Stay Connected

President Obama’s Deficit Plan Builds on Simpson-Bowles’ Balanced Recommendations; Romney’s Plan Is Fundamentally Incompatible

Mitt Romney's tax and fiscal plan is fundamentally incompatible with Simpson-Bowles or any responsible approach to deficit reduction. Simpson-Bowles and the President’s plans would reduce the deficit. The Romney plan would explode it.

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Romney again tried to link his own tax and fiscal plan with the recommendations of the President's Simpson-Bowles budget commission.

President Obama has proposed a specific plan that takes a balanced approach to reduce the deficit and stabilize the national debt similar to that advocated by Simpson-Bowles.

  • Same Framework: It embraces Simpson-Bowles’ fundamental philosophy – a balanced approach that finds specific cuts and savings across the budget, asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share, includes a revenue contribution, and protects key investments in our future and programs for vulnerable Americans.
  • More Savings in Annual Domestic Spending: It includes more savings in annual domestic spending than recommended by Simpson-Bowles. Already enacted, they will reduce annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years.
  • Savings from Smart, Responsible Reforms: More savings would come from reforming Medicare, Medicaid, agriculture subsidies, federal worker retirement and the postal service – incorporating elements of the Simpson-Bowles report.

Mitt Romney’s budget plans are fundamentally incompatible with Simpson-Bowles.

  • Unbalanced: He refuses to ask the wealthiest Americans to contribute even one more dollar to help reduce the deficit, even if every dollar in revenue would be matched with $10 in cuts. Instead he would cut taxes for wealthy taxpayers like himself by 25 percent while raising taxes on 18 million Americans.
  • Doesn’t Add Up: He has described tax cuts that would explode the deficit by $5 trillion, but refuses to describe a single reform or loophole he’d close to pay for it.
  • More Spending: Independent analysts say his defense buildup could cost another $2 trillion, even though it’s not backed by a clear national security strategy.
  • Shortchanges Key Investments: He supports the cuts to domestic programs from the House Republican budget, which would be far deeper than Simpson-Bowles, jeopardizing investments in our future and protections for the most vulnerable.