E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDuring a town hall in Michigan Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised to release a more detailed economic plan this week that will combine his tax policy with spending and entitlement reform.
SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Mitt Romney promised on Tuesday to unveil a more specific economic plan later this week, one that that would integrate his views on tax policy, spending and entitlement reform into one complete package.
Romney, who's set to make a major economic address at Ford Field in Detroit on Friday, teased the new plan, which seems aimed at quieting critics who have attacked his economic plan for lacking specificity.
"What I'm going to be doing over the coming days, is I'm going to be talking about how to make all three of those things work together," Romney told a attendees at a town-hall style meeting here some 25 miles north of Detroit.
Romney, who said he laid out the "beginnings" of his ideas in his 2011 book "No Apology," described a platform that would include spending cuts, "flatter, fairer and simpler" taxes that he said would encourage growth, and and specific reforms to entitlements like social security and medicare.
While Romney did not elaborate much beyond that point, he did provide a clue to his thinking in answering a question from a Tea Party supporter, who asked Romney for his views on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles debt commission which was organized by, then largely abandoned by, President Obama.
"I think very highly of their recommendations, let me start out by saying that," Romney said. "I find it extraordinary that the president of the United States would bring together a group of such esteemed individuals from both sides of the aisle and say to them, how can we balance our budget, and at the same time, how can we create tax policies that encourage growth. Because both are important. If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, why, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies. And so the Simpson-Bowles Commission attempted to do that in their own way."
"I'm not endorsing every single aspect of their proposals, but I'll be coming out with some proposals of my own this week that describe how I'd cut, [and] how I'll create more pro-growth tax policies," Romney added, standing in front of a giant sign reading "Cut the Spending."
For Romney, who has long said he favors elements of Simpson-Bowles, a full embrace of the commission's recommendations would be complicated. Simpson-Bowles proposed a roughly three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Romney, along with every other GOP candidate, said they would reject even a ten-to-one cuts versus tax increases plan at a debate in August.
Still, a more robust plan, well sold, from Romney might quiet critics who have said his economic ideas presented thus far lacked specifics and bold reforms, and could help improve his fortunes in the host of contests on the horizon for Super Tuesday.
Today, in his only public event of the day, Romney went back to basics stylistically, holding only his second town hall style event since South Carolina. He fielded a host of questions on topics as varied as selecting justices for the Supreme Court (Romney labeled himself a strict constructionist on judges, and pointed to Roberts, Alito and Scalia as his kind of appointees), to the Federal Reserve (audit it), to Rick Santorum (hasn't been vetted, not a fiscal conservative.)
In an only-in-Michigan touch, attendees munched on paczki, a Polish Fat Tuesday treat, during Romney's introduction. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Romney co-chair here, looked to set expectations low for the former Massachusetts governor's home state, labeling Romney the "comeback kid," and referring to the on-again-off-again frontrunner as an "underdog" here -- twice.
Leave a Comment:
Teases same trickle down flattened tax BS in a new plastic wrap.........gone are those days stupid.
You can be assured that there is nothing new here. He is only talking about cutting spending, which will certainly slow the economy. He will also defend tax cuts to those like himself and propose new tax breaks for the 1% to be paid for by everyone else.
Anytime a republican uses the word flatter or flatten, the 95% of regular working people better hang on to their wallets because it means flatter taxes for the 5% richest and the rest of us get flattened.
Jody, still drinking the class warfare hate the rich koolaid.
Didnt the class-warfare divider President Obama just propose a "flat' tax of 30% on millionaires?
If the concept of a flat tax is needed for the rich, why are other incomes subject to all kinds of tax exemptions and loopholes and special interests?
A flat tax is an electoral winner. Fairness for all.
Romney, who said he laid out the "beginnings" of his ideas in his 2011 book "No Apology,"
The title of this book is meant to mean what, exactly? Hasn't he already released an economic plan that went nowhere because the bulk of the taxes were put on the shoulders of the middle/working classes? Seems to be it wasn't that long ago.
So now he has to revise his earlier plan? LoL.
****************
Meanwhile, don't you just love this from DailyKos?
Admit it. Just like the wingnuts claimed, you really wanted Obama to confiscate all guns (fail!), destroy capitalism (fail and fail!), you wanted him to raise taxes to record highs (fail!), and you thought his Detroit bailout would guarantee the demise of the American auto industry (fail!).
