Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, left, introduces presidential candidate Mitt Romney during a campaign rally at the Henderson Pavilion Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012.
Saturday, Oct. 27, 2012 | 2 a.m.
A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed “geeks” has found itself at the center of a rancorous $5 trillion debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
No white paper or policy manifesto put out during the presidential campaign has proved more controversial than an August study by the Washington-based Tax Policy Center, a respected nonprofit that issues studiously detailed tax analyses.
That study found, in short, that Romney could not keep all of the promises he has made on individual tax reform, including cutting marginal tax rates by 20 percent, keeping protections for investment income, not widening the deficit and not increasing the tax burden on the poor or middle class. It concluded that Romney’s plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them for everyone else.
The detailed paper proved kindling for a political firestorm. Romney criticized the center as performing a “garbage-in, garbage-out” analysis, and his campaign accused it of partisan bias. The Obama campaign used the center’s numbers to argue that Romney had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. Economists jumped on the bandwagon, too, flinging analyses back and forth and picking apart the projections and assumptions in the report.
At the Tax Policy Center, responses ranged from irritation at the partisan nature of some attacks to incredulity over the political hysteria.
“There was this résumé-hunting, White-House-visitor-log” searching feel to the response, said the center’s director, Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist.
“That was unanticipated,” he added dryly.
In many ways, the report did just what the center was created to do: inject solid numbers into a shifty, accusatory, raucous political debate. The decade-old center — a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two nonpartisan grandes dames of the Washington world — was founded precisely to “fill that niche,” Marron said.
“A lot of tax policy discussions are — how to describe them? — people yelling at each other,” he said. “We believe that good information leads to better policy discussions and ultimately better policy outcomes.”
The center’s claim to provide reliable, nonpartisan information comes in part from its staff makeup. It has about four dozen affiliated staff members and scholars — most are economists, several are considered top experts in their fields, and a number have experience in either Republican or Democratic administrations.
It also is derived by virtue of its ownership of a highly sophisticated tax modeling system, one that took about two years to build and has a small coterie of specialists to tend it. The model resembles those used by government offices to forecast the effect of tax code changes, and it relies on about 150,000 anonymous tax returns and a wealth of data on pensions, education, consumer expenditures and economic growth.
“They’re one of the few groups that have this very big, very accurate model,” said Martin A. Sullivan, the chief economist and a contributing editor at Tax Analysts, a specialty publisher. “What they’re doing is just making the best computations available” for others to interpret.
That includes so-called distributional analyses that show how changes to the tax code would alter the relative burden on high-income and low-income families — a dry tax topic yet one of the most politically potent ones of the campaign, given the broader debate about tax fairness and inequality.
The analysis of the Romney proposal has proved highly controversial, not just among politicians, but also among some economists.
Researchers including Martin Feldstein of Harvard and Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton have argued that Romney’s tax math might work if he raised taxes on families making more than $100,000 a year — not $200,000 to $250,000 a year, as he promises — or if his plan gave a strong jolt to economic growth.
“Reasonable economists disagree on” the growth effects of plans like Romney’s, said Alan J. Auerbach, a tax expert at the University of California, Berkeley, who added that he did not see the math working out as currently described. “It matters a lot what kind of reductions you’re making or how you’re paying for tax cuts.”
Others have argued that the Tax Policy Center filled in too many of the holes in Romney’s light-on-detail proposal — making a full analysis impossible and skewing the results of the center’s paper.
“It is not an analysis of Gov. Romney’s plan,” said Scott A. Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group also based in Washington. “It has been, I think, mislabeled as such and misinterpreted as such. We don’t think there are enough details to analyze.”
He said he believes it is possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue-neutral tax reform that cuts rates in the way Romney has described.
The Tax Policy Center said it sought as many details as possible from the Romney campaign. (Its economists said it has a cordial back-and-forth with the economic policy teams in both campaigns, as it did in 2008.) Given the numbers available, it tried to perform the analysis in the most generous way possible and still did not see how Romney’s rate cuts could square with his other goals.
“We wrote a technical, accurate paper given the available information,” said William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution, one of the paper’s main authors. “The criticism that you can’t analyze the Romney tax plan because there isn’t one? That hasn’t stopped other economists from analyzing its growth effects. I like to have substantive discussions about tax policy. The uproar about the paper has not been substantive.”
