My analysis of Romney's 5 point plan (some people think it's publication worthy!)

[Switchgear]

Mitt mentioned his 5 point plan early and often during the debates. Since I can't remember a single detail about The Plan, I figured it would be worthwhile to see what exactly is in The Plan. On the Mitt Romney website main page, just above the "How much money are you going to give me?" portion, there's text at the top of the page, "Read Mitt's Five Point Plan", which directs to http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan. On this page you get an "Introduction" pane, a "Full Plan" pane, a "One Pager" ( I guess Executive Summary is out of fashion now), an "Accountability Scorecard", and another chance to donate, in case you missed the absurdly in your face initial money plea.

So, the meat of the Introduction.

Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices. America’s economy will boom when the billions of dollars we send overseas for our oil are kept here at home instead.

So when we start drilling all the oil and gas and stuff, and we're importing less, that will cause oil, gas, natural gas and all the rest to be less expensive, right?

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_2.pdf

Not so much. Energy imports have been dropping since 2007. I haven't seen any lower prices, other than when the economy tanked. Imports rose from 1985 to 2005. In 1999 oil was $10 per barrel. OPEC decided that was too cheap, cut back production, and oil prices increased by a factor of 10.

We produced about 10 million barrels per day at our peak, now it's about 6 million.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

Note that the chart is in thousands of barrels per day.

OPEC produces 30 million barrels per day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-opec-oil-survey-idUSBRE87T0QB20120830

5 times our current production. I don't see us producing enough oil to affect prices to any real degree. I'll call this point wishful thinking and leave it at that.

Part two of the plan is trade that works for America. Mitt believes that trade can offer enormous opportunities for American businesses and workers, but only if they are given a level playing field on which they can compete and win. That is why he will work to open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs.

Trade war with China. Ok. I'd like to hear what new markets he's planning to open. This is completely devoid of detail.

Part three is to provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

Better schools. Hard to argue with that. But again, how?

Part four is to cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

Who doesn't want the debt "under control". I'd like to see what that means to him. 500 Billion dollar deficits? Who knows?

Finally, part five of Mitt’s plan is to champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

Lower tax rates for all. Awesome. So, short version, drilling, tariffs, better schools, less deficit and lower tax rates for all Americans. 3 and 5 work directly against 4, 1 won't do anything and 2 will cost people more money. This plan is a mess.

Hey, maybe the Full Plan has stuff that isn't in the introduction.

http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan

Let's see. Well, the first three pages are a litany of what Obama has done wrong. Which is pretty much everything, according to The Plan. Finally, on page 4, it's time to talk about what Romney is going to do better. First off, he mentions "broadly shared prosperity". I like the sound of that, but I can't imagine it sits well with some of his constituency.

Okay, actual detail time.

-Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

o Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by 2016.

Hmm. Here's a chart I just whipped up.

We're spending 40% of GDP currently. To get to 20%, we would either have to cut spending in half, double GDP, or some combination thereof. I'll go out on a limb and say that isn't likely to happen. Also, unless you believe the crisis started in 1940, they have their facts completely wrong. Good job, Team Romney.

-Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

o Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporate income tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.

o Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

Broaden it to where? Canada? Assuming for a moment that this is all adds up, if we're going to collect the same amount of money, what's the point in changing the rates?

-Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability

There's a bullet point here that lists cutting back Social Security and Medicare to wealthy old people. I can see why he isn't exactly trumpeting this part of The Plan. I bet it would upset a lot of his key demographic. Still, I'll give him points here, that's by far the most sound part of The Plan I've seen yet.

-Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations

I like government to be as local as possible. I guess the thinking is things will operate more efficiently if done locally. "Give us less money, please" said no government agency, at any level, ever.

-Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation

I guess that's the GDP growth plan. Repeal whatever regulation doesn't conform to this undefined standard. I totally believe they'll be judicious with regulation cuts.

The rest of it is even more about how bad Obama's policies have been, and sources for their assertions. One source of note:

Separate research by Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of Humboldt University concurs: “Our key finding is that the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a deficit-financed tax cut and that long-term costs of fiscal expansion through government spending are probably greater than the short-term gains.”

Deficit financed tax cut? How the hell did that slip in there? This tax cut will be revenue neutral, I tells ya.

Ok, now the "One Pager".

This is like the Introduction, but with more bullets. Some lowlights:

-Eliminate regulations destroying the coal industry

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0926/War-on-coal-Why-Obama-might-not-be-industry-s-worst-enemy

Coal-fired power plants and coal mines are being shuttered at an unprecedented pace mainly because the price of natural gas has dropped so far that it has made coal power uncompetitive. Specifically, electricity from natural gas power plants comes at less than half the cost of electricity from coal generators.

Mitt is planning to increase our energy production. It's all through The Plan. If it works, oil and natural gas will be even cheaper, right? How pissed will coal miners be when they are completely shut down?

