board that you’re not a complete waste and give you some fodder for soundbites in commercials attacking your opponent because his policies don’t have nearly as many electrolytes as your policies do.

  22. 22
    trollhattan says:

    A friend’s parents owned a Klee because they thought it looked like their daughter. So I’ve actually touched one, yay for me.

    Also, too, numbers are pesky things. Nothing to see here, we’re the experts. Trust us. etc.

  23. 23
    Davis X. Machina says:

    How many people go to the polls to render a judgment on the past?

    How many people go to the polls to choose between competing visions of the future?

    What Romney’s going to do, if he gets in, may not matter much to the people actually casting votes.

  24. 24
    f space that says:

    Yes, but what does Glenn Kessler say ?

  25. 25
    mdblanche says:

    @Dave: You’re giving Han van Meegeren a sad.

  26. 26
    SFAW says:

    @f space that:

    Yes, but what does Glenn Kessler say ?

    He gave Ezra 12 Pinocchios, because Michael Moore and Al Gore are fat. And because George Soros, that’s why!

  27. 27
    Randy P says:

    Aa@Dave: Actually the scenes of drunken village revelry by Pieter Bruegher the Elder are about the only paintings I understand.

  28. 28
    burnspbesq says:

    @PurpleGirl:

    I’m not sure when it began being talked of in this manner but it’s become the common jargon.

    1960s. The term was coined by Havard Law prof Stanely Surrey when he worked in the Kennedy Treasury Department.

  29. 29
    JD Rhoades says:

    I don’t care if the repetition ends up driving me bugfuck, I want to see that ad in every commercial break on every channel from now till November. it’s a winner.

  30. 30
    SFAW says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Ya know, this being-a-storehouse-of-knowledge thing is starting to annoy the clueless among us.

  31. 31
    pk says:

    Listen. You people understand nothing. Romney is promising to create 12 million jobs in his first term. That is what his economic plan is all about. That is all your small minds need to understand. Can Obama promise that. I don’t think so!

  32. 32
    pluege says:

    Mitt Romney wants to cut his taxes so much that he has only two choices left for the rest of his budget: raise taxes on everyone else and/or allow the deficit to balloon.

    you entirely miss the GOP third way: lie a lot! Which is their first and only methodology and which they will get away with to a large degree because of the complicit and compliant corporate media rooting for, and enabling them.

  33. 33
    gene108 says:

    @jwest:

    And all the conservatives got is that old “You didn’t build that” line.

    That line seems to be resonating pretty well with conservatives though.

    I don’t think Ezra has anything snappy that liberals can get behind. It’s a well thought out piece, but nothing that is short enough to be a snappy comeback.

  34. 34
    Kristine says:

    Facts have a liberal bias, and numbers are f**king commies.

    I like this.

    New tag line!

  35. 35
    SFAW says:

    @pk:

    Romney is promising to create 12 million jobs on his first term day.

    Fixed, because if he’s going to lie about it, he might as well go big.

  36. 36
    NonyNony says:

    @gene108:

    That line seems to be resonating pretty well with conservatives though.

    Yup. All the conservatives who were going to vote for Obama have decided he’s awful and will not vote for him in the fall now.

    We’ll have to see how it plays with the non-committed voters here once they start caring about the election. Sometime in September we’ll probably start seeing one way or the other the way this is going to go.

  37. 37
    blondie says:

    @SFAW: I’m in the same boat as you, at-sea.

    The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.

    Does this simply mean Romney’s proposed tax cut for the rich exceeds the sum of the current tax breaks/deductions they receive? Or the rich are somehow going to receive both their current tax breaks, plus an additional tax cut?

    I think pithiness came at the cost of clarity.

  38. 38
    Triassic Sands says:

    Mitt Romney wants to cut his taxes so much that he has only two choices left for the rest of his budget: raise taxes on everyone else and/or allow the deficit to balloon.

    Tom, maybe you don’t understand the brilliance of our lunatic cousins — cut taxes on the rich, don’t raise taxes on the middle class, gut the social safety net and balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Or at least that’s how they think it will work.

    Of course, even stiffing the poor, the disabled, children, etc. may not be enough to balance the budget after yet another giveaway to the richest Americans, especially when Romney and Co. want to continue to shovel money at the Penatgon, but that seems to be how these fools think. Enough American voters are stupid and/or selfish enough to fall for this kind of craziness to make the GOP competitive in elections.

    If the average American voter had even a below-average understanding of fiscal policy, the savings and benefits that result from wise spending (e.g. universal health care), and the luxury ride that the GOP is providing for the wealthy, the GOP would be stuck in permanent minority status, with numbers that might begin to rival those from the times when the Democrats had super-majorities in both houses. The lack of credible Democratic candidates helps the Republicans immeasurably, but I’m afraid it is the widespread stupidity and ignorance of the American electorate that keeps Boehner, Romney, McConnell, et al. in play year after year.

    Oh, and if the budget balloons after Romney and a majority Republican Congress ram through their insane fiscal policy, the GOP will simply explain to the American people that it is all the fault of Barack Obama. Sure, Bush’s responsibility stopped the day he left office (or even before he took office if you listen to some of the nuttiest Republicans), Obama will almost certainly be responsible (along with Bill Clinton) for all the bad things that happen in the US for the next twenty years (or more).

  39. 39
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    Just thought of a quick way to put it that everyone will understand very well.

    “When they say trickle down, you should hear golden showers.”

  40. 40

    […] Relevant. And that’s a health-care law? A plan that’s supposed to be good for people’s health is […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Relevant. And that’s a health-care law? A plan that’s supposed to be good for people’s health is […]

Comments are closed.