Many economists across the political spectrum have said they found the report’s conclusions convincing, like Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute.
Sullivan said: “I like tax reform. I want to broaden the base. It’s something I’ve devoted my life to. And I welcome Gov. Romney and the Republicans’ strong push, but the plan doesn’t work out. It’s not mathematically possible.”
"I welcome Gov. Romney and the Republicans' strong push, but the plan doesn't work out. It's not mathematically possible."
--------------------------
Reality sucks in the GOP today.
"Others have argued that the Tax Policy Center filled in too many of the holes in Romney's light-on-detail proposal -- making a full analysis impossible and skewing the results of the centers paper"
It has long been understood that the Center made its own assumptions up
We need to have the CBO SCORE THE ROMNEY PLAN
-----
The simplistic way to assure the math is to understand
- From the IRS about $11 trillion (10 years) in deductions are taken, of which less then half is need to neutralize $5 trillion (10 years) due to a 20% tax rate reduction.
- Since only 30% of people take an itemized deduction (70% take the standard exemption of $12,000) and these are generally the wealthier people - the middle class will immediately benefit. For People itemizing making between $75k and $100k they average $22k in deductions (WSJ 10-20-12; pg A12)
- The eliminated deductions will be selected by a bi-partisan House and Senate and/or Congress could combine with a simple cap some or all of them. A $25k cap would make upper middle class more than whole.
The office I deal with is staffed with economists (Conservative ones at that) and they have been saying the same thing about Romney's economic policies - the numbers don't add up. And, what's particularly frustrating is Romney continues to claim he'll find savings by cutting the size of government, but he refuses to state specifically what he'll cut.
Romney's plan, even if it were mathematically possible, must be based on something. Yet they refuse to tell us or anyone else what they base their analysis on leaving us to wonder if they really have a plan or know what they're talking about.
One thing for sure, if they reduce the tax rates by 20%, it will affect the taxes paid on future increases in income. In 2010, 93% of the increase in income went to the to the top 1% of taxpayers. If that continues to be true the 1% would be the principal future beneficiary of the reduction in tax rates.
Romney's supporter are the rich, the wannabes, and the no-clues.
Over half of the US population are no-clues, according to research.
Ergo, Romney wins (Heaven forbid)!
Oh well, we survive eight years of Bush.
This too shall pass.
Look, Mitt Romney's entire campaign promises and actions are not debatable.
You cannot debate lies and distortions.
Look! Mitt Romney's campaign is based on lies, distortions, and using misleading statements! All designed to confuse voters, economist, the uninformed, and the informed if your willing to listen to garbage.
Mitt Romney throws out garbage for discussion, to confuse the public.
Mitt Romney lets you argue his changing positions, not Him. How can you argue a lie? Stop being stupid American Public!
Credible people like the Tax Policy Center are wasting their time. Unbeknownst to them, they are spending time on Mitt Romney's unworkable tax plan, lending a hint of credibility to Romney's plans, when in fact there is no credibility.
Mitt Romney is using places like the Tax Policy Center as a tool to divert attention and confuse the public. Mitt Romney has sprinkled pixie dust on a dreaming public.
So now, this article is designed to confuse the American Public saying, directly and indirectly, that the Tax Policy Center is not credible and the numbers in Mitt Romney can work. Saying the Tax Policy Center does not know what they are doing!
This article is designed to create doubt that the lying plan of Mitt Romney can work. The article is screaming with subliminal messages of lies distortions and misleading statements....just like the Mitt Romney's campaign. Figure don't lie, but lairs figure.
The writers and contributors of this articles has dunk the kool-aid from the Mitt Romney "Jedi mind trick".
Wrap your head around this:
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
wILLARD mITT rOMNEY is a well dressed, well spoken, mannered pirate. As Nancy said, if he wins, we will muddle through it, but the damage this unethical faux God loving (you can't love God and tell the lies he has these last two weeks) character actor can do will take years, maybe decades to fix.
Obama is not perfect, but at least he is not a zombie pirate.
I am not surprise about this "news article".
It is void of one key fact.
The Tax Policy Center is a leftist organization and therefore a pro-Democrat organization.