-Skills to succeed.

Even though we're cutting government spending, we'll have better schools. Don't ask how, just accept it.

-Cut the deficit

Cut non-security discretionary funding 5 percent. So everything but defense spending drops 5 percent on day one. Including education?

So this:

Government Pensions $1.1 trillion

Government Health Care $1.1 trillion

Government Education $0.9 trillion

National Defense $0.9 trillion

Government Welfare $0.6 trillion

All Other Spending $1.6 trillion

Total Government Spending $6.4 trillion

Federal Deficit $0.9 trillion

becomes this:

Government Pensions $1.045 trillion

Government Health Care $1.045 trillion

Government Education $0.855 trillion

National Defense $0.9 trillion

Government Welfare $0.57 trillion

All Other Spending $1.52 trillion

Total Government Spending $5.935 trillion

Federal Deficit $0.435 trillion

We can cut the deficit in half, but who knows what effect that 5% almost across the board cut will have. People won't mind having their pension, health care, education, welfare, and everything else but defense the government does, cut 5%.

-Align compensation of federal workers with their private-sector counterparts

Since this is in a section about reducing the deficit, I guess that means they think this will lower federal salaries.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/177/3085581/Pay-gap-between-government-private-sector-widens-to-34-percent

The gap in pay between federal employees and private-sector workers has jumped 8 percentage points since last year, according to new data presented at a Federal Salary Council meeting Friday.

On average, federal employees earn 34 percent less than their private-sector counterparts, according to the council's analysis.

Let's see if we can get that 34 percent up to 50 percent or so. Boom, balanced budget.

-Champion Small Business

-Protect workers and businesses from strong-arm labor union tactics

Going after labor unions? They're about as weak as they've ever been due to the decline in manufacturing.

The unemployment problem is to a degree the death knell of the labor union:

There was a time in this country when you could provide for a family without a college education. Unionized factory workers made decent money. That time has passed, because manufacturing is either automated or overseas for the most part. I don't see anything in this plan that will address the problem. I don't know that there is anything that can address the problem.

-Replace Obamacare with real health care reform that controls cost and improves care.

Death panels? I can only speculate, as there is zero detail.

Finally, there's an arrow based "How am I doing" card, so we can all hold Mitt accountable.

They helpfully made all of Obama's arrows red, so you know he's bad, and all of Mitt's green. Very convenient. Not a number to be found on this chart, but it's overflowing with accountability.

Well, I've gone on for quite a while. Here's a quick summary for the TL;DR crowd: This plan blows.

[chipwhich]

And then there is the US national debt.

You can sling meaningless articles, meanwhile our debt is out of control.

So do you stay with the current policy, or look for other options. That is really the question.

[Switchgear]

And then there is the US national debt.

You can sling meaningless articles, meanwhile our debt is out of control.

So do you stay with the current policy, or look for other options. That is really the question.

I popped this out in about an hour, hour and a half tonight after looking at Romney's plan. So I guess I'm flattered you think it's an article. Maybe I should submit it? I bet Fox News would post it to their website.

Our debt is out of control. Romney so far has proposed cutting non-defense government spending by 5%. That would cut the deficit in half if everything stayed the same. But then, how many foreclosures would happen to people who are just barely making it now on their pension, or with medical bills, or the plethora of other things covered by government spending. Hell, if 5% will cut the deficit in half, let's cut 10%. No more deficit! I should run for president.

If elected I'm going to buy everyone in America the muscle car of their choice. But I'll make it deficit neutral. No details, of course.

[twa]

don't have time for much, but oil and NG are not what are killing coal...it remains the cheapest energy option w/o externals

You don't seem to factor in what we outsource as far as money spent on importing oil,which is considerable even in a weak economy

Opening up domestic options that exist cannot hurt,it either drives prices down or increases jobs,tax base and revenues....either is a win

[China]

So when we start drilling all the oil and gas and stuff, and we're importing less, that will cause oil, gas, natural gas and all the rest to be less expensive, right?

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_2.pdf

Not so much. Energy imports have been dropping since 2007. I haven't seen any lower prices, other than when the economy tanked. Imports rose from 1985 to 2005. In 1999 oil was $10 per barrel. OPEC decided that was too cheap, cut back production, and oil prices increased by a factor of 10.

We produced about 10 million barrels per day at our peak, now it's about 6 million.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

Note that the chart is in thousands of barrels per day.

OPEC produces 30 million barrels per day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-opec-oil-survey-idUSBRE87T0QB20120830

5 times our current production. I don't see us producing enough oil to affect prices to any real degree. I'll call this point wishful thinking and leave it at that.

You indicate our production is at 6 million barrels. This source indicates we are closer to 10 and may increase to more than 11 next year. However, I (and they) agree with your premise that prices don't necessarily drop when domestic production increases.