And that wasn't all! You expected Obama to surrender to the terrorists (fail!), stuff conservatives into FEMA concentration camps (fail!), create death panels (fail!) and impose Sharia law on all Americans (fail!).
This is truly an administration that has failed ...
... to live up to every right-wing paranoid fantasy.
**********
Meanwhile Romney writes a book entitled "No Apology". How ironic. He's the one who needs to apologize. Seems like he's doing just that to the union workers, in order to get their vote in Michigan. Talk about zero core. Where was his support when the unions needed it?
Sorry to disappoint you, McDonnell, but I have absolutely nothing against the rich--let them make all the money they want, but don't ask the rest of the country to subsidize their wealth especially via "corporate welfare". The only ones who think a flat tax is an "electoral winner, fairness for all" are the GOP Koolaid drinkers who have had their Koolaid spiked for 30 years. Flat taxes are regressive and that's a fact, economists of all political leanings make that accessment.
I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, eliminating the special interest loopholes, the deductions which create the current unfairness but I support keeping several levels of progressive tax brackets. Each of those levels can be a "flat" tax level for that bracket. If a one-size fits all plan were such a great idea, it would have long been made law.
That is exactly what came to my mind when I read that statement Jody.
Romney already released tax plan does just that, it raises taxes on the poor to pay for more tax cuts for the rich like himself and that is after he makes the bush tax cuts permanent.
Those that believe in flat tax are like those in our past who pushed the earth was flat. Sure, makes sense with limited intelligence and information.
When you look at the whole picture you see that the flat tax is for the rich 1% and only for the rich 1%. Republicans prove over and over that they want nothing to do with fair, they just want to protect the rich over the rest of us in America.
Romney is flip flopping again. The fact is his tax plan flopped. Now he is walking it back.
Exactly what do you mean by "corporate welfare"? The fact that Exxon paid no taxes? But that was because of the Obama stimulus that allowed write-off's for capital goods in the same year. Or do you mean the bailout of GM? Or the loans to "green" energy companies?
You seem to be quite schizophrenic in your support of the Administration's policies but then complain about the consequences.
And so it begins.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/211749-catholic-university-sues-to-block-contraception-mandate
I wonder if the CBO included this mandate, and consequences, when they scored the cost of Obamacare. The only government program in the world that claims it can add 30m new beneficiaries and cut the cost.
They also didn't include the initial costs to set up all the new agencies and hire the 1000's of new people to run this. Which is estimated at $115 Billion.
Also if you remember Pelosi took the "doc fix" OUT of obamacare even though it is part of medical care and costs. Reason she did was because they couldn't get it under the Triilion promised. It is $250Billion. The 2 of these costs together put it waaaaaay over a trillion.
CLASS, a key part of obamacare was declared to not be feasible to fund by not only the actuary but by Sebellius herself.
One of the few things to take affect, child healthcare, has seen over the half the states already lose benefits or lose the coverages altogether.
Starting out well.
Believe it was a wise and holy man who opined about 2100 years ago that from those to whom much is given, much is expected in return.
Concise warning, Jody. And don't forget many of the Republicans still believe the world is flat.
Meet the new boss... same as the old boss...
I'm sorry but the thought of Willard 'teasing' makes me GAG!
Of his new plan, Mr Romney proclaimed:
You will like it. I like it- it is printed on just the right sized paper. And the brighness of the paper- it is just the right brightness. I like it. Ha Ha Ha. I also REALLY REALLY like the font...Ha Ha Ha....."
Buck, Buck where are you? FR short one troll...
Here a Buck - there a Buck - everywhere a Buck Buck!
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Feisty Redhead Roselle
Buck is at work paying your welfare
Nope, he is thinking up a new moniker since he was banned, again.
"flatter, fairer and simpler" taxes that [Romney] said would encourage growth"
It would behoove Romney to be bold!
Not flat "er", fair"er" and simpl "er"
Just a flat tax, period ! Which is by definition fair and simple.
Romney, or any GOPer, needs to get behind Obama's own Debt Commission and their recommendations. Flat tax, reduced spending, no loop holes. A clear winner.
JoAnna, first BO has to get behind it. It came out in the fall of 2010. He told the commission.."come out with bipartisan effort, and i will back you". His budget put out a couple of months later had not one thing from his commission in it. Maybe that's why his budget got voted down in the senate last year 97-0. That's right .....not one vote even from a democrat.
