If Mitt Romney Thought Paul Ryan Would Change The Subject From Taxes…

Much of the media is heralding Mitt Romney’s selection of Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan to be his running mate as a significant “reset” of the Romney campaign. But these people might want to think again before they shake the Etch-a-Sketch.

First of all. the clamor for Romney to release more than a year or two of taxes is not likely to recede in light of the fact that Romney demanded more than that from Ryan in order to be considered for the vice-presidential nomination. It will be difficult to justify why Romney needs more tax information for his VP nominee than the American people need for president.

Secondly, Ryan’s reputation rests largely on his budget proposal that includes huge tax reductions for those who earn more than $200,000, while raising taxes for low and middle income taxpayers. Romney is already attempting to distance himself from Ryan’s plan saying that he has his own plan, but since Romney has previously praised the Ryan scheme on multiple occasions, he can’t credibly disavow it now.

Finally, Ryan’s plan calls for the elimination of capital gains taxes. Since that was almost the entirety of Romney’s income in 2010 (the only year for which he has released tax returns), Romney’s taxes would go down to nearly zero.

Romney's Taxes Under Ryan Plan

These are not the sort of talking points that are likely to divert attention from the tax issue that has been eating away at Romney like rust on ’57 Rambler. To the contrary, Ryan only exacerbates the problem for Romney.

Advertisement:

6 thoughts on “If Mitt Romney Thought Paul Ryan Would Change The Subject From Taxes…

  1. See, a nice flat tax for everyone would clean this problem up – no more income brackets or different types of income – it’s all taxed at one flat rate for everyone – no one would get a pass or be able to find ways to hide their income – keep it simple and fair/equal.

    • “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” ? Adam Smith

      • I know equal treatment for all is not a liberal or progressives strongest point, but isn’t that what it should be all about? For us to ever come to any agreement, we need to be in the same reality – mine is as stated. You are clearly in another reality.
        To your point though, should it be the governments job to ensure your idea as to how that “somethign more” is provided? Or should it be through individual freedom to choose how we spend or contribute that something more? I would argue only through freedom, but I’m not a progressive or liberal type.

        • Your disingenuous claptrap about freedom is really getting tiresome. You only regard impediments to freedom as things the government does that you don’t like. Is the FDA making our food safe to eat an assault on freedom? Are workplace safety regulations an assault on freedom? What about traffic lights or border crossings?

          We have government for a reason and in practice it should serve to implement the policies that the people want. If that includes forcing clothing manufacturers to make their kiddie pajamas flame retardant, that’s still freedom. Same thing with progressive taxation. The people ultimately have the choice to support representatives who produce the legislation that they want. And many of our founders (as noted above) advocated progressive taxation.

          You conservative blowhards think you own concepts like patriotism or freedom – but you’re full of shit. And you’re hypocrites. And you prove it in ignorant comments like the one you just posted.

          I will agree that you are neither progressive nor liberal. By which I mean that you are backwards and reactionary.

          • I wouldn’t characterize myself as any more patriotic than the next guy – but I’m a less of a threat to my fellow citizen’s freedom than you are. You’re just pissed off that we like our freedom to buy guns and spend our money as we like and we just don’t lay down and hand over whatever YOU feel is fair to make your perfect society. I would prefer to be backwards and reactionary and even redneck vs ever being a liberal whack job.
            Don’t worry, I’ll be voting too – not sure if Mitt Romney fits in to my voting plans, but I know Barak Obama doesn’t.

            • thats ok, for every one of you, there are two of us, not buying into the plan to end medicare to pay for rich peoples tax cuts. were not laying off teachers and turning our kids into idiotic non thinking, jesus-bots. guess what? romney loses by a landslide, gay people are in the military, the tax cuts end, obamacare stays, and you cant do a thing about it.

Comments are closed.