In what can only be interpreted as a coordinated GOP strategy, John McCain's economic adviser for his 2008 presidential campaign, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has served up on a platter a "study", whose finding conclude that President Obama will raise taxes on the middle class.
A new study by Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum finds that President Barack Obama's spending plan would raise taxes on the middle class. "[T]axpayers making as little as $30,000 will carry $1,500 more in taxes annually over the next 10 years," the study finds.
The significance of this study is that it contradict Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up,” Obama said in 2008.
But if the American Action Forum study is correct, and if Obama is reelected, he will either break his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class or his commitment to balance the budget.
And, coincidentally, the Romney campaign has just released an ad that claims, guess what, that President Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. As Greg Sargent points out in his WaPo column, this is certainly a preview of what to expect in tomorrow's debate.
Case in point: The new ad that the Romney campaign rolled out this morning, which is a very good preview of what to expect at the debates.
The ad claims Obama and the “liberals” would raise middle class taxes, and says: “Mitt Romney and common sense conservatives would cut taxes on the middle class, and they’ll close loopholes for millionaires.”
So no doubt, after this ad plays in swing states and going in to tomorrow's debate, Romney is certain to say that there is a 'study' (never mind that it's by a conservative outfit) out there showing that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, muddying the waters and confusing the issue.
This study is based on the premise of Obama's promise to balance the budget by 2020. Holtz Eakin goes on to do quick math in the executive summary showing how just raising taxes on millionaires can't raise enough revenue to balance the budget.
I compute the tax increases necessary to achieve primary budget balance by at least 2022 under a variety of assumptions on the mix of fiscal adjustment and breadth of tax increases across taxpayers,"
There are not enough millionaires to make up the gap, Holtz-Eakin finds.
It is just the type of ammunition Romney needs to dispute the criticisms of his and Paul Ryan's tax proposals, conveniently provided the day before the debate. Curiously, Holtz-Eakin 'had the time' to summarize President Obama's proposal in a quick and handy executive summary, using a simple assumption - something Paul Ryan is incapable of or unwilling to do with his own tax proposal. It's well known (according to a non-partisan group) that Ryan's proposal cannot be achieved without
taxing the middle class - exactly what Romney/Ryan are now, in classic Rovian fashion, accusing Obama of doing .
In fact, as Greg Sargent pointed out in a previous article, Ryan's statement in the Fox interview with Chris Wallace that he hadn't the time to explain his complicated tax proposal overshadowed Ryan's admission that his priority was not to balance the budget but to lower taxes for the rich.
WALLACE: OK, but let’s assume it doesn’t. The question is, what’s more important to Romney? Would he scale back on the 20 percent tax cut for the wealthy? Would he scale back and say, OK, you know, we’re going to have to raise taxes for the middle class?
I guess the question is what’s most important to him in his tax reform plan?
RYAN: Keeping tax rates down. By lowering tax rates, people keep more of the next dollar that they earn. That matters. That is incentives. That’s pro-growth policy. That creates 7 million jobs. And what should go first...
WALLACE: So that’s more important than...
RYAN: That’s more important than anything. And more importantly, it’s not what deductions are in the tax code but it’s who gets them.
That is as clear a statement of priorities as you could want. Ryan admits that even if the math in their plan can’t work, that even if the tax cuts cannot be paid for by ending loopholes and deductions on the wealthy, he and Ryan would not scale back their planned tax cuts on the rich one penny. And don’t worry, this won’t explode the deficit, because just trust us, the revenues generated by the growth unleashed by the tax cuts will ultimately pay for the plan.
Chris Wallace pinned him down on this, not as a gotcha I believe, but an opportunity to assure supporters that their taxes would not be raised. Instead it exposed their lie that they have any concern for balancing the budget or reducing the deficit, yet hold President Obama to his promise to balance the budget by 2020. But don't expect Romney to be frank about any of that in tomorrow's debate.