No, Mitt Romney Does NOT Have ‘A $5 Trillion Tax Cut’ As Obama Repeatedly Falsely Claimed In His Miserable Debate Performance

Democrats are trying to transform the narrative from Wednesday night’s disastrous and revealing performance from Barack Obama from “Mitt Romney won the debate” to “Mitt Romney lied.”

And they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to create that false narrative.

There’s a famous Yiddish proverb that should be pointed out before the Politifact article:

“A half-truth is a whole lie”

Here’s the story, with the added caveat that Politifact is decidedly left-leaning as much as Heritage is decidedly right-leaning:

Obama says Romney’s plan is a $5 trillion tax cut
Says Mitt Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut.”
Barack Obama on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 in the first presidential debate


Early in the first presidential debate, President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney’s tax plan as unbalanced and devastating for the middle class. He charged that Romney’s plan “calls for a $5 trillion tax cut,” and challenged him to defend it.

The candidates repeatedly disagreed about that number. Four times the president spoke of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut, and four times the governor rejected it.

Obama said: “Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

Later, Romney countered: “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

Obama has talked about the $5 trillion tax cut for months. We have looked at this claim before and found it lacked important context. Here’s why.

The claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.

The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion.

The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts.

But Obama is right in pointing out that Romney has yet to specify what tax breaks he would change. The most Romney has personally said is that he might cap deductions at $17,000, but that is a broad figure and does not describe how the number would be achieved.

The impact of changing deductions on the scale needed to offset the tax cuts would be great. The largest deductions include interest on home mortgages, state and local taxes and the tax free treatment of health benefits. These are real pocketbook issues for most households and tinkering with them could have significant effects on large sectors of the economy.

Romney offers key details on the taxes he would cut. But in explaining how to pay for them, he has essentially said only that he would keep the overall tax burden the same across all income groups by changing unnamed tax breaks.

Our ruling

President Obama said Mitt Romney seeks a $5 trillion tax cut.

The $5 trillion figure accounts for only half of Romney’s plan — and it’s cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he has never said what those changes would be.

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and Romney would not fill in the gaps.
We rate the statement Half True.

So, even according to Politifact, Obama not only lied four times during the debate by deliberately concealing critical information that made his statement a lie, but he has been lying for months.

If you tell only half of the facts, and deliberately ignore the rest of the facts which, if considered, make your claim a lie, you are NOT telling “half the truth”; you are telling a whole LIE.

I have already written about how the “$5 trillion tax cut” meme that Obama trotted out REPEATEDLY in his first debate debacle was a lie.  And I explained precisely WHY it was a lie.  It’s good to see the fact checkers pointing out that it’s a lie.

We now have already documented-hard-core LIAR deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter acknowledging that the $5 trillion figure they claimed Romney was lying about is patently untrue.  And yet Obama is STILL out on the campaign trail saying over and over again what even his own campaign says is a falsehood based on blatantly distorted interpretations of Romney’s tax policy.  These are stone faced liars who call their opponents liars.

The mainstream media is out in force screaming that Mitt Romney is some kind of liar.  They’ve already helped Obama by not only advancing the narrative that Mitt Romney is a liar, but that he’ll kill your wife, too.  But as so often happens these days, the very people screaming “liar” the loudest are the worst liars of all.

You’ll have to look for the truth; and then you’ll have to do everything in your power to put the truth out there so the liars look foolish and wicked for claiming the lies.

Tags: , , , , ,

4 Responses to “No, Mitt Romney Does NOT Have ‘A $5 Trillion Tax Cut’ As Obama Repeatedly Falsely Claimed In His Miserable Debate Performance”

  1. Goldni Says:

    Michael, As usual you are spot on. Your blog is a blessing and a valuable resource for me. Please keep it up.

    I’m on Google + (wish you were) and am conversing with a liberal who always brings up the “tax cuts worked way back years ago because the rates were 90%.” I know it’s an old meme they use, but some help would be appreciated. I have some good stuff for him, but wanted your opinion.



  2. Michael Eden Says:


    I’d say the first thing I’d ask your liberal is how his or her life would be if THEIR taxes suddenly went to 90%. Then I’d demand to have your liberal explain why the government should be entitled to seize 90% of the money a person works for.

    I’d point out to your liberal that he or she is clearly not merely a statist, but a statolatrist (from Statolatry, the literal worship of the state). And in fact your friend worships the state like no religious fanatic Christian even comes CLOSE to worshiping God. I mean, look, if I believe that God created me and gave me life and made life possible, and gave me the sun and the means for all sustenance, I STILL AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD THEREFORE GIVE OUR GOD 90 PERCENT OF EVERYTHING WE EARN. You start to see how crazy your liberal friend is with worship of his god. Because here your friend says, “My God, the State, is the giver and taker of everything, ye owe thy government EVERYTHING and all ye infidels shall now bow down before my God or feel his unholy wrath.” I mean, if only the Christian fundamentalists liberals mock were this hard-core about serving their God, just imagine how different the world would be.

    It’s really pretty amazing. What’s the tithe that God requested for His blessing? Ten percent, right, that’s what “tithe” means. But your liberal is such a rabid religious fanatic that he or she has turned that upside down. You don’t owe your god a mere tenth; you owe your god the inverted tithe of NINETY FREAKING PERCENT. We are talking about a level of fanatic religious devotion that is beyond insane here.

    You might want to take a look at this article I previously wrote. And particularly notice that passage I cite in 1 Samuel chapter 8 where the people demand a king (in PLACE of God) and God warns them of the king: “He will take.” SIX TIMES God says to characterize evil life under a king, “He will TAKE.” Your liberal friend is a person who says that that which is evil is good and that which is good is evil.

    I wrote another article titled, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.” You might want to read through that to better understand why low taxes actually INCREASE revenues. When Ronald Reagan began his presidency, the top rate was over 70% and we collected $956 billion in revenue. He lowered the rates and revenues massively increased.

    When was the top marginal tax rate last 90%? It was in 1963. How much revenue were we raising? Not much.

    Which is why this headline from Bloomberg on Obama’s failure makes sense:

    State Tax Revenue in U.S. Drops Most Since 1963, Study Says

    Tax revenues dropped the most under tax-demagogue Obama who has CONSTANTLY been threatening that he would raise taxes such that the wealthy never knew what he would do next since the last time tax rates were sky high back in 1963. You see that, right? We haven’t failed this badly to collect revenues since the income tax rate was where liberals most cherish it having been back in 1963.

    Your liberal friend is too stupid to understand what John F. Kennedy (who would be a conservative REPUBLICAN today) repeatedly said about the drastic need to cut tax rates in order to raise more revenue:

    “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


    “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

    “In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


    “It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


    “Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


    “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

    The British have already discovered that higher tax rates actually guarantees LOWER tax revenue. And the French are about to find out themselves as the rich flee France and take their capital investment that creates jobs and builds economies elsewhere.

    If you go back and learn about what Kennedy was saying and why he was saying it about the high tax rates, he was arguing that America was in a war for its very existence with the USSR. And in order for America to prevail, we had to unleash our economy so we could out-compete the Soviet Union. And we could only do that by reducing our tax rate and thus generating more revenue by encouraging more investment and harder work by allowing people to keep more of what they earned.

    Let’s say that you’re a rich investor or business owner, Goldni. Let’s say you are an investor, first. If you invest a large sum in a new business, you could lose big, right? The business could fold and you’re out everything. But let’s say that you strike gold. Lucky you. You get to keep 10% of your profit. You lose it all if you lose, you keep 10% if you win. So how much are you going to invest in this game? Me, I’m not investing squat because it’s a rigged game that I can lose huge but I can never win big. Or let’s say I own a couple of restaurants. Well, I could open a few more, hire more workers, produce more revenue, but damn that’s a lot of extra work, and how much money am I going to get assuming my restaurants succeed? Why, a whopping ten percent of all the money I earned. This is the ultimate mindset of “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made it happen.” And I’ll tell you what, Goldni, I’ll listen to Obama here: let SOMEBODY ELSE build that business, because I’M SURE AS HELL NOT GOING TO until this fool is out of office and my tax rates will stay low so I can earn the profit I work so hard and risk so much for.

    Given that in FACT high income taxes not only DON’T raise more revenue but actually raise LESS revenue, we see what liberals really want: they want their god the State to have more and more raw power and more raw control over the people’s lives. That’s the only possible explanation.

  3. FMC Says:

    Recently, when I heard the French were raising their tax rates ( top marginal rate to 75% I think), I immediately said to myself that that was the death knell. Unless, they lower it back to sane levels, you will be seeing the end of France. That is the most stupid move they could of done, complete idiots! The same thing, to a certain extent, is happening right now in California, where taxes and liberal policies are driving business and investors to more friendly states. I am sure you are well aware of the trend in your state, Michael.

