How Will Romney Pay for His Tax Cuts?

By :: March 8th, 2012

Mitt Romney has proposed massive new tax cuts and promised to balance the federal budget. How will he achieve these seemingly contradictory goals?

For now, he isn’t saying. And, in fact, his campaign has been sending out vague and somewhat conflicting signals about where the money would come from to finance his rate cuts and other tax reductions.

When Romney rolled out his latest revenue plan on Feb. 22, senior aides were asked how he’d pay for these substantial tax reductions (TPC estimates they’d add $900 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone—about $400 billion from extending the 2001/2003 tax law and another $500 billion in new rate reductions and other tax cuts). Their response: Tax cuts would be funded by offsetting tax increases combined with stronger economic growth and changes in behavior driven by the tax reductions themselves.

The aides did not identify which taxes Romney would raise or estimate the economic effects of his plan. But they were clear that his tax reductions would be funded inside the revenue system. And, at least by their calculation, Romney’s new initiative would not be a net tax cut at all. It would be a classic tax reform—lowering rates while eliminating tax preferences. But it would result in no net change in tax revenues (at least as Romney measures it).      

But then that story began to shift. On March 1, The Wall Street Journal’s John McKinnon wrote this: “Governor Romney’s tax cuts will not increase the deficit,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. 'They will be fully paid for through a combination of economic growth, base broadening, and spending restraint. Any analysis that claims otherwise is incomplete.'”

Note the addition of spending restraint as an added source of funds. In this formulation, Romney may indeed be promising a net tax cut—partially financed with (unidentified) spending reductions. Saul’s comments appeared in several other news stories on that day.

However, there is yet another complication: She did not say whether she was talking about all Romney’s tax reductions or only those in addition to extending the 2001/2003 law. The campaign could clarify this but so far has not.  

On March 7, the story changed again. When asked in a CNBC interview how he’d fund his tax plan Romney said he’d “limit deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that. Growth would pay for the rest.” Romney said nothing about more spending cuts.

Then, Romney went further. He said that curbs in credits and deductions would exempt middle-income households who would continue to receive the benefits of tax breaks such as the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Any cuts in tax preferences, he said, would be “primarily limited” to those with high incomes.  

That sounds an awful lot like President Obama, who has proposed capping the value of tax preferences to 28 percent and vowed to never raise taxes on those making $200,000 or less.

Romney has further constrained his own options by promising to cut the capital gains rate to zero for those making less than $200,000 while freezing it at 15 percent for high-income households.

If Romney is promising to curb hundreds of billions of dollars annually in tax preferences while leaving popular middle-class deductions and credits unscathed, he has set a hugely challenging goal for himself. And he owes us an explanation of how he is going to do it—before the election.       




  1. Michael Bindner  ::  3:28 pm on March 8th, 2012:

    Romney is balancing the challenges of getting the nomination with having a realistic program for election. Through all of this, he is restricted by the party line which says that no tax reform must add revenue – which would require about a trillion more in spending cuts than either the Bipartisan Policy Center or the Fiscal Commission propose, as well as all of their cuts (many of which are similar).

    The chaos of this debate also bespeaks a lack of discipline as far as who speaks on this issue in the Romney campaign. I suspect the multiple positions represent the views of competing advisors jockeying for position, with no one to date providing enough leadership to clamp down on this. Lack of message control is as much of a problem as budget estimates that don’t quite add up.

  2. AMTbuff  ::  3:56 pm on March 9th, 2012:

    Show me one viable candidate in any presidential election in living memory whose tax proposals would not have reduced revenue. Just one. I don’t think you can.

    You might as well complain that car salesmen exaggerate or that people are not entirely honest on dating sites. Or that dogs bark.

    What bothers me more than phony promises is when candidates speak as if they were running for dictator: “I will do this” and “I will do that”. The President is not a dictator. But the voters apparently don’t want to hear “I will ask Congress to pass this” and “I will ask Congress to pass that”.

  3. Ralph H  ::  12:15 pm on March 10th, 2012:

    Look at our present president. His campaign was to not increase taxes on the vast majority of us and I believe he wanted to balance the budget. Yet when given the two big opportunities (Simpson-Bowles and the expirtion of Bush Cuts) he chickened out, all the while increasing spending. To be fair to Mr Obama and to Mr Romney, it is political suicide to advocate increased taxes or major (identified) cuts in an election.

  4. Obama Camp on Romney Tax Plan: Where’s the Beef? – ABC News  ::  7:54 pm on March 19th, 2012:

    […] non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated, based on publicly available details, that Romney’s tax plan would add $900 billion to the […]

  5. Obamacare and Romneycuts – A Fiscal Reality Check « Reality Dems Blog  ::  7:43 am on March 28th, 2012:

    […] what we know of the plan, it will increase the deficit by trillions.  For the year 2015 alone, the Treasury will lose $900 million — $400 million from extension of the 2001 and 2003, $500 million from the new round of […]

  6. coast  ::  9:43 pm on April 26th, 2012:

    Coast Dresses are an excellent high street brand if you are in the market for the perfect special occasion dress.
    Whether you have a ball/prom, a black tie event, a wedding or just a special night out with the girls Coast have something suitable for all different occasions.
    Coast are one of the top brands for formal and evening occasionwear and they have several awards to prove it.The styles of Coast UK range from long maxi designs to knee length frocks to suit different evening events.
    Coast Clothes outfits are available in UK dress size 6 to 18 and a range of materials from duchess satin to silk taffeta.
    From the very start their mission has been to provide beautiful top quality Coast Dress for all the special events throughout your life,and they sure don’t disappoint.

    Coast Sale have a passion for all that is elegant,beautiful and unique.They are dedicated to creating fresh new in-house designs which enable women to look and feel glamorous.

    Coast has the collection of Coast Bridal Dresses,Coast Halter Dresses,Coast One Shoulder Dress,Coast Shoulders Dresses and Coast Strapless Dresses.

  7. Check these Las Vegas Tips from Cameron Udy  ::  4:49 am on August 14th, 2014:

    Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Finding
    the time and actual effort to produce a very good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and don’t
    seem to get anything done.

  8. Read the Full Article  ::  3:41 am on October 13th, 2014:

    Read the Full Article


  9. pave diamond rings engagement  ::  6:22 am on October 18th, 2014:

    pave diamond rings engagement


  10. 1 carat blue diamond ring In 14k white gold  ::  8:15 pm on November 3rd, 2014:

    1 carat blue diamond ring In 14k white gold


  11. More about the author  ::  2:09 pm on November 19th, 2014:

    More about the author