Goolsbee on Romney's Tax and Budget Plans

Traditionally, we are taught to judge the success of a society by how it deals with the least able, most vulnerable members of that society. Shouldn’t we judge a society by how they treat the most successful? Do we vilify, tax expropriate and condemn those who have succeeded, or do we celebrate economic success as the engine that propels our society toward greater collective well-being?

Thanks,
Ziad Abdelnour

[Comment removed for rudeness. Awaiting potential edit. Email the webmaster@econlib.org. --Econlib Ed.]

@Ziad Abdelnour
This is off-topic to the post, but I'm not understanding your comment--the most successful in America live lives of unspeakable luxury, their every whim catered to. Check out the Lifestyle section of Forbes magazine for examples. To me, that sounds to me as if society treats them pretty well. What more are you wanting here?

Goolsbee misstates the TPC study's findings. The study assumed that revenue neutrality was the goal (and used an absurd current policy baseline to measure that, but that's another story), and said that tax increases on, among others, the middle class would be necessary to reach that goal. If the revenue neutrality goal were disregarded, then the options are cutting spending or increasing the deficit. It's fitting that Goolsbee completely ignores the possibility of cutting spending. It demonstrates how comprehensive the worldview of those working in the Obama administration is, and how it blinds them to obvious choices.

Thomas,

1. Romney is the one that said it would be revenue neutral. That's not something the TPC made up.

2. For the prospects of spending cuts, see the second block quote.

Charlie:

1. As far as I can tell, Romney hasn't said that the plan is revenue neutral, though some associated with his campaign have suggested that. In any case, one would need to choose the proper baseline for judging neutrality, and a baseline that assumes that we should compare it to current policy plus the revenue streams from the ACA tax increases strikes me as absurd.

2. The point is about the TPC study, which describes an alternative to tax increases. Somehow Goolsbee missed that part of the analysis. The prospect of higher defense spending isn't something I'm in favor of, but it also isn't something promised by Romney (it's described as a long-term goal), isn't something that would prevent spending cuts considered more broadly, and isn't something we should expect to see.