Stephanie Cutter Admits 5T Tax Cut Accusation Is Not True

Cutter Concedes $5 Trillion Attack On Romney Is Not True | RealClearPolitics

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN's "OutFront" tonight that their claim that Mitt Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion is untrue.

Burnett explained closing deductions is what solves the amount of revenue lost by the lowering of tax rates.

"Well, okay, stipulated. It won't be near $5 trillion but it's also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he's going to close," Cutter responded.

Cutter eventually acknowledged that the closing of deductions accounts for at least four trillion of the five trillion in lost revenues she claims that will not be collected in taxes. Transcript below.

Erin Burnett, CNN host: So you're saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?

Stephanie Cutter: It's a $5 trillion tab.

Burnett: But then when you close deductions it's not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion, that's our analysis.

Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated. It won't be near $5 trillion but it's also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he's going to close. So it is going to cost someone and it's going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren't enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney's policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it's just simple math.

Burnett: Okay, they'll just say that you can do that. There are other studies. I know the one to which you're referring, but there's also the possibility of economic growth.

Cutter: Prove it. Erin, prove it.

Burnett: We can't prove either side, that's all I'm saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.

Cutter: I disagree with you. You can prove it. So then they should just say that they're counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut. Which is an interesting theory because that is what George Bush and let's look at how that turned out, we had the slowest economic growth since World War II.

Burnett: They're not saying entirely, they're saying closing loopholes and economic growth, both. I understand you disagree with it.

Cutter: But that still leaves you at least a trillion dollars short. The math does not work with what they're saying. And they won't name those deductions, not a single deduction that they will close because they know that is bad for their politics. Now look, this is the center, this is the core of Mitt Romney's economic policy. Last night, he walked away from it, said he didn't have a $5 trillion tax cut. He does. That's what lowering the rates amounts to.​

Click to expand...

ms burnett, by the way, over at cnn, is apparently growing some rather uncharacteristic spine

yesterday, she accused the white house of "covering up" the many denied truths emanating from the benghazi terrorist attack

CNN: W.H. Leaves Out Key Information On Libya Attack | RealClearPolitics

"the key information left out of the talking points can only mean that the administration is covering something up"

is erin burnett lying to you?

is barack obama's state dept?

is stephanie cutter?

Obama's campaign lied? Whawha whaaaaattttt????

who's lying?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has become the chief attack dog against his co-religionist Mitt Romney, but on Wednesday that attack went even further when his official Senate office released a statement that attributed a quote to Mr. Romney, even though he said the exact opposite.

Mr. Reid's release quoted the Republican presidential nominee's staff as telling the Boston Globe that Mr. Romney would "not honor deportation exemptions" that President Obama has granted under his new non-deportation policy.

But that phrase doesn't appear in the Globe's article. In fact the newspaper said Mr. Romney's staff specifically "said he would honor deportation exemptions issued by the Obama administration before his inauguration," thought the staffers said a Romney administration wouldn't issue any new exemptions itself.

On Thursday afternoon Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, emailed saying the release was mistaken.

"There was a typo in the background header of the release that has been corrected. Everything Senator Reid says in the statement is true. I am surprised your paper deemed a typo worthy of an entire story but I suppose that's not my place to judge," Mr. Jentleson said.

The version of the release on Mr. Reid's web site has been updated to delete the quotation marks from around the phrase, though the words themselves remain.

Click to expand...

Reid misquotes Romney to make immigration attack - Washington Times

open the link for reid's complete statement

the globe, tuesday, 10-1:

Mitt Romney would not revoke temporary deportation exemptions granted to young illegal immigrants under an executive action by President Obama, but he also would not issue new protective documents if elected.

“The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid,” Romney told the Denver Post in an interview published Tuesday, a day ahead of the first presidential debate of the general election, which will be held in that city and cover domestic policy, possibly including immigration.

Click to expand...

Mitt Romney would honor deportation exemptions issued to young illegal immigrants under President Obama's executive action but would not grant new ones - Boston.com

Does somebody have the data on the loopholes? I'm assuming this is referencing over a 10 year period, so 400 billion in loopholes a year, correct?

The accusation is true as it stands. With just the 20% tax cut it comes out to about 4.8 trillion. Romney won't tell us what loopholes he'll close so until he does that they stand at none. There is no way in hell if a Democrat was trying to pass off a plan that required so much revenue from closing loopholes that the GOP would just take him on his word and not demand specifics.

