No, six studies did not debunk the Tax Policy Center’s finding on the Romney tax plan

Dylan Matthews/The Washington Post

Paul Ryan repeated his campaign’s talking point that six studies have debunked the Tax Policy Center’s claim that it is “mathematically impossible” 

Paul Ryan repeated his campaign’s talking point that six studies have debunked the Tax Policy Center’s claim that it is “mathematically impossible” for Romney to implement all his tax cuts, achieve revenue neutrality, not raise taxes on the middle class, and not raise taxes on investments.

I can’t believe we have to keep saying this, but no, six studies did not say that. One study, from Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, only found that the Romney plan is possible by fiddling with the definition of “middle class”, and confirmed TPC’s finding under the definition TPC used. Another, from AEI’s Matt Jensen, found that if you subject some investment income, namely interest on state and local bonds, to taxes, the plan need not raise middle class taxes. But that leaves TPC’s claim untouched. Another, from Princeton’s Harvey Rosen, relied on implausibly high estimates of the growth effects of the Romney tax plan, and even then confirmed the TPC finding when comparing the plan to a baseline where the Bush tax cuts expire. And another, from the Heritage Foundation’s Charles Dubay, is based on a misestimation of the cost of an obscure estate tax provision.

What’s more, not all of these are actual studies. Jensen’s critique, for example, came in the form of a blog post. That says nothing about its quality, just that the Romney campaign’s characterization is a bit odd. Only three working papers or studies – one from Rosen, one from Dubay, and one from Feldstein – attempt to rebut the TPC study, and none succeed in rebutting TPC’s actual points.

In short, the Romney plan is mathematically impossible. Biden is right. Ryan is wrong.

Why Five Studies Cited By Romney Further Prove His Plan Will Raise Taxes On The Middle Class

By Pat Garofalo/Think Progress

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center last month released a study showing that if Mitt Romney were to keep his promise to cut tax rates by 20 percent while still balancing the budget, he would have to raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000. The Romney campaign has disputed the study, saying that it will close enough loopholes to pay for its huge rate cut; however, it refuses to divulge one single loophole that would be on the chopping block.

Notably, the TPC study found that even if Romney eliminated every single loophole and deduction for wealthy taxpayers, he still couldn’t offset the revenue loss without raising taxes on the middle class. During an interview yesterday on NBC’s Meet The Press, Romney claimed that five other studies show that he could, in fact, accomplish all his budget goals:

GREGORY: So Governor, we talked last night about jobs and the economy and also the debt. And I want to begin there. You’ve called the debt and our deficit a moral crisis, and yet in addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, you want to cut tax rates an additional 20 percent. You’ve rejected a 10 to one spending ratio when it comes to spending to increasing taxes. And, yet, you want to balance the budget. The math simply doesn’t add up, does it?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, actually, it does. And the — the good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Romney camp hasn’t indicated exactly which fives studies their candidate was referencing, but it seems likely that they were the following. All they do is further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction:

– Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein’s, which, as the Center for American Progress’ Seth Hanlon pointed out, didn’t take into account Romney’s corporate tax cut, redefined the middle class, and cherry picked numbers to overstate savings.

– Princeton Professor Harvey Rosen’s, which, as UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong noted, says Romney’s tax cuts will cause economic growth that every other recent tax cut package has failed to deliver. “We simply do not see such supply responses in the historical record, do we?” DeLong asked.

– American Enterprise Institute’s Matt Jensen’s, who claimed that the TPC study did not take into account that Romney may eliminate “the exclusion ofinterest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles.” TPC re-ran the numbers to include eliminating those deductions and found that “our main result still holds.” Another AEI tax expert said, “It’s not as if the entire philosophical approach [Romney's] pursuing is doomed…But he’s going to need to cut rates significantly less than 20 percent if he wants to honor his other goals.”

– A pair of Wall Street Journal editorials that add no new information and merely regurgitate right-wing talking points.

Since the TPC study first came out, the Romney campaign has flailed for a response. Romney’s effort on Meet the Press was certainly no better.

UPDATE

Feldstein is an official adviser for the Romney campaign, while Rosen worked in the administrations of both President George W. Bush and President George H.W. Bush.