"Still, a more robust plan, well sold, from Romney might quiet critics....."
Ay, there's the rub. The only thing Romney's done well at selling up till now is selling his soul in his efforts to sell himself to the red-meat crowd. At this point, I doubt he could sell a bottle of water to a guy dying of thirst in the desert. Though I don't doubt that he'd try.
So, I see he's still planning to give this speech at Ford Field - have those 65,000 tickets sold out yet?
Why is it that no one seems to remember that when President Obama commissioned the Simpson Bowles report one of the requirements was a minimum of 14 votes to pass it, and it did not receive that many votes. If the Senate can reject a bill because it doesn't get 60 votes, why are they acting as if the President should accept this plan when it didn't get the minimum number of votes to pass it? There are 2 progressive deficit reduction plans that are better than Simpson Bowles and will reduce the deficit faster and with less disruption, and no one ever mentions them.
Simpson-Bowles was a plan that NO REPUBLICANS could agree to because of the tax increases in it and no Democrat would agree to because of the Social Security and Medicare increase in the age limit it preposed. So it was dead on arrival that's why the President tried to reconvene with Speaker Boehner and try something similar but not the same as the Simpson-Bowles plan.
Bob,
You had better hope your guy Romney wins Michigan, because Santorum will cost you guys Virginia in the general.
Exxon and ge paid no taxes so who should pay to make up for their lack of responsibility
Sorry... but I do like a flat tax... in PA our state tax is 3.07%.... no deductions, no nothing... losses can only offset gains... And all income should be treated the same, pensions, capital gains, interest, earned income and yes.. even social security... ... but of course the big hedge funds will give you the BS that they need that "carried interest" clause to keep creating jobs in China!!!
The GOP/RNC "Speculator and Chief" is sitting in a very disturbly quiet room with his fellow "Bain Trained" Vulture Capitalist's developing a budget. Now that is a joke! The very poor citizens of our nation will not be represented at all, and the "Romulian" still has too many tax issues to develop any type of economic budget.
How can the "Romulian" make an economic plan? When he does not even know what it takes to make a family budget! The "Speculator and Chief" has NO detailed economic plan that helps 99% of Americans. What a joke!
Landslide Romney got smoked out before the last debate and had to release his tax returns before he had the nomination locked up. Ouch! Now he is getting pressure to explain how he plans to govern, again before he has the nomination locked up. Ouch, Ouch!
Well, at least he is not throwing any bait to his opponents before his last (?) debate. Let them jab in the dark, he ain't telling until Friday.
Think a little about a flat tax. Take a single mother making 40K a year and a Millionaire making 4 Million a year. To make it easier to understand let's say the flat tax is 10%. That would mean the single mom will have to support her kids on 36 K with which she has to pay for housing, clothing for growing kids, food, medical exams and treatment, school supplies as well as basic entertainment such as a TV service and a telephone for emergency purposes and of course insurance and untilies. Now the Millionaire can surely have no problem having a roof over his head with 3.6 million. Sure he might not be able to buy that second hous in Majorca, the new yacht or private plane this year but that is too bad. His family won't go hungry, and his wife will still buy designer dresses and he will wear 1000 dollar suits. It is all a mater of perspecive and percentage. The flat tax seems good on the surface but figure it out and it is regressive. Regressive is what the GOPers love.
It would mean that some of those 47% paying no federal income tax could share in the burden (as well as those 1400+ millionaires who pay no federal income tax)!!
Romney walks a long and winding road that leads to his door.
Don't neglect the Supreme court appointments Romney would nominate if he could.
Decisions like corporate personhood are good for Romney.
So, review the Dems works
Social Security was established in 1935. 77 years and it is broke.
President - Roosevelt (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. 74 years and it is broke.
President - Roosevelt (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
War on Poverty started in 1964. 48 years...$1 trillion of our money is confiscated
each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
President - Johnson (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. 47 years and they are broke.
President - Johnson (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. 42 years and it is broke.
President - Nixon (Republican) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence
on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion
a year and we import more oil than ever before. 34 years and it is an abysmal failure.
President - Carter (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
Obamacare created: March 2010.
President - Obama (Democrat) Democrats controlled both House & Senate
You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ??