Romney Campaign Press Release - Santorum's Deficit-Doubling, Winner-Picking, Big-Government Tax Plan

"Rick Santorum's tax proposal was clearly written by someone who has spent his entire career in Washington. It places its trust in government, distorts the market, picks winners and losers, and doubles our already catastrophic budget deficit. Mitt Romney believes we need a flatter, fairer, simpler tax code, not one that doubles down on President Obama's march toward fiscal disaster." —Gail Gitcho, Romney Communications Director

Rick Santorum Is Proposing A Fiscal Policy That Would Double The Federal Deficit:

Santorum's Plan Would Take President Obama's Deficit And Make It Even Worse. President Obama has proposed a grossly irresponsible budget deficit of $900 billion for FY2013. Rick Santorum's tax proposal would reduce revenue by an additional $900 billion:

• President Obama's FY2013 Budget Deficit Projection: $901 Billion. ("Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables Of The U.S. Government," Office of Management and Budget, 2/14/11)

• Santorum Plan Revenue Reduction From Current Policy Baseline: $900 Billion. "The Santorum plan would reduce federal tax revenues substantially. TPC estimates that on a static basis ... relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be about $900 billion in calendar year 2015." ("The Santorum Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, 1/18/12)

Santorum "Would Make The Job Of Balancing The Budget More Difficult." "Santorum's tax plan would make the job of balancing the budget more difficult, reducing federal revenue in 2015 by $900 billion to $1.3 trillion, depending upon whether the Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. The White House projects a $610 billion deficit in 2015, meaning Santorum's proposed tax cuts could as much as triple the amount of spending reduction required that year to eliminate the government's red ink." (David J. Lynch, "Santorum Picks Own 'Winners And Losers' Even As He Chides Obama," Bloomberg, 2/17/12)

Former Council Of Economic Advisers Member Donald Marron: "It's Very Hard To See How You're Able To Pay For That.'" (David J. Lynch, "Santorum Picks Own 'Winners And Losers' Even As He Chides Obama," Bloomberg, 2/17/12)

Fiscal Conservatism Is Already "Not Santorum's Strong Suit," Since He Has Long Since Admitted He Is "No Longer A Deficit Hawk":

Santorum: "I Came To The House As A Real Deficit Hawk, But I Am No Longer A Deficit Hawk." "Confronted with projected deficits until fiscal 2007, senior GOP lawmakers are backing away from long-standing rhetoric about the government's duty to live within its means. 'I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk,' said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). 'I'll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no.'" (Hans Nichols, "Leadership Lines Up With Deficit Doves," The Hill, 2/5/03)

Cato Institute's Michael Tanner: Fiscal Conservatism Is "Not Santorum's Strong Suit." "[T]he Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorum's strong suit. ... He never met an earmark that he didn't like. In fact, it wasn't just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone..." (Michael Tanner, "Santorum's Big-Government Conservatism," National Review, 1/4/12)

"Santorum Acknowledged Voting To Raise The Federal Debt Ceiling At Least Five Times While In Congress." (Charles Babington, "Gingrich Defends His Attacks," The Associated Press, 1/15/12)

Federal Spending Increased By Roughly 80% During Santorum's Tenure In The Senate. In 1995, Santorum's first year in the Senate, federal spending was approximately $1.516 trillion. By 2007, when Santorum left the Senate, spending had increased to approximately $2.729 trillion. ("Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables Of The U.S. Government," Office of Management and Budget, 2/14/11)

Santorum Would Further Increase The Percentage Of Americans Paying No Federal Income Taxes:

"Last Week, Santorum [Became] The Latest Prominent Republican To Complain" That Not Everyone Pays Taxes. "[Santorum] said that the most important class distinction was between 'anybody that makes money and pays taxes and everybody who doesn't. That's the 99 [percent].'" (Derek Thompson, "Ronald Reagan Didn't Share The GOP's '47 Percent' Problem," The Atlantic, 1/10/12)

But Wait ... Santorum's Plan "Would Radically Reduce The Percentage Of Taxpayers Paying Any Federal Income Tax." "All that has much to recommend it, but Santorum would also triple the personal exemption for dependent children, while maintaining the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. This move would radically reduce the percentage of taxpayers paying any federal income tax whatsoever. Since he would retain much of the other major individual tax deductions, complexity would not be reduced, but revenue would be radically lower." (Kevin A. Hassett, "Santorum's Tax Plan Doesn't Add Up," AEI, 1/6/12)

Santorum's Plan For Special Tax Treatment Has Been Panned By Conservatives As "Rotten," "Bad Tax Policy," "Grossly Unfair," And "The Worst Idea" Of Any GOP Candidate:

Tax Foundation's Will McBride: Santorum's proposal "may be the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates. ... No other candidate has proposed such a grossly unfair system." (Bernie Becker, "Some Conservatives See Santorum's Tax Plan As 'Welfare In Disguise'," Ballot Box Blog, The Hill, 1/7/12)

Club For Growth's Andy Roth: Manufacturing favoritism is "bad tax policy" and shows Santorum believes "government should be limited except when he is in charge." (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

AEI's Kevin Hassett: "This plan caters to the fetishistic political focus on giveaways to manufacturing.  An optimal code would reward job creating businesses regardless of their industry.  The radical differences between taxes for manufacturing and other activities would introduce perhaps the biggest and most damaging tax distortion in American history.  It would also invite endless fraud." (Kevin A. Hassett, "Santorum's Tax Plan Doesn't Add Up," AEI, 1/6/12)

• Hassett: Santorum's Plan "Is Just The Height Of Economic Illiteracy. It's Inexcusable.'" (Dan Hirschhorn, "Rick Loses Market Value," The Daily, 2/17/12)

AEI's Alan Viard: "'It's a bad idea to single out a particular sector that way,' said Alan Viard, a former economist in President George W. Bush's administration who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. 'Economists assume that, under normal conditions, markets will allocate resources efficiently,' he added. 'So the tax system should be neutral.'" (David J. Lynch, "Santorum Picks Own 'Winners And Losers' Even As He Chides Obama," Bloomberg, 2/17/12)

The Heritage Foundation's Curtis Dubay: "This is not free-market economics, this is trying to tilt the market toward manufacturing, and it will hurt the economy rather than help it, because resources would be artificially diverted from other sectors of the economy to manufacturing." (Dan Hirschhorn, "Rick Loses Market Value," The Daily, 2/17/12)

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin: "This is a quintessentially D.C.-centric view of the economy.  The federal government, in his scheme, will pick one sector over another, rather than getting to a flatter, fairer tax code across the board. ... It is at bottom a provincial viewpoint that some jobs are better than others. ... Santorum's plan reflects the perspective of a Pennsylvania senator who saw jobs decline in one sector in his state. It's the same viewpoint that caused him to vote against NAFTA and free trade deals and side with Big Labor. It might be temporarily good for Pennsylvania, but it's rotten economic policy." (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

Santorum's Plan Invites Every Business In America — From McDonald's To Paramount Pictures — To Claim It Is A Manufacturer:

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin: "Finally, there is the definitional problem. Holtz-Eakin points out that under one 'manufacturing' credit scam, McDonald's qualifies." (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

Americans For Tax Reform's Grover Norquist: "How many hours of lawyer time will go into the argument whether a firm is manufacturer or in the service industry?" (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin: "Surely, the Hollywood studios will claim they manufacture films. Should we really be giving that industry a break?" (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

AEI's Kevin Hassett: "The radical differences between taxes for manufacturing and other activities would introduce perhaps the biggest and most damaging tax distortion in American history.  It would also invite endless fraud.  As I type this piece, I am manufacturing sentences, am I not? Shouldn't my income be taxed as manufacturing?" (Kevin A. Hassett, "Santorum's Tax Plan Doesn't Add Up," AEI, 1/6/12)

Club For Growth's Andy Roth: "How do you define manufacturing?  Do movie studios manufacture films? Do book publishers, when they send a .pdf of a manuscript to China, are they manufacturing books? Companies are going to game this." (Dan Hirschhorn, "Rick Loses Market Value," The Daily, 2/17/12)

Santorum's Proposal Is No Different From The Endless Tax Credits And Giveaways That President Obama Has Proposed To Shape The Economy As He Sees Fit:

