Written by David Starr   

The first U.S. presidential debate was interpreted as a “victory” for GOP candidate Mitt Romney; and that he helped himself to gain momentum. However, it was more a case of incumbent Barak Obama giving Romney a “helping hand” by practically forfeiting the debate with his nonresponses to obvious Romney misdeeds.

Among the critics, The Progressive magazine editor Matthew Rothschild hammered home point-point Obama’s failure to take advantage of the following in his piece, “Obama’s Disastrous Debate,” (10/04/2012): “He [Obama] failed to mention the 47% video; he failed to mention Bain Capital; he failed to mention Romney’s paltry job record in Massachusetts; he failed to mention a woman’s right to choose; he failed to stress the argument for the Affordable Care Act; he failed to rebut Romney’s repeated claim that Obama was hurting seniors by cutting $716 billion from Medicare; he failed to mention Paul Ryan himself called for that cut [with the whole House GOP endorsing it].”

[Obama] failed to stress” inheriting a ruined economy and also “prevent[ing] a depression. He was content to utter clichés like, ‘The genius of America is the free enterprise system.’” Rothschild asked, “What about the Bill of Rights? Or the separation of powers?,” then concluded, “We don’t need a Democrat to curtsy to capitalism.”

Considering Obama’s nonresponses, it would be worth looking deeper at Romney’s positions on the issues. In this case, checking out his proposed tax plan, located on his website. This section is called, “Tax: fairer, flatter, simpler.” Within the content, it asks, “How will we generate sufficient revenue to balance our budget without discouraging economic activity; and will the burden of taxation fall equitably on all Americans?”

Among each section, there’s a summary called, “Obama’s Failure,” where Obama is portrayed as totally wrong on everything. Quoting: “He has called for a ‘balanced approach,’ which he means cutting spending but also raising taxes.” There’s mention of “Obamacare and its $500 billion in tax increases" and that “Americans should remember that he already got them and spent them on a healthcare scheme” that “proves to be hugely disruptive to the economy.”

“Mitt’s Plan” is then shown: "Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic economy will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth." It summarizes the specifics of Romney’s proposals for this, and concluding that they are to “still rais[e] the revenue needed to fund smaller, smarter, simpler government.” For individual taxes, the current tax code “applies high, marginal rates on a narrow tax base,” discouraging “work, entrepreneurship, savings and investment.” Conclusion: “Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.”

With corporate taxes: The “U.S, economy’s” 35% corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, “reducing the ability of [U.S.] businesses to compete in the global economy, invest and create jobs at home” and “hurts U.S. wages.”

Critics imply that Romney’s nose got a little “longer” with his overall tax plan. Michael Linden, director of tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress revealed a major consequence: A “$6.6 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich and corporations." (ThinkProgress – Economy, 9/07/2011). Linden specifies inevitable consequences within four categories:

“Extend all Bush tax cuts: In 2010, fully half the entire benefit from all of the Bush tax cuts flowed to the richest 5% of Americans. Extending them all will cost nearly $4 trillion, not including interest costs.”

Eliminate capital gains tax for middle income households: “Capital gains tax rates are already [very] low, but middle class Americans don’t enjoy much benefit.” Linden used data from the Tax Policy Center, asserting that “67% of the entire benefit of lower tax rates goes to millionaires. His conclusion: “Romney’s proposal won’t cost much because it won’t benefit many people.”

Cut corporate taxes: Romney’s proposed cut would “cost more than $900 billion…mainly [benefiting] the very rich and corporations.”

Eliminate estate taxes: “[O]nly the very biggest, richest fraction of all estates pay any tax at all.” Thus, “eliminating this paltry amount would cost about $175 billion,” benefiting only wealthy heirs and heiresses.” Linden concludes, “…Romney’s plan would yield [about] $6.5 trillion in deficits from 2013 through 2021” and “the fact that [Romney’s] own fiscal plan would be unconstitutional.”