If you want real news then go else where.
If you want kool-aid propaganda then you came to the right place.
The Tax Policy Center is ran by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution both leftist organizations.
If one studies all the publications and research results of these 3 organizations then 9 out 10 times they nearly always support Democrat policies, positions and talking points.
This is a complete con job.
Don't be a sucker.
The Tax Policy Center is ran by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution both leftist organizations.
I don't believe there is even one....EVEN ONE...Republican on any of the boards of those three organizations.
The same can be said about their executive leaders.
So if that is "non-partisan" organization then I got some beach front property to sell you for $100 million dollars. It is on Trop and Eastern. It is an one bedroom studio in a rat infested 30 year old apartment complex.
Come get it.
Con job......a complete con job.
Might as well take the Chameleon Party and the Grifters oratory explanation on the economy, tax the rich, no math or critical thinking skills necessary! Saw one yesterday promoting a 2% gross receipts tax on all businesses in Nevada for education. First thing the Chameleon said at the table as I approached was, "sir, are you a registered voter?" "This petition if approved won't cost the average taxpayer anything!"(FREE) as we stood in front of Albertson's!!!!
You pack of dimwits can go back and forth forever about each candidate's "plan ", but it is CONGRESS that proposes and passes tax laws in this country, not the president.
If we could only fix the "stupid" gene in people -
liars like romney with his "romnesia" and "i'll say any lie to get my rich friends more money"
would never get elected.
The real problem is greedy rich people who don't care about any one else.
This is the root of the problem. Tax away their money and this problem will go away.
"The real problem is greedy rich people who don't care about any one else."
"This is the root of the problem. Tax away their money and this problem will go away."
"If we could only fix the "stupid" gene in people"........... There's your sign, Sparky gets it! Start with tax increases on Walmart, Exxon-Mobil, Verizon, Sprint, Cox, Big O, Smiths, Albertsons, Internet, Netflix, Banks, credit cards, renters and Health Care. OH, wait Sparky is already going to pay $2,500 more in 2013 for FREE Health Care. That will fix the "stupid" gene in people and teach those greedy rich doctors!
This issue is this:
Obama had 4 years and the economy is horrible. No jobs, high grocery prices, high gas prices.
I'm dying out here - Obama had 4 years and failed miserably.
Obama is not qualified and has proved it. Romney has a track record of creating jobs and an ability to work accross the isle to get things done.
Romney/Ryan - much better choice for the American worker and average family strugging to stay afloat.
It's not how much Trump would pay to see Obama's records, it's what Obama will do to keep them secret, NO security clearance for this President which explains a lot, Benghazi for one and only a few national security briefings a month for another. Forget economics.
Who needs the Tax Policy Center, or any newspaper, or any think tank, to know that Romney's proposal does not work? Nobody.
First, Romney has said ad nauseum that his proposal (I can't possibly call it a "plan", since one cannot have a "plan" without details, and Romney has provided exactly zero details) is "revenue neutral". Does everyone understand what that means? "Revenue neutral" means that if the US Treasury currently brings in $1 from income taxes ("revenue"), that it will continue to bring in $1 from income taxes under Romney's proposal. ("Why bother?" is a perfectly rational reaction).
Second, Romney said during the debates that the "wealthy" currently pay in about 60% of the tax revenue, and that they would continue to pay in about 60% of the tax revenue under his proposal. For those of you Fox "News"-watching, math-challenged folks, that means the wealthy currently pay $0.60 (if there is currently $1 of tax revenue), and that they would continue to pay $0.60 under the proposal.
Third, and here's where those math skills come in handy again, if, as Romney says, the wealthy currently pay $0.60, that means that the "everyone else" currently pays $0.40.
Fourth, and here's the part where it becomes crystal clear to everyone that the proposal does not work, Romney says, under his proposal, the "everyone else" would pay less than they do now. Didn't say how much less, but let's say it's $0.35.
Summary: $1 of tax revenue today. Proposal is revenue neutral. Therefore, $1 of tax revenue tomorrow. Wealthy pays $0.60 today, and wealthy continue to pay $0.60 tomorrow. Everyone else pays $0.40 today, and everyone else pays $0.35 tomorrow. $0.60 plus $0.35 DOES NOT EQUAL $1.