    As far as Romney claiming the 5 trillion would be offset by closing the loopholes and deductions, would the lower tax rate still help stimulate the economy and help the government bring in more money? For some reason, I thought I heard him state his reason for doing this, but I cannot remember.

    Regardless of what Obama and the liberals say, the government does not really have a revenue problem but a spending problem. I would really like Romney if he would seriously shrink government. The Feds take in roughly 2.3 trillion per year which should be enough for them to operate. I think the the tax rate really should be 10% – wishful thinking, heh!

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    Re: France and it’s massive tax hike on the wealthy, this is an example of something I’ve observed about the very worst of liberal policies: you don’t get to see the pain right away. We’ve got this idiotic new rate now; but it’s not like tomorrow the French will notice their revenue collections drop. We won’t get to see it until France’s taxes come due the way our taxes come due on or about April 15 and the revenues are tallied. Yeah, they’ll collect less revenue, JUST AS THE DAMN BRITISH NOTICED BY EMPERICAL TRIAL AND ERROR and just as a lot of states with high state tax rates keep finding out. But it of course will be far worse than mere lowered revenues; it will be dramatically reduced economic activity which undermines the entire economy.

    The thing about liberals is that they are truly stupid people. It’s not that they are intellectually stupid; their stupidity is far worse than that. Liberals are morally stupid people. Morally stupid people invariably prefer lies to the truth and cherish depraved worldviews that make it utterly impossible for them to understand the world as it actually is. And that makes them capable of far greater stupidity than mere lack of brainpower can ever manifest.

    I point that out because the luxury tax that liberals passed under Clinton would have proved once and for all that high taxes on the rich are counter-productive.

    We can go back to when the damn tax was passed. Someone in the boat industry said that it would gut the entire industry and cost 600,000 jobs if it wasn’t repealed.

    Sure enough, as people started to suffer the guaranteed results of the moral idiocy of liberals, there began to be a movement in the House and Senate (both Democrat controlled at the time) to repeal the abomination that Democrats had passed.

    Now read about this thing. It says, “In theory…” Ask yourself, “In WHOSE theory?” And the answer is in the same depraved dumbasses’ theories who have THE SAME DAMN DUMBASS THEORY AGAIN NOW:

    Luxury Tax Is Sinking Boat Industry
    June 12, 1991|By STEVE WATERS, Outdoors Writer

    In theory, the idea of a luxury tax on new boats costing more than $100,000 made perfect sense to the politicians who came up with it.

    In practice, the luxury tax stinks.

    “The tax took aim at the rich and hit the little guy right in the wallet,“ said Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fort Lauderdale.

    The luxury tax was a last-minute addition to a federal budget deficit reduction bill passed last October. The tax was supposed to raise about $3 million this year. What its proponents never considered was that the tax would put people out of work. The loss of corporate and income taxes, along with unemployment compensation, could add up to $60 million.

    According to figures compiled by the Marine Industries Association of South Florida (MIASF) comparing the first quarter of 1991 with the first quarter of 1990 among local dealers and manufacturers, the number of new boats sold is down 73 percent, new boat sales volume is down more than $59 million, or 87.8 percent, and 385 employees have lost their jobs. The estimated sales tax revenue loss for Florida is $3.5 million.

    State figures indicate 5,400 of 18,800 boat workers have lost their jobs. That`s more than $9 million in lost wages monthly. For the United States, the National Marine Manufacturers Association predicts 19,000 workers will lose their jobs because of the luxury tax.

    “It was put in the bill for political reasons more than anything else,“ Shaw said of the tax. “It was a way for Congress to say they were gouging the rich. It was done, incidentally, without any hearings or careful thought.“


    The only difference is that NOW liberals want to gut the ENTIRE ECONOMY with their class warfare politics rather than just the yacht industry.

    And here’s an analysis looking back at this act of class-warfare demon-possessed idiocy.

    The man who waste his time trying to explain economics to liberals is as foolish as the man who tries to explain nuclear physics to a cockroach. Because liberals are stupid people who are utterly determined to remain stupid. You might as well try to persuade Lucifer to give up being evil and recognize the error of his ways; it’s just not going to happen. Because the same evil that permeates Lucifer is the same damn evil that owns liberals and they are determined to follow their master to hell and take as many ignorant morons with them as they possibly can.

    It makes me sick to see what these fools do not only to the country but to the poor people they deceitfully say they’re trying to help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: