Willard is sinking fast!!!
If you turned on the television over the past week, you saw a barrage of ads from former Gov. Mitt Romney attacking Sen. John McCain on the subject of taxes. This message is not credible.
As one who grew a business in Massachusetts, I know that tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.
His portrayal of himself as a reliable tax cutter - and McCain as unreliable - is undercut by the facts.
When Mitt Romney became governor in 2003, subchapter S corporations that were owned by Massachusetts business trusts were taxed at 5.3 percent. (This form of ownership was popular and less burdensome for many small businesses.) By the time Romney left office, the tax rate on these corporations had climbed to 9.8 percent, with Romney declaring the tax increase to be merely “closing loopholes.”
It is also interesting to note that Romney’s proposal to close corporate tax loopholes in 2005 had to be scaled back from $170 million to $85 million annually because there was too much opposition to such significant tax hikes in the Legislature.
Romney’s tax policies certainly were not helpful for many small businesses. Small business is the engine of American economic growth, supplying up to 80 percent of the new jobs created annually. So when Romney took many IRS subchapter S businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation.
What will Romney’s approach to taxation of small business do for job growth if taken to the national level?
Nothing good I fear.
Indeed, when Mitt Romney had to grapple with a deficit as governor, he didn’t rely on new revenue just from business. Most of the $700 million he raised in new taxes came from individuals and families. When he raised taxes on employers, he called it “closing tax loopholes.” When he looked to families for revenues (marriage licenses, public recreation, real estate transfers), he called them “fees.”
Most agree that the fee description is disingenuous; fees usually pay no more than the cost of a service provided and they are intended for the agency providing the service.
Romney’s fees were often significantly more than the cost of a service and they were directed to the general fund to pay for overall state expenses. Thus, they are more appropriately regarded as taxes.
So in an example of the best defense being a good offense, Romney now attacks John McCain as unreliable on the subject of tax cuts. However, with a 20-year Senate career,
John McCain has a record we can easily examine and evaluate. He
consistently has strong ratings from the National Taxpayers Union, receiving an
88 percent score last year; he voted last year to make President Bush’s tax cuts
permanent; and he was praised recently by the anti-tax Club for Growth as one
who has been at the forefront of the battle to eliminate wasteful projects and
inject greater discipline and transparency into the appropriations process. This
means much more to me than 30-second political attack ads.
Psychologists often say that the best predictor
of future behavior is past behavior. So when it comes to tax policy, Mitt
Romney’s past behavior in government is a cause for concern.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1064762
No comments:
Post a Comment