Conclusion: The proposal DOES NOT WORK!
What really ticks off the goofy communist leftwingers is that Romneys tax plan gets us on the way to get us out of the welfare state and back to prosperity as a nation.
It broadens the tax base and gets rid of all the food stamps, welfare, section 8 handouts and all of the other 50 welfare programs to so called graduates of a crummy tax supported school system and gets people into real jobs so they can pay taxes and support the USA.
everywhere I read about the commie/hippie/pantiewaist namecalling school yard weidos badmouthing Romneys plan. nothing substantial, just a bunch of clownish comments meant to deride someone who believes in the USA.
After the last four years of nojobs and trillions more in debt, Romney came out early with legitimate concepts/plans for taxes, the economy, trade, deficits while Obama came out with his egodriven star status foul-mouthed diatribes. Obama even gave a message to a six year old girl that Romney was a bullshi**er. how gross.
Obama is not presidential material. Never was, never will be. he was taught his tax plan at an early age from his 3 day a week mentor frank marshall davis. and in case you psycho-dems don't know who frank marshall davis is, davis was a verified CARD CARRYING COMMUNIST.
I am voting for Romney/Ryan. I am telling all my family and my friends to vote Romney/Ryan. not just because of his tax plan, but because Romney/Ryan team is good for America.
To all your critics of Romney just read Peggy Noonan piece about BO. This man was never qualified and the left wing media supported him all the way (ABC,CBS,NBC CNN). 4 yrs ago we didn't know anything about him ( school transcripts , ideology ,and his accomplishments ) Now some info is coming out. Whether it's his ideology (redistribution of wealth) foreign policy ( apologizing to countries like Iran, China , ETC. This president is so arrogant he only attended 45% of security briefings. How about transparency ?( Benghazi , Fast AND Furious, Obama Care) If u want 4 more yrs and another 4 + Trillion in debt vote for BO. Another thing we will have 2-3 retiring Supreme Court justices and we will have a new Pres who will be ACCOUNTABLE and has a track record. U have your choice. Voting for BO is the same . 1 more issue is the constant lies re the auto industry. When GM and Chrysler were bailed out the UNIONS were taken care of first before the bondholders . They were left holding the bag and GM still owes us $25B . Isn't America wonderful?
The Rmoney Idiotology...
Debunking the 'Thurston Howell Get's Richer While the Middle-Class Get's the Shaft' Plan by Mitty & Pauly isn't rocket science!
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinio...
http://www.politicususa.com/beneath-romn...
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...
The free ride is OVER people.
If you can't afford to retire. Don't. If you can't afford to feed your kids, don't have any (abortion is still legal and so is contraception). Can't afford an abortion or the pill? Just Say "NO"!. Avoid all "methods of conception" " including legitimate rape because I really don't think Akin is right about that.
Can't afford medical care? Slim down, cut out the candy, the cheap fast but fatty foods, sweets, drugs, alcohol, tobacco and get plenty of exercise. Stay healthy. Don't get sick because I don't want to pay your medical bills. If your kid gets sick, don't send him to school because he'll infect the other kids.
Lost your job and unemployment compensation ran out and you can't afford rent so you and your family are homeless? Get a job!! The United Farm workers Union are offering jobs in the field. Take one. Not only will you be paid, but you'll get plenty of sunshine and exercise. Side benefit " you'll take work from an illegal immigrant and he'll deport himself.
Oh, and please just quit your whining. It's plain annoying.
Someone who believes absolutely that the American Indians are descended from Jews has learned to sell belief, not reality. In spite of every single genetic and scientific study, they still persist and that is called Faith, yet the function is more like insanity.
His core plans are: an additional $2 trillion in defense spending over the next ten years, or 150% of what Congress set aside for the Iraq war every year. A 20% 'tax cut' for all while eliminating the National Deficit. What is he going to cut? No word on that or his tax returns. Of course his plans don't add up. He is Mr. Secret personified.
Salesmen and their friends get rich by selling dreams, not caution. Going into Government or starting your own religion are the easiest ways to make real money, by the bucket load, if you have the gift of Gab.
@ Warrior Oct. 27, 2012 11:54 a.m.