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin: Santorum's Plan Is "Completely At Odds With Tax Reform." "Douglas Holtz-Eakin of American Action Forum makes the point that the tax rate break for manufacturers is not all that different from President Obama's tax credit for manufacturing firms, and a super-duper tax credit for 'high tech' firms. Such schemes, he says, are 'completely at odds with tax reform.'" (Jennifer Rubin, "Santorum's Problem Isn't 'Insiderism,' It's Economic Literacy," The Washington Post, 2/14/12)

The Heritage Foundation's Curtis Dubay: "Giving A Preferential Rate Is Picking Winners And Losers Through The Tax Code... The Goal Of Tax Reform Should Be A Neutral Tax Code." (Dan Hirschhorn, "Rick Loses Market Value," The Daily, 2/17/12)

Bloomberg: Santorum's Proposal Is "Reminiscent Of President Obama's Election-Year Plan..." "Santorum's hopes of reviving manufacturing employment are reminiscent of President Barack Obama's election-year plan to 'bring manufacturing back.' The president, who this week toured the Master Lock manufacturing site in Milwaukee, last month unveiled a six-pronged plan to eliminate tax incentives for companies to move offshore and create new lures for them to bring jobs home." (David J. Lynch, "Santorum Picks Own 'Winners And Losers' Even As He Chides Obama," Bloomberg, 2/17/12)

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin: "Just Like Obama, [Santorum] Thinks He Knows Best Where Investment Dollars Should Go." (Jennifer Rubin, "Not Only The Rates Matter," The Washington Post, 2/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal, On Santorum's Plan: "Watch Mr. Obama Have Fun With That One." "A similar [to Obama's] tax favoritism affects Mr. Santorum's proposal to cut the corporate tax rate in half (to 17.5%) for most companies but make it zero for manufacturers. Mr. Santorum recently defended this form of industrial policy by saying that Wal-Mart (his example) didn't warrant a zero rate because it didn't send jobs overseas. So any company that threatens to move jobs overseas should get a lower rate than a company that keeps jobs in the U.S.? Watch Mr. Obama have fun with that one. A better economic strategy would be to confer the lowest possible tax rate on all U.S. corporations, including the 89% of economic activity in America that isn't manufacturing." ("Rick Santorum's Economy," The Wall Street Journal, 1/9/12)

The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel: The Heart Of Santorum's Plan Is "A Bullet Point ... Mr. Obama Largely Agrees With." "A manufacturing tax credit isn't a campaign theme; it's a bullet point (and one, for the record, Mr. Obama largely agrees with). The opportunity for contrast is in a sharp economic message that directly challenges Democrats on class warfare, taxes and size of government." (Kimberly Strassel, "Is Santorum A Contender?" The Wall Street Journal, 2/9/12)

Isn't It Ironic — Even Santorum Himself Has Criticized President Obama For "Arrogance" In Trying "To Pick Winners And Losers":

Santorum Criticized President Obama For Having "The Arrogance To Try And Pick Winners And Losers At The Taxpayer's Expense." SANTORUM: "This behavior is nothing new from President Obama — you don't have to look any further than the failure of the green energy companies like Solyndra and Beacon Power.   President Obama had the arrogance to try and pick winners and losers at the taxpayer's expense rather than to invest in proven energy sources that are also proven job creators." (Rick Santorum, "Unleashing America's Energy," RedState, 1/27/12)

The Wall Street Journal's James Freeman: "Does This Mean The Obama Policy Would Be More Legitimate If The President Would Were Favoring A Larger Group Of Solyndras?" "I ask if his corporate tax plan opens him up to criticism that he and President Obama are both favoring particular sectors of the economy, with Mr. Santorum picking manufacturing while Mr. Obama anoints green energy. 'Oh, green energy is not a sector, I mean, come on. It's like a half-dozen companies,' says Mr. Santorum. Does this mean the Obama policy would be more legitimate if the president were favoring a larger group of Solyndras?" (James Freeman, "'Supply Sider' For The Working Man," The Wall Street Journal, 1/14/12)

Bloomberg: "Santorum Says He Doesn't Believe The U.S. Government Should Pick The Economy's 'Winners And Losers.' Except For Manufacturers. And Small Businesses. And Families." (David J. Lynch, "Santorum Picks Own 'Winners And Losers' Even As He Chides Obama," Bloomberg, 2/17/12)