Short version: Obama promise to balance budget in 2022 means increasing taxes by \$1 trillion in 2013 because... MATH

In an apparent response to the Brookings analysis which claims that Romney would need to increase taxes on middle class taxpayers to make his rate reductions revenue neutral, former McCain adviser and CBO chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum has published a study which claims that Obama would also have to raise middle class taxes to meet his deficit reduction plans. The Weekly Standard reports T]axpayers making as little as \$30,000 will carry \$1,500 more in taxes annually over the next 10 years."

The primary difference between the two studies is that Holtz-Eakin is a complete idiot.

Holtz-Eakin takes as his starting point Obama's "commitment" to achieve "primary budget balance" by 2022. He purports to show that tax rates on millionaires would have to increase to 123% to close the budget deficit without increasing taxes on any other income groups. Since that is not possible he claims Obama will have to tax everyone, even taxpayers earning as little as \$30,000.

In fact, using Holtz-Eakin's numbers, the budget can be balanced in 2022 solely by increasing taxes by just 11% on millionaires or if tax increases are extended to all taxpayers making more than \$200,000 by increasing their average tax rate by just 4%.

So how does HE fuck up a simple calculation by a factor of 10? Details of Republican "Math" under the orange blurble.

In fact to get his result Holtz-Eakin assumes that Obama will raise taxes by enough to reach budget balance in 2013. The budget assumptions are in the table below.

Obama's OMB defines "primary budget balance" as Revenues equal to Program spending (ie ignoring interest on the debt). Holtz-Eakin grumbles but agrees to use this definition cause well he is trying to pin something on Obama that he doesn't mean so he needs something to take out of context. He will just slip the interest in later without mentioning it.

Fiscal
Years             2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022
Programmatic
Spending       3,555 3,574 3,670 3,846 3,967 4,097 4,312 4,514 4,739 4,970
Current
Policy
Revenue        2,660 2,873 3,147 3,378 3,583 3,760 3,943 4,139 4,341 4,550

Primary
Deficit             895    701   523    468   384    337    369    375    398   420

Calendar
Years
Base Case       847    657    509    447   372    345    371    381    403   426

"Balanced
Approach"       423    328    255    224   186    172    185    190    202   213

Phase
In                   85      98    102    112   112    121    148    171    202   213

As we see the projected deficit using the current tax code with AMT indexed to inflation (Holtz-Eakin's baseline) is \$420 billion in 2022. That is the deficit we need to close to meet Obama's target. For some reason he converts from fiscal year numbers to calendar year numbers by averaging in some of the following calendar year values, but the effect is insignificant increasing the deficit from \$420 to \$426 billion. The "base case" assumes that only tax increases are used to eliminate the deficit. The "balanced approach" assumes" equal tax increases and spending cuts so taxes need only increase by \$213 billion.

For some reason Holtz-Eakin doesn't bother with income numbers for 2022, he makes do with 2013 numbers (we'll come back to this) but we can make some rough calculations. In 2013 those making more than one million dollars represent 374,000 returns with total income of \$1.156 trillion. CBO revenue projections increase 71% from 2013 to 2022 so we can assume the base income also increases by 71% to \$1.977 trillion. Under the balanced deficit reduction assumption (the one Obama seems to advocate) the total percentage increase is just \$213 billion divided by \$1977 billion or 10.8% increasing their total tax burden to 41.5%

If tax increases extend to those making \$200,000 the percent increase is just 213/5429 or 3.9%.

So where does that 123% number come from?

It ain't in the paper, but we can figure it out. From Holtz-Eakin's table we can figure out that he is using 2013 income as the base for his calculation, and that the tax increase he envisions is \$1077 billion for the base case and half that - \$538 billion for the "balanced" case.

That threw me a bit cause \$1077 doesn't appear anywhere in the tables or the study. To get it Holtz-Eakin uses the full deficit (including interest on the debt which adds \$230 billion to the 2013 deficit of \$847 in the table). Really that is it. Holtz-Eakin (and Romney who is using this BS) claim that when Obama promises to balance the budget in 10 years not including interest he really means to balance it next year and cover the interest costs. So he has to increase taxes next year by a trillion dollars, never mind that Obama is arguing for larger deficits in the short term to spur economic growth.

We rate this 1 TRILLION Pinocchios and 111% false.

#### Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
 Unpublish Diary (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.) Delete Diary (The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Tip Jar(4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
MsGrin, arealniceguy, mindara, MKSinSA
• ##### repub math 1=0(0+ / 0-)

1 candidate = 0 chance of being elected president.

PS with out massive cheating.

Conservatives supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported Jim Crow, opposed the 40-hour work week, the abolishment of child labor, and supported McCarthyism. from 'It's The Conservatism, Stupid' by Paul Waldman July 12, 2006

• ##### Sheesh!!(0+ / 0-)

What a bunch of fucking tools.

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• ##### The whole thing is a hoax.(0+ / 0-)

See it explained

We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.