4 Americans killed by terrorists in 4 years, and we took out the majority of their leadership, including the very face of terrorism, Osama bin Laden. Under the previous administration, 3000 Americans were killed, on American soil, in just one day, and our leader decided that it wasn't worth the effort to get those responsible, a position that Mitt Romney supported, but it was okay to invade 2 countries where we knew he wasn't. I'd say that we're definitely moving in the right direction, and we didn't have to invade 2 sovereign nations, spend 2 trillion dollars, slaughter 160,000 Iraqi civilians, send thousands of American soldiers to be maimed and killed, or further destabilize a historically unstable region. I'm sorry that our President didn't inform you personally that it was a terrorist attack until all the information was in, but going off half-cocked before analyzing the situation has already brought us enough pain and suffering.
My comment is directed to those who actually want to objectively gauge the merits of Gov. Romney's tax plan. If you're a partisan spokesperson who just wants to refute the other candidate's plan, please don't bother reading or responding to my comment.
My comment is in regards to Kevin Lustig's posting at 1:02 pm. As someone who works daily with financial data, I give you kudos for pointing out the obvious flaw in Romney's plan. The law of mathematics simply does not allow a segment of the population to pay less while everyone else pays the same, yet the overall tax revenue remains unchanged. Anyone who says otherwise is either mathematically-challenged or is not telling the truth.
Now, Obama's plan might be terrible and that is up for debate, but there is simply no valid argument that Romney's statements are accurate.
YES, the romney/ryan plan stinks to high Heaven.
REPUBLICAN VOODOO ECONOMICS!
Nothing but a pack of republican lies.
The math will NEVER add up.
Republicans are already proven failures.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Both Romney and Ryan straight up lied about Obama cutting $716 billion from Medicare. The $716 billion they are talking about is the projected SAVINGS in the Medicare program over the next 10 years,not CUTS. To claim that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare is a complete lie. They have told this lie numerous times,the most notable being at the Republican National Convention on national television.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/pol...
What a useless exercise in the first place when you have Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell running the Titanic.
Even God, Mohammed, and Allah serving as co-Presidents couldn't get a thing done with these senile old Depends users running things.
If Romney were to be elected he would take us back to the failed policies of the Bush administration. America simply can't afford a President Romney.
During the first debate Romney said "I don't have a five trillion dollar tax cut"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/elec...
Yet on his website it says Romney is planning to 'Make Permanent, Across-The-Board 20 Percent Cut In Marginal Rates'
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-vi...
And according to Forbes the 20% tax cut 'could be expected to cut federal revenues by about $5 trillion over a 10-year period'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/20...
Jumbo.....Great comments.
It's amazing that the republican party found a
republican who is WORSE THAN BUSH!.
The same NY times just indorsed Obama! Nothing unusual here. The best part of the NY times is rolling it and using it to start you fire place with.
After reading comments area tonight. You liberals are puffing to much bong smoke. How about we see the record that this president has for the last three and a 3.5 years. Let him run on that. He can't.Let him show us his plan for the future of America. He can't.All he tell the sheep at his speech's is believe in me.All His campaign promises of 3.5 years ago. Nothing came out of it but Obama care which is going to cost the tax payers billions of dollars. I could go on here all night why waste my time.
The 2010 midterm elections was the last official TEA PARTY meeting, the next one is scheduled for Nov. 6th 7am-7pm. Everyone is welcome.
Romney has been disingenuous with Obama's job-creation record. He tries to put Bush's responsibility for a loss of up to 800,000 jobs per month during the presidential transition period on Obama--when this 2 1/2 million-job-loss-degradation was already in effect, due to Republican policies. The effect of that Bush "job-loss-hangover" lasted over a year and a half. Don't be fooled by those who try to put Bush's job-loss-hangover on Obama's ledger. Obama has created since March 2010 5-million new jobs, with 2.2-million created in the last year alone. Moody predicts 12-million new jobs under Obama in the next four years. Romney was 47-of-50-states in "Job Creation"--the lowest 3 states in the NATION. At the same time, The LARGEST exodus of working-age adults/workers from any state was during Romney's tenure as governor. Clearly, he was not producing the jobs--esp at a rate of less than 3/8-of-1% job growth per year for four years.