I'm glad he doesn't try to pretend he knows everything before he starts the job. He was very clear about his criteria for a plan and that is about all he can do on the outside. Anything else would be empty.

Trying to pretend not itemizing deductions equates to not removing any is simply asinine.

Loki97 said:

The accusation is true as it stands. With just the 20% tax cut it comes out to about 4.8 trillion. Romney won't tell us what loopholes he'll close so until he does that they stand at none. There is no way in hell if a Democrat was trying to pass off a plan that required so much revenue from closing loopholes that the GOP would just take him on his word and not demand specifics.

Click to expand...

You ARE kidding, right? In 2004, John Kerry ran his entire campaign on 'having a plan'. Oh...he has a plan. Its a great plan. Once elected I'll show you the plan. What a plan it is. Hang on to your hats, boys...this plan is awesome...turns out...sunovagun...he was either lying and never did have a plan, or he doesnt want to reveal his magic plan in case he runs again.

Jump forward to 2008. Hope...and change. Change, and hope. Change is good...and change we need...because...change is...well...hopeful. And we all need hope. And thats what will change...hopefully.

BTW...what is Obamas 'plan' to get the jobs market going again? We know he is going to keep talking about how unfair life is and how we should tax rich people more...and we know you could take every penny from the rich and 1-it wouldnt make a dent in the debt and 2-it wouldnt create jobs. SO...what was that plan? You know...the magic plan that he will put in place at the end of the NEXT 4 years...because obviously 4 years...nothing...

Maybe he could get his good buddy Jeffrey Immelt to tell him the secret of GE's total tax dodge and transferring of jobs overseas. Nice venture coming from the guy Obama tapped to head the jobs council.

Oh...such a plan...

Well there goes that talking point

Thanks Stephanie!

VanceMack said:

You ARE kidding, right? In 2004, John Kerry ran his entire campaign on 'having a plan'. Oh...he has a plan. Its a great plan. Once elected I'll show you the plan. What a plan it is. Hang on to your hats, boys...this plan is awesome...turns out...sunovagun...he was either lying and never did have a plan, or he doesnt want to reveal his magic plan in case he runs again.

Jump forward to 2008. Hope...and change. Change, and hope. Change is good...and change we need...because...change is...well...hopeful. And we all need hope. And thats what will change...hopefully.

BTW...what is Obamas 'plan' to get the jobs market going again? We know he is going to keep talking about how unfair life is and how we should tax rich people more...and we know you could take every penny from the rich and 1-it wouldnt make a dent in the debt and 2-it wouldnt create jobs. SO...what was that plan? You know...the magic plan that he will put in place at the end of the NEXT 4 years...because obviously 4 years...nothing...

Maybe he could get his good buddy Jeffrey Immelt to tell him the secret of GE's total tax dodge and transferring of jobs overseas. Nice venture coming from the guy Obama tapped to head the jobs council.

Oh...such a plan...

Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point, if a Democrat was offering up the smoke and mirrors Romney is it would be considered unacceptable by the right. Double standard confirmed.

Loki97 said:

Thank you for making my point, if a Democrat was offering up the smoke and mirrors Romney is it would be considered unacceptable by the right. Double standard confirmed.

Click to expand...

Oh come on....more whining is all progressives have? This is the big leagues my friend...When your lies about your candidate are so egregious, so blatant, so absolutely childish, and wrong, you are revealed.

The 20% increase, on its face, is more beneficial for wealthy individuals because he's stating a percentage decrease on a percentage tax rate. This has been addressed on another thread previously. What I am more interested in, however, is which loopholes he wants to close. I suspect that the loophole closures will more heavily impact the lower classes based upon the rest of the tax plan discussed on Romney's website. (i.e. child tax credit, education credits, mortgage interest, etc)

j-mac said:

Oh come on....more whining is all progressives have? This is the big leagues my friend...When your lies about your candidate are so egregious, so blatant, so absolutely childish, and wrong, you are revealed.

Click to expand...

And when you can't respond with anything other than juvenile, generalized, accusations and insults the lack of any real depth in your party or platform is revealed. Other than protecting the interests of the rich at all costs, the only thing the GOP stands for is anything anti Obama.

j-mac said:

Oh come on....more whining is all progressives have? This is the big leagues my friend...When your lies about your candidate are so egregious, so blatant, so absolutely childish, and wrong, you are revealed.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but who started this thread? And who followed it up with irrelevant posts about what Reid and Pelosi have said? :lamo

Last time I checked neither Reid nor Pelosi were in the race ... and Kerry lost ... as will Romney.

