Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Widely Criticized As Mathematically Impossible

Mitt Romney’s tax plan may have some magical underpants hidden somewhere therein, because economic experts are scratching their heads at how such a series of promises will, in concert, do all the things Romney is saying they will do if he gets elected in November.

Mitt Romney’s tax plan is big on high hopes and stunningly low on specifics — not a problem for the average voter, who is generally not clued in to the ins and outs of the tax code — but the guys who make the big bucks doing this sort of thing say that there is no fiscally feasible way what Mitt Romney says will happen can be achieved.

Bill Clinton shined a light on this issue during his barn-burner DNC speech, explaining to a cheering crowd in Charlotte that the surplus budgets achieved in his administration were solely down to one word, “arithmetic.” (Video below.) But Clinton mentioned Romney’s obfuscation on how his lofty post-election goals and hinted that his hard-sell on economics was indeed mathematically impossible during the lengthy speech.

It’s not just dyed-in-the-wool Dems that are skeptical Romney and Ryan are being entirely straightforward about their insistance that taxes would go down for everyone and that deficits would mathemagically disappear even as tax revenue plummets — it calls to mind Julian Castro’s quip during his own DNC speech, “why didn’t I think of that?!”

William G. Gale, director of economic studies for the “center-left Brookings Institution,” who co-authored a study of Romney’s tax claims, told the New York Times:

“The combination of stuff they’ve specified is not only impossible — it is impossible several times over… It’s not as if the entire philosophical approach he’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.”

Do you trust Mitt Romney’s assertion that taxes will go down on everyone, or do you think he plans to squeeze the middle-income earners a bit harder than he lets on?