Unless Newt deals with the above, he's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted on 12/19/2011 9:36:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
(Reuters) - Newt Gingrich's tax plan could blow a gaping hole in U.S. government revenues, while preserving special interest tax breaks, said economists aligned with the Republican presidential candidate's own party.
While other Republican contenders have made headlines with their tax proposals, Gingrich quietly released his months ago. It calls for slashing the corporate rate, giving individuals big tax breaks, and retaining many major deductions and credits.
Conservatives have applauded his proposal to lower rates, but economists on both the left and right have said his plan would drain federal coffers in the near term, making it impractical amid concerns about the federal budget deficit.
"The revenue loss in this plan is absolutely staggering," said Alan Viard, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
Viard based his assessment on an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, that he called reasonable.
The center forecast that Gingrich's plan would slash government revenues by at least $850 billion in one year, more than a third of the $2.3 trillion in 2011 government revenues.
A Gingrich adviser refuted the center's estimate and said the candidate's plan was not designed to be revenue neutral, but to be "growth maximizing."
"They made up the details," Gingrich economic adviser Peter Ferrara said of the TPC study. "They also did not take into account the impact of lowering rates on economic growth."
The idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves through growth is a controversial notion, dismissed by all but a handful of economists, but it is deeply entrenched in the Republican Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
We wish.
The Reaganite wing of the Republican party knows it to be so.
Gingrich keeps looking better and better.
Well outstanding then.
Make them part-time.
Hat tip: Rick Perry.
And, the problem with that is?????
They say it likes it's a bad thing.
Well, I suppose to them, it is.
They say “starves the government” like that’s a bad thing...
The only way that can be a bad thing is if it doesn't starve it enough or fast enough. Starve off 95% or more of the social BS programs, completely cut-off the EPA and NEA, then that's just a decent start...
Starve it, kill it, whatever it takes because it costs too much, takes too much, and does too little of use.
It will not restrain itself of its own free will. Restraint of the government must be by enforcement if not force.
I really don’t care if the tax cuts pay for themselves since the idea contained in that statement is revenue neutrality. The government spends too much. It is too powerful and must be cut off.
I would have trouble not voting for him.
"The idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves through growth is a controversial notion, dismissed by all but a handful of economists, but it is deeply entrenched in the Republican Party."
Facts don't seem to bother economists- the US collected its most revenue ever ($2,568 billion) only after Bush cut taxes.
ROTFL. Cue that word again: "staggering!"
Let's have some staggering solutions to counter obama's staggering spending debt.
It's absolutely unfathomable amazing when we have alleged conservatives yapping about revenue losses arising from cuts in tax rates and cuts in spending!
Gingrich’s tax plan will increase revenues to the government. However, that doesn’t mean that starving the government isn’t necessary but it needs to happen through spending cuts, not tax policy.
Staggering spending is right. Obama has spent more than all the presidents before him. And that’s only the spending we actually know about. What he and the federal reserve is doing in secret bailing out foreign banks probably doubles or triples that.
PING!
That secret and separate Federal Reserve Fund or Bank, (guess it’s a bank of some sort) it a scandal of itself, if only we were able learn more about it.
You betcha, those two are using it to bail out their Marxist pals tied to Soros and likely Goldman Sachs and other Rain Makers for obama in this country.
The entire obama administration is comprised of Marxist czars and unAmericans, whether the muddled-headed utopians realize it or not.
I think Gingrich will put a stop to that and blow the scheme wide open. He’s the historian who will want to be viewed as one of our greatest presidents.
” - - - The center forecast that Gingrich’s plan would slash government revenues by at least $850 billion in one year, more than a third of the $2.3 trillion in 2011 government revenues.
A Gingrich adviser refuted the center’s estimate and said the candidate’s plan was not designed to be revenue neutral, but to be “growth maximizing.”
_____________
Perhaps I missed it, but NO mention is made of cutting SPENDING, or “ cutting maximizing.”
This requires that the damned US Federal Government will keep right on growing their spending whether or not the economy is able to grow. This was tried with mixed success in the Reagan years, but our economy is not as elastic as was then, and may not work as well again.
After all, we are an order of magnitude more Government regulated than we are today. The proposed Canadian Oil Sands Pipeline is an excellent example of the difficulty of “growing the economy” in Regulated Amerika.
Every overspent (=Debt) dollar needs to be met with a $1.10 BASELINE cut in spending. The ten cents goes directly to buying back bonds purchased by foreigners who own our debt bonds.
Because it has been proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Keynesian Economic theory has financially ruined our Nation, why not try the method we all use with our own personal checkbooks? You know, WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.
Since our income expansion has only produced debt, why not decrease our outgo?
For example, Nanny-State Newt proposes NO cuts in baseline spending. He could become just Newt if he would cut baseline spending by 10 % more than he cuts taxes. Thus, Newt would give us a tax cut of 0.850 Trillion dollars, AND cut 0.950 Trillion dollars from baseline Federal spending.
BTW, doesn’t 0.950 Trillion dollars times 4 years equal 3.8 Trillion dollars? HEY FReepers, if we did for 10 years, why that would be a reduction in US Federal Government baseline spending of 9.5 Trillion dollars! That is about what GWB and Obama have burdened us with so far, and twice what the ‘Super Committee” was trying to achieve in rate of increase “cuts.”
Dang, I just wish the “Super Committee” had been able to figure out this “Go Big” 10 year plan!
“The federal government needs to know its limitations”- nOOt (dirty harry) Gingrich
Unless Newt deals with the above, he's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Yup. And he’s proposing privatizing social security and medicare and sending them back to the states and the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.