The $5 trillion figure is accurate. The only specific that Romney has given is that he would cut rates by 20%, resulting in a $5 trillion deficit hole. He has steadfastly refused to say how he would fill that hole, despite the fact that independent experts have said that there aren't enough deductions to fill it.

Loki97 said:

Thank you for making my point, if a Democrat was offering up the smoke and mirrors Romney is it would be considered unacceptable by the right. Double standard confirmed.

Click to expand...

I love the blatant, ironic hypocricy of this post. Was that on purpose or do you just not see that you, as the pot, are black too?

Verax said:

Does somebody have the data on the loopholes? I'm assuming this is referencing over a 10 year period, so 400 billion in loopholes a year, correct?

Click to expand...

Loopholes, or deductions?

apdst said:

Loopholes, or deductions?

Click to expand...

What, in your view, is the difference?

AdamT said:

What, in your view, is the difference?

Click to expand...

It's not my view. It's reality. Look it up.

AdamT said:

What, in your view, is the difference?

Click to expand...

One is intentional in the code. The other is not.

Loop holes are usually an unexpected/unintended consequence of putting together two or more pieces of the code. It wasn't part of the design.

Keridan said:

I love the blatant, ironic hypocricy of this post. Was that on purpose or do you just not see that you, as the pot, are black too?

Click to expand...

I guess the big difference I see between Obama and Romney on their economic plans is that Obama isn't promising the moon and stars the way Mitt is. Mitt, during the debate, was basically saying you can have an across the board 20% tax cut, stable or even increased military spending, and still not add to the deficit. There's also the fact that independent studies have determined that it just isn't possible within the tax code to accomplish what Romney promises. If you are faced with that kind of indictment of your plan, you need to refute it with specifics not studies done by Romney for President.

Obama isn't promising the moon

Click to expand...

Obama PROMISES To Cut Deficit In Half By 2012 - YouTube

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - Krugman

Cutter eventually acknowledged that the closing of deductions accounts for at least four trillion of the five trillion in lost revenues she claims that will not be collected in taxes.

Click to expand...

link above

Here's the funny thing with this whole thing...

The Claim he's going to raise taxes on the middle class is based on Democrats taking a worst case scenario approach that he won't be able to find enough loopholes to remove to make the cuts revenue neutral, and thus that means he has to backtrack on his claim that he won't raise taxes on the middle class.

HOWEVER....

To state that is to assume that somehow, in some way, the ONLY way Romney would potentially reevaluate his tax goal if the specifics of it ended up not being feasible would be to backtrack on his comments regarding the middle class instead of there being the possability that he may backtrack in such an instance on his comments regarding the upper class.

The democrat complaint is entirely, unquestionably, based on an assumption and you know what they say about assumptions.

Here's REALITY...

Reality is that Romney's stated goal seems to be to lower taxes from the likely 2013 levels across the board while keeping it revenue neutral.

Reality is that some studies have suggested that one could not lower taxes in the manner he suggests and make it revenue neutral just with removal of deductoins.

As such, that means that in reality...IF that study is correct....that MULTIPLE possabilities exist. Some for example could be:

Romney instead pushes for less of a cut or a raise on the middle class where the deduction would make it revenue neutral.

Romney instead pushes for less of a cut or raise on the uppper class where the deduction would make it revenue neutral.

Romney instead pushes for smaller cuts across the board to the point where the deductions would make it revenue neutral.

Romney instead pushes the same cuts but begins to look at other forms of taxes / fees to possibly generate the revenue.

Romney instead pushes the same cuts but begins to look at other government programs or agencies that money can be cut from to offset.

Romney instead pushes the same cuts and simply adds to the deficit.

ALL of those things are, in reality, potential actions that Romney COULD take if his initially stated goal can not be met as theorized by the study in question. To state, unequivocably, that his plan is to "raise taxes on the middle class" or "add 5 trillion to the deficit" is patentedly dishonest and absurd.

Verax said:

Does somebody have the data on the loopholes? I'm assuming this is referencing over a 10 year period, so 400 billion in loopholes a year, correct?

Click to expand...

correct...16t in debt.. Obama is a loser