Pat Garofalo’s piece on Romney calling Obama’s taxes on the rich “class warfare” while calling to raise taxes on the poor (ThinkProgress – Economy, 12/21/2011.) again shows a GOPer trying to play the 1% as victims, using, “the class warfare card.” Garafalo states that Romney “doesn’t feel the same way increasing taxes on the poor,” while the rich get major cuts.

Romney’s plan also includes supporting “flatter” taxes, i.e., a flat tax. But he was flip-flopping on this in 2011. Richard Oppel and Ashly Parker’s article published in the New York Times entitled, “”Romney Once A Critic, Hedges On Flat-Tax Plans” (10/2011), notes that Romney “has a long record of criticizing such plans and famously derided Steve Forbes’ 1996 proposal a ‘tax cut for fat cats,’” A flat tax became a noticeable topic as taxes became “a larger focus of the Republican presidential race” during 2011. In August of that year, Romney said, “I love a flat tax.” But Romney declared that, “…he would never support any plan that hurts the middle class and helps the wealthy…that is precisely what flat tax plans usually do.” A “flatter tax,” according to Romney’s website, is what he wants.

During the first Republican presidential debates, Romney did say he would “push for middleclass tax relieve. (“Romney’s Middle-Class Tax Cut Contradicts Recent claim,” [10/2012], www.factcheck.org) But previous to that, Romney “told members of an Ohio audience they should not ‘be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions,’ as reported by HuffPosts Sam Stein.”

In “Romney’s Job Plan Relies on Tax Proposal,” by John Ydstie (10/2012; www.carpradio.org; derived from NPR.) Romney was quoted that his “tax plan to cover lower rates for the middleclass and small business creates 7 million [jobs].” Tdstie also cited Macroeconomics Advisor’s chairman Joel Prakken, saying that Romney’s plan “would be very difficult..to work without ending some very popular deductions – mortgage interest, healthcare benefits and the like.” He added that without seeing “how lower rates are going to be paid for in terms of broadening the tax base, it [the plan] is just impossible.”

There is of course Romney’s refusal to show his tax returns. A ThinkProgress article, “Does Romney Have Something to Hide?” (10/2011) quotes Pat Garofalo on Romney’s opposition to the Buffet Rule, saying, “…is that it likely applies to him.” Garofalo also cites data from Citizens for Tax Justice, finding that, “Romney’s tax rate is likely 14%, far below the statutory rate for someone who earns as much as he does.” Garofalo concludes Romney should release his tax returns, “…to find out whether or not millionaire Mitt is using tax loopholes to pay a lower tax than [Americans] are.”

Speaking of loopholes, an article entitled, “Romney’s Flat-Footed Tax Dodge,” by Daniel Stone (Daily Beast, 7/2012), asserted, “[T]he Obama campaign has hammered Romney for accounts in Bermuda, Switzerland and the Cayman Islands…to take advantage of tax loopholes only assessable to the super rich.” Romney finally admitted he has these accounts but, “…are kept in blind trusts, a common arrangement for public officials who want to avoid conflicts of interest while managing their money.” Further, “I don’t manage these accounts. I don’t know where they are.” Stone concluded that, “[t]he response is feeble. The last line is highly subjective, if not wrong. There is something hidden in offshore accounts by sheer fact of them being offshore. Usually, it’s an effort by high net individuals to hide funds or transfer money from high U.S. taxes.”

An article entitled, “Island Tax Havens Factor into Romney’s Business Success,” by Bob Drogin, L.A. Times staff writer, asserted, [W]hile in private business, Mitt Romney utilized shell companies in two offshore tax havens to help eligible investors avoid paying U.S. taxes.” Romney benefitted, profiting from “tax-friendly jurisdictions [that] helped attract billions of investment dollars to Romney’s former company, Bain Capital…”

With all of Romney’s tax irregularities, Obama’s nonresponses are more amazing. He no doubt knows of Romney’s misdeeds, relating to taxes and other issues. With Joe Biden “cleaning” Paul Ryan’s “clock” in their vice-presidential debate, Obama has another chance of using momentum against Romney. It’s time to “cut off Pinocchio’s nose.”