Increase in U.S. Oil Production Won't Lower Gas Prices

AP reports that the United States is on track for a 7 percent increase in oil production this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. And the U.S. Department of Energy is forecasting that U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons will average 11.4 million barrels per day in 2013. AP says that would be a new record and would fall just below Saudi Arabia's output of 11.6 million barrels per day.

More bullish forecasts come from Citibank, whose analysts say U.S. oil production could reach 13 to 15 million barrels per day by 2020. But—here comes the rain on the parade—the United States is still expected to continue to import plenty of oil in the years ahead because we're consuming 18.7 million barrels per day.

Regrettably, AP reminds us that the increase in production hasn't translated into cheaper gasoline and it's not likely to, either. They say U.S. gas prices are expected to remain relatively high because of growing demand for oil in China, India, and other developing nations.

[Springfield]

Very well written post and I agree with much of what you've said. You did a swell job of trying to actually make sense out of Romney's plan. The problem is that it doesn't.

The revenue neutral part is the most troubling. Romney will take your child tax, your mortgage interest deduction and more. I can say this with as much certainty as Romney supporters say he won't because there are NO details. Also, tax revenues won't increase because its revenue neutral, meaning zero growth on the economy as result of this tax plan. Hell, Herman Cain's tax plan had more substance. Romney's plan is snake oil in its purest form.

I refuse to vote for a snake oil salesman.

[TheGoodBits]

Well done analysis, appreciate the effort.

[skinsmarydu]

If elected I'm going to buy everyone in America the muscle car of their choice. But I'll make it deficit neutral. No details, of course.

I'd like a 1970 Chevelle please.

[CrabR]

Not cutting defense is a joke. We are already spending more than the next 12 countries combined. Get rid of contractors that do the same jobs as soldiers do yet make 10 times as much

[EBoz]

Not cutting defense is a joke. We are already spending more than the next 12 countries combined. Get rid of contractors that do the same jobs as soldiers do yet make 10 times as much

First, let me say very nice OP. Very well thought out.

As for getting rid of contractors. This is not the answer. In the long run it's much cheaper to have a contractor (which I am by the way) to perform the duties of a military member. Contractors are put in place for a specific task in most cases. Usually when this task is complete the contractor is let go. The expense of insurance, educational benefits, logistics and housing costs for military members exceeds the difference in pay rate that a contractor receives. When you add all these things up its way more expensive to pay a military member over a contractor.

[Elessar78]

And then there is the US national debt.

You can sling meaningless articles, meanwhile our debt is out of control.

So do you stay with the current policy, or look for other options. That is really the question.

Chip, his point is that the Romney guy has NO plan, has NO clue what he's going to do. The guy is pretty much banking on the fact that his base doesn't actually look at the contradicitons in his published plan. But this isn't an election about ideas, it's just about how much do you hate Obama for no discernible reason.

[Larry]

The revenue neutral part is the most troubling. Romney will take your child tax, your mortgage interest deduction and more. I can say this with as much certainty as Romney supporters say he won't because there are NO details. Also, tax revenues won't increase because its revenue neutral, meaning zero growth on the economy as result of this tax plan. Hell, Herman Cain's tax plan had more substance. Romney's plan is snake oil in its purest form.

I refuse to vote for a snake oil salesman.

I will point out that getting rid if things like the child tax credit isn't the only thing hypothetical "thing that Romney isn't saying" that his plan might include.

Another (IMO plausible) possibility is that his plan consists of "hand out big honkin tax cuts to the rich, don't bother getting rid of deductions, when the deficit gets bigger, deny and deflect, and hope that, a few years down the road, the economy grows enough so that nominal revenues equal what they equal now, and then claim that if, in 2016, revenues equal 2012 revenues, then his tax cut was 'revenue neutral',

In short, he intends to turn in a future where the economy grows, revenues increase, and the deficit gets smaller, into a future where the economy grows, the rich get more tax cuts, revenues stay the same, the deficit gets bigger, and we blame poor people for it.

Or, Trickle Down, version 3.0.

[Elessar78]

don't have time for much, but oil and NG are not what are killing coal...it remains the cheapest energy option w/o externals

You don't seem to factor in what we outsource as far as money spent on importing oil,which is considerable even in a weak economy

Opening up domestic options that exist cannot hurt,it either drives prices down or increases jobs,tax base and revenues....either is a win

Switchgear and I both live in the heart of Marcellus Shale country, as I'm sure you live in an area with gas or oil. Drives prices down? Sure our natural gas costs here have gone down but what else has gone down in price? Nothing really.

A handful of people with land made some decent money from leasing mineral rights, but has that bumped the local economy or regional economy in a meaningful way? Not in any appreciable way. Jobs? The gas companies have "imported" a lot of workers from Louisiana and Texas to work the gas fields here, so again, so much for boosting employment. Oh, they have training programs to enable people to get these jobs but is there a point when the workers are already here and have experience over a noob?

The best part about it is that these imported workers have turned out to be world-class citizens (please don't miss the sarcasm) so our nice rural area is infested with ruffians.

Sure the gov't sees some taxes from the operation but it remains to be seen what impact it will have for the rest of us.

[MattFancy]

Nice analysis OP. But it's pretty much what I thought, Mitt has no real plan.

[Larry]

Chip, his point is that the Romney guy has NO plan, has NO clue what he's going to do. The guy is pretty much banking on the fact that his base doesn't actually look at the contradicitons in his published plan. But this isn't an election about ideas, it's just about how much do you hate Obama for no discernible reason.

I think you missed chip's point.

His point is that the debt went up under Obama.

Granted, the ONLY way it could possibly have NOT gone up, would have been if Obama could have turned the biggest deficit in our nation's history (in nominal dollars. I think in terms of GDP, we ran bigger deficits during WW2), into a balanced budget, THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE.

I guess that's better than the folks saying he raised the deficit (he didn't), raised unemployment (he didn't), raised spending (he didn't), shrank the economy (he didn't), took away our gun rights (he didn't), and raised taxes (he didn't).

But hey, at least complaining that Obama did not have a magic wand is at least factual.

[Monte51Coleman]

Romney's plan?

Whatever you want it to be. He believes what you believe.

Just ask him.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Romney is like the kid in my 8th grade school president race who promised to bring Joe Gibbs and the Redskins to the school so that everyone could meet them. It worked on 8th graders... guess how many redskins came to school that year to meet the kids.

[Koolblue13]

Romney is like the kid in my 8th grade school president race who promised to bring Joe Gibbs and the Redskins to the school so that everyone could meet them. It worked on 8th graders... guess how many redskins came to school that year to meet the kids.

4?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

4?

A little less than 4.

[twa]

Switchgear and I both live in the heart of Marcellus Shale country, as I'm sure you live in an area with gas or oil. Drives prices down? Sure our natural gas costs here have gone down but what else has gone down in price? Nothing really.

A handful of people with land made some decent money from leasing mineral rights, but has that bumped the local economy or regional economy in a meaningful way? Not in any appreciable way. Jobs? The gas companies have "imported" a lot of workers from Louisiana and Texas to work the gas fields here, so again, so much for boosting employment. Oh, they have training programs to enable people to get these jobs but is there a point when the workers are already here and have experience over a noob?

The best part about it is that these imported workers have turned out to be world-class citizens (please don't miss the sarcasm) so our nice rural area is infested with ruffians.

Sure the gov't sees some taxes from the operation but it remains to be seen what impact it will have for the rest of us.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/24/fracking-brings-manufacturing-back-to-rust-belt/

it would be interesting to see what the present economy would be w/o the boost from expanded domestic production, but if you don't want or need a stimulus that pays for itself it is your choice.....some people don't need a job or ruffians.

[Thiebear]

I've seen a 200% increase in Chickens in the neighborhood yards. Is that in a pamphlet?

"Dirty Butt" is what a chicken looks like in the front yard ..... (or good Call of duty name).

You won't have to raise your own nuggets and eggs!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've seen a 200% increase in Chickens in the neighborhood yards. Is that in a pamphlet?

"Dirty Butt" is what a chicken looks like in the front yard ..... (or good Call of duty name).

You won't have to raise your own nuggets and eggs!

:whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows:

[Elessar78]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/24/fracking-brings-manufacturing-back-to-rust-belt/

it would be interesting to see what the present economy would be w/o the boost from expanded domestic production, but if you don't want or need a stimulus that pays for itself it is your choice.....some people don't need a job or ruffians.

That's the thing, the economy is the same as it was. Natural gas hasn't had that much impact locally, not in real income or tangential benefits. Interesting to note that during the recession my county was either the only one or one of the few that experienced positive jobs growth in the last four years and it had nothing to do with natural gas drilling—these were high tech jobs.

[twa]

That's the thing, the economy is the same as it was. Natural gas hasn't had that much impact locally, not in real income or tangential benefits. Interesting to note that during the recession my county was either the only one or one of the few that experienced positive jobs growth in the last four years and it had nothing to do with natural gas drilling—these were high tech jobs.

that seems strange,but perhaps wealth is not a problem there

it certainly seems to be a hit out San Antonio way and in ND,even in E Texas my cousins are happy as a pig in a peach orchard.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Romney is like the kid in my 8th grade school president race who promised to bring Joe Gibbs and the Redskins to the school so that everyone could meet them. It worked on 8th graders... guess how many redskins came to school that year to meet the kids.

President Obama is no different with making promises that he can not keep? Didn't the President say that at the end of first term that he would cut the deficit by half or close Gitmo?