海角大神

In the recent contretemps over Mitt Romney鈥檚 tax plan, some Romney partisans have asserted that the Massachusetts governor鈥檚 revenue plank mimics the tax elements of the deficit reduction plan proposed in 2010 by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the chairs of President Obama鈥檚听deficit fiscal commission.

This claim is absurd. These two proposals could hardly be more different.听

True, both propose a significant across-the-board rate cut听on ordinary income. But after that, their tax plans have about as much in common as Infected Mushroom and the New York Philharmonic. True, they both play music, but after that鈥�.

The Bowles-Simpson tax reform was fundamentally a trillion-dollar tax increase designed to help cut the deficit, while Romney flatly opposes any deficit-reducing tax hike. Bowles and Simpson would have raised taxes on capital gains and dividends, Romney would cut them. Bowles and Simpson included very specific proposals for eliminating popular tax preferences. Romney is largely silent on how he鈥檇 broaden the tax base to pay for his rate cuts.

But none of those inconvenient facts slow those who would caricature Bowles-Simpson to make a political point. Here, for instance, is the听Wall Street Journal鈥檚听听on the matter:听

鈥淭he Romney plan of cutting the top tax rate to 28% and closing loopholes to pay for it is conceptually very close to what Simpson-Bowles recommended鈥�.If Mr. Romney鈥檚 numbers don鈥檛 add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction.鈥�

To see how wrong this is, let鈥檚 look in a bit more detail at what the two plans would听:

The goal: Bowles and Simpson wanted to听鈥攂y about $1 trillion over 10 years. Cutting the deficit was their primary goal and, to them, it required a mix of both spending cuts and听. Romney鈥檚 aim could not be more different. 听He鈥檇 slash the deficit entirely through largely-unspecified spending reductions and not raise taxes at all. Indeed, he鈥檇 start by making the 2001-2003 tax cut permanent, then follow听up with a tax reform that generates the same amount of revenue as today鈥檚 tax rules. 听

Tax Rates: Here there is some similarity, at least at first glance. Romney would keep six brackets but cut all rates by 20 percent across the board. He鈥檇 repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and the estate tax. 听Bowles and Simpson proposed three reform options, but the version they thought most likely would have three brackets of 12 percent, 22 percent, and 28 percent. They鈥檇 repeal the AMT but would retain the estate tax. 听听

Capital gains and dividends. 听Bowles and Simpson would tax gains and dividends at the same rate as ordinary income. Romney would make all gains and dividends tax-free for those making $200,000 or less, and set a rate of just 15 percent for everyone else.听 The听Journal听thinks these are conceptually very close? And I thought the听闯辞耻谤苍补濒鈥檚听editorial page had no sense of humor.

Base-broadeners.听Romney has refused to disclose what tax preferences he鈥檇 reduce or eliminate. Top aides hint at an across-the-board reduction in the value of tax breaks for some high-income households, but don鈥檛 explain how that would work. By contrast, Bowles and Simpson explicitly described how they鈥檇 distribute the pain. They鈥檇 eliminate, cap, or restructure almost every tax preference鈥攊ncluding the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and the deduction for charitable gifts. In their 28 percent option, they described exactly how: They鈥檇 retain low-income credits, turn the mortgage and charitable deductions into credits etc. This candor was likely a major reason why their plan died.

Feel free to love Romney鈥檚 tax plan or hate it. But beware of politicians and their friends who听听it and Bowles-Simpson are the same thing. They are not.