Which really, isn’t that bad. Then again, I’m out on a limb with Virginia and Colorado while Obama is pretty much a lock in every state going blue in the map above. The default leanings when you pull up the map have Michigan and Wisconsin as toss-ups; I don’t think there’s a chance they break for Romney – though you would think his dad could help in Michigan. I think Obama will carry the big Ohio and Pennsylvania states with Florida going for Mitt. Like I said, Virginia might be wishful thinking. However, only PPP has Obama ahead by more than 4.
The good news? If my “out-on-a-limb” picks hold Romney would only need to steal a single state like Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Or maybe the republican governors in Wisconsin and Iowa can deliver their states for Romney. With Ryan on the ticket, he may actually pull Wisconsin over. If he does and the rest holds, that gives Obama a 271 to 267 win.
So he picked Ryan. I think it’s a fine choice but maybe not the strongest one he could have made. I’m glad that he didn’t pick Rubio. Rick is too new, is only a Senator and really would have smacked to pandering. The other pick I was afraid of was Rice. I like her but she would have been a massive gamble. She’s pro-choice -which is what it is- and that would have turned off a ton of the base. Further, she could be seen a doubly pandering.
High gain high risk.
I would have preferred a governor. Paulenty, Christie, Daniels, Jindal or McDonnell. I think any of those 5 would be solid solid picks. [If Obama wins the Republican primary is going to be an All Star team].
I think Ryan brings a conservative Tea Party rock and roll star, he brings youth and enthusiasm and brings a degree of expertise in matters financial. However, he also brings the Ryan plan. A plan that has been an easy target for democrats. And a plan that may negatively sway indies and the elderly.
Will he make a difference? Probably not. But if his team can influence the Romney team that you have to be a little looser, a little more hip and a little bit more aggressive, then that would be a good thing.
Additionally, a few things are also clear. In the coming days and for the rest of the campaign we’re gonna hear the democrats roll out all kinds of ads and speeches on the following themes:
- War on the Middle Class – See also “Decline of the”
- The gutting of Medicare and Medicaid
- Tax breaks for the wealthy
- Income disparity
- The Ryan Plan itself
It should promise to be a great campaign!
A recent report from the Tax Policy Center is showing that the Romney tax plan will result in an added tax burden on folks with the lowest incomes:
Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.
I haven’t read all of the report nor have I taken much time to study the plan offered by the Governor. However, the broad brush strokes seem to be that there would be a 20% reduction in the tax rate at all tax brackets. Further, Romney would broaden the base by eliminating deductions. Last, Romney claims that his policies would spark the economy into 4% growth as opposed to the anemic sub 2% that we’ve grown accustomed too.
It should be no secret that I’m a small tax small spend kinda guy. So I’m a little concerned that the main thrust is surrounding tax rates and not spending rates. Cutting taxes is fine, but unless we shrink government, we’re only left with larger deficits.
I’m also a big believer in the concept of the Laffer Curve. This is the idea that tax rates of 0% and 100% will result in the same amount of tax revenue. And that as tax rates increase from 0% more and more tax revenue will be generated until a peak is hit at which point any further increase in the tax rate will result in lower revenue. I think this is true. It’s important to emphasize the concept of both sides of the curve and I think that Romney may be forgetting the 0% side and arch of the philosophy.
I’m not so optimistic that we’re sitting on the exact right peak right now and that either a tax hike or a tax cut would reduce revenue. But I think there might be better ways to spur the economy without introducing tax cuts. For example, end this continued nonsense surrounding the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Make ’em permanent and move on. The taxes in Obamacare? Remove them too.
Right now, I think that tax certainty would be a sufficient spark to the economy and one that could generate the 4% growth Romney is targeting.
I’ll leave the discussion with one caveat. I think that we need to reduce our corporate tax so that we’re among the most competitive in the world in this space and not the worst in the world. Further, I would edit the code to say that all earnings realized in a foreign nation and taxed at the national rate can be brought to America without being subject to further American corporate taxes. It’s hard to defend the practice of taxing money earned in France, using French -ahem- roads and bridges and then taxing that money further for the construction of American roads and bridges.