In an attempt to persuade citizens that Mitt Romney is not looking out for them, President Barack Obama labeled Romney’s tax plan the work of “Romney Hood,” which, he said means “Robin Hood in reverse.”

According to Obama, “Romney’s plan will effectively raise taxes on middle class families with children by an average of $2,000.” Obama also asserts that Romney seeks “not to reduce the deficit, not to invest in things that grow our economy like education or roads or basic research” but to “give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year.”

Obama drew this information from a study by the Tax Policy Center, and while its numerical calculations are likely correct, the study’s conclusions and Obama’s statement depend on a false assumption about Romney’s tax plan. Specifically, the study incorrectly assumes Romney is seeking revenue neutrality.

The study says that Romney’s plan “would recoup the revenue loss caused by (Romney’s) changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax.” Admittedly, it is true Romney seeks to lower rates and remove various tax credits and deductions for individuals and businesses across all income groups to simplify the tax code.

But no call for revenue neutrality appears in Romney’s 87-page “Believe in America” plan for “Jobs and Economic Growth.” This document includes Romney’s tax plan.

Further, there are two statements that explicitly state Romney is not concerned with a decline in revenue, meaning the Tax Policy Center study does not accurately represent Romney’s intentions.

The first statement from the Romney document said, “Washington’s problem is not too little revenue but rather too much spending,” and the second statement said, “The cause of our long-term deficit problem thus lies squarely at the feet of federal spending rather than a sustained revenue decline.” Both statements refute the study’s suggestion that Romney seeks to “recoup the revenue loss.”

Obama is correct in saying Romney is not altering the tax code to “reduce the deficit.” Romney seeks to close the deficit by cutting spending, not by increasing tax revenue. Obama is incorrect in saying Romney seeks to reduce investment in “basic research” because, ironically, according to the Tax Policy Center — the same source Obama cited to make his claims — Romney’s plan would “make the research and experimentation credit permanent.”

Finally, Obama’s claim that Romney’s tax plan would hurt regular Americans is based on false information.

Everything in Romney’s 87-page “Believe in America” plan suggests he would not opt to lower tax rates — saving people money — and then remove enough tax credits and deductions to cost people more than they would have saved from the lower rates in order to maintain the previous year’s revenue because Romney is not worried about maintaining this revenue.

The current six income tax rates are 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent. Romney proposes to lower rates in every income bracket. His plan would change 10 percent to 8 percent, 15 percent to 12 percent, 25 percent to 20 percent, 28 percent to 22.4 percent and 35 percent to 28 percent.

Romney called the Tax Policy Center study and Obama’s remarks regarding the Romney tax plan “Obamaloney.” Given the evidence, this is an accurate description.


Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears online weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

Published on August 9, 2012 at 2:48 pm