What was Romney's position on FEMA? OR, his latest position. Just look BACK in time.
In Massachusetts, he radically cut funding to local communities by 20% thereby devastating them and forcing layoffs of police, fire department personnel, emergency responders, and municipal employees. Meanwhile he created new "fees" and raised existing ones to further compromise local communities financial resources. And, property taxes up 22%.
Added to that, State and local taxes were raised at 3-TIMES the national average.
It's not Romnesia, instead he thinks we--the voters--have it. Kind of a voter-amnesia.
Anyone reading the papers at that time, remembers that Romney was going to let the auto industry fail. Consistent with his takeover strategy at Bain--leveraged-buyout, bribe company heads to go along with outlandish bonus, load with debt, charge excessive fees for this service, then let it go bankrupt under the new debt load. And, they walk away with this "blood" money--the hard earned dollars from the workers who lost jobs, retirements, medical benefits, and livelihoods.
Back to the auto industry:
The only solution was from the federal government. Romney knows/knew very well that there was NO private money (as, per his current position on his last position) available at that scale to bail out the auto industry.
His two-faced, constantly changing positions when he finds he's on the wrong side is at work.
But, this time, we know his Monday-morning quarterbacking ALSO would not have worked--even tho he thinks it will "save him face" and we won't know the difference.
Obama was right on the auto bailout. Romney is in the wrong league now, and with the wrong (Bain) experience to lead a nation.
Perhaps, he led a prosperous company, but his $250 millions belong to the workers he bankrupted and left adrift....
JUST LOOK at Massachusetts for the "Change" to expect from Romney. Re: Job Approval:
In 2003: Approve 56% Disapproved 23%.
In 2006: Approve 39% Disapproved 59%.
Why?
Romney cut funds 20% and thereby devastated local communities.
Jobs were cut to police, fire and municipal employees as a result.
Property taxes went up 22% to respond to his cuts.
Then, Romney added NEW "fees" + increases to existing--which, were "taxes in disguise".
State + local Taxes--in his tenure as Governor--rose THREE TIMES the National Average.
The State under Romney was 47th-of-50 states (ie the bottom 3) in terms of JOB CREATION.
Employment rose by LESS than 3/8-of-1% PER year for 4 years under Romney. Ie stagnate.
The LARGEST exodus of Adult-age Workers left the State during HIS tenure as Governor.
Yes, CHANGE, but it will back to the mindset of the Bush years and the Bush-economy.
And, REMEMBER, this sad Romney record was in GOOD TIMES.
AND,
Obama has created since March 2010 5-million new jobs, with 2.2-million created in the last year alone. Moody predicts 12-million new jobs under Obama in the next four years.
Make's one appreciate how well Obama has engineered a recovery during the most challenging of times SINCE the Great Depression. And, with the world economies in shambles.
UNDECIDEDs: Can anyone really have any confidence in Romney concerning foreign affairs? In the recent "fail-safe" trip to showcase his competency--he insulted the British; and then, the Palestinians. Instead, it became a showcase for his two-faced persona--tying to explain away his mistakes and gaffes. He was "the joke of the World press". THAT makes him weak in the world's eyes. THAT makes him someone not to trust--simply, how can you trust someone who changes his positions? These kind of mistakes are not an aberration, that's been his persistent history.
And, unfortunately, on the more familiar national stage that has been his history as well. Romney will say anything to get what he wants.
Romney's "job math" is a non-issue. We get no more jobs with Romney than is already predicted. Moody predicts 12-million NEW jobs under Obama in the next four years. Obama has created 5-million new jobs since March 2010, with 2.2-million created in the last year alone.
Gov. Romney was 47-of-50-states--the lowest 3 states in the Nation--in "Job Creation".
Romney's job production rate was less than 3/8-of-1% growth PER year for FOUR years.
At the same time, his State had the LARGEST exodus of working-age adults. I.e. no jobs.
And, Romney's dismal job producing record was during relatively GOOD economic times.
It's not worth the risk. Esp given the "sketchy" math and NO details.
We're already on the path for that + 12-million-jobs increase.
Romney could return us to the policies that caused the job losses of 800,000 per MONTH when Obama took over. It could happen again, as Romney's policies are essentially Bush's, re-warmed.