Mitt Romney has revealed parts of his plan, such as his goal of cutting the tax rate in every bracket by one-fifth, slashing corporate taxes, and cutting government spending. Basically you do not need to worry, said Mitt Romney. “I have a plan” J
Under his plan, Mitt Romney insists, the wealthy would pay roughly the same amount of taxes they pay now, since their rates would go down but the tax breaks that help lower their tax burden would be less generous. Everybody else’s taxes would fall for real, Romney says, without any corresponding cutbacks in deductions.
This sound great, but as I found on the internet, all of those seems Mitt Romney‘s plan are unlikely to happened at least due to below reasons:
First of all, any plan that ought to be suitable for the president to send to Congress after he’s elected, and then impose on the entire country once it is passed into law, ought to be fit to explain to voters before the election
Second, rich people are citizens too, and if Mitt Romney’s threatening to raise—sorry, rearrange–their taxes, shouldn’t he explain that to them the same way he’d have to explain something that directly affected the middle class?
Third, middle-class voters tend to be suspicious of tax hikes on the wealthy because they fear that sooner or later, those tax hikes will trickle down to them.
Fourth, there’s always the possibility that Mitt Romney is withholding the details of his tax plan because he’s afraid voters won’t like what they hear.
Like Mitt Romney, the Bowles-Simpson commission advocated lower tax rates as a way to simplify the tax code and stimulate economic growth. The plan would also eliminate 150 other exemptions. Altogether, a combination of lower tax rates and fewer deductions would equate to a tax increase for nearly everybody. Romney seems to be saying that he can fix the tax code and pay down the debt with something like a 10-to-0 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes, or maybe it’s 10-to-0.5, if you count lower deductions as a tax hike.
The sound of sceptism to Mitt Romney also share by many as I list down below:
- Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful voice in conservative media with The Wall Street Journal and Fox News under his control, said on Twitter that “Romney must draw clear line: offer specific path to restore American dream…To win, Romney must open big tent to sympathetic families. Stop fearing far right, which has nowhere else to go.”
- Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), told The New York Times: “It is always difficult to run against a sitting president, but he does need to be clearer about what his vision is and what he would do. People are ready to vote against Obama, but Romney has not yet sold the deal. Now is the time to do that.”
- Weekly Standard editor William Kristol knocked Romney for running a “pre-Ryan sort of campaign,” comparing the strategy to Michael Dukakis’s competence-not-ideology 1988 theme. “Mike Dukakis lost,” Kristol reminded Romney. “As the examples of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992 suggest, successful challengers don’t just jab lightly, parry punches, and circle the ring. They go for at least a few knockdowns. It’s not enough to float like a butterfly. You have to sting like a bee. No sting, no victory.”
I hope all the analysis above shall help US voters to determine who is their choice on the next US Presidential election, Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama.