Jan 6, 2012 10:11am

On Taxes, Populist Santorum Contrasts With Romney

gty rick santorum ll 120106 wblog On Taxes, Populist Santorum Contrasts With Romney
If there’s any doubt that insurgent GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is gunning for the mantle of blue-collar conservative, just take a gander at his tax plan:  Families with children would receive triple the current tax exemption, and companies that manufacture goods in America would not be taxed at all.

The populist proposals, which set him apart from his rivals, are key components of Santorum’s “faith, family and freedom” agenda that resonated in Iowa  and which he now hopes will draw blue-collar voter support in New Hampshire.

“I believe in cutting taxes. I believe in balancing budgets. … But I also believe we as Republicans have to look at those who are not doing well in our society by just cutting taxes and balancing budgets,” Santorum said Tuesday after coming within eight votes of front-runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus.

Santorum wants to overhaul the tax code to create two income tax rates – 10 percent and 28 percent – while tripling the current exemption per child and eliminating the so-called marriage tax penalty paid by many dual-wage earning couples.

“That’s a very big deal,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

“Most of the other Republican candidates are either scaling back these exemptions from what they are now, or they leave them alone. But Santorum is actually being very generous to them on the tax side,” he said.

Santorum also believes eliminating taxes on U.S. manufacturers would dramatically spur economic growth and create “millions” of jobs.  He also favors expanding the research and development tax credit from 14 to 20 percent and allowing all companies to fully expense investments in new equipment.

“People say you are only doing it for political purposes, and I say no I’m doing it because that’s where I grew up,” Santorum told a crowd in New Hampshire Thursday. “I grew up in a manufacturing town.”

“You can sort of see a pattern,” said Gleckman. “What Santorum is thinking about are less educated, more blue-collar larger families with kids. And that sort of fits with Santorum’s whole narrative, so he is in fact playing to them.”

Romney does not offer any specific tax benefits for manufacturers or families in his plan. On individual income tax rates, he favors maintaining the status quo in the short term with promises of lower tax rates in the future.

But what the Romney tax plan does not lack are “urgent” and “immediate” rate cuts for corporations across the board.

Romney proposes cutting the business tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and temporarily extending the investment tax credit and expensing allowance. He also favors a tax holiday for repatriation of foreign profits with an eventual elimination of the existing system.

An analysis of Romney’s tax plan released by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center Thursday noted that while his is more modest than the proposals of Santorum and the other candidates, it would significantly benefit the nation’s highest income earners, particularly those with ties to corporate profits, over families in the middle class.

Families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, for example, would receive an average tax cut of $1,800, or 2.7 percent, under Romney’s plan.

Those raking in more than $1 million would average $290,000 in savings, a 9.3 percent cut, compared with current law, according to TPC.

The Center has not yet conducted a formal analysis of the Santorum plan.

Experts on both sides of the aisle have leveled plenty of criticism on each candidate’s tax plan, though there is arguably more worry about what Santorum’s plan would do to the deficit because of the expanded child exemptions and special treatment for manufacturers.

“From an economics point of view, Romney’s got the more free-market upper hand as far as I’m concerned,” said Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute.

Both Edwards and Gleckman cautioned that the tax cuts proposed by the GOP candidates will require dramatic, concurrent  spending cuts to social programs to make up the difference.  Neither candidate has fully or specifically articulated details of those cuts.

And that’s what worries Edwards.

Santorum’s two-tier individual income tax plan is “exactly right,” he said. But “if you’re going to propose a two rate plan, you’re going to need to get rid of some of the hardest deductions like mortgage interest, but he wants to expand some of them. You can’t have it both ways.”

As for Santorum’s proposed  tax rate for manufacturers: “That’s terrible policy. Why should Microsoft have to pay a high rate by Intel, who manufactures chips?” Edwards said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry both favor giving taxpayers a choice of filing under the current system or paying a flat rate. They would both also trim the corporate tax rate, Gingrich to 12.5 percent and Perry to 20 percent.

SHOWS:

User Comments

Watching GMA this morning. Interesting to hear John McCain’s statement on “earmark spending is the gateway to corruption.” As a resident of Mr. McCain’s home state it is repulsive to me that he can make a statement like that since he is responsible for the most agregious earmarks in congress. For example on the Omnibus Bill his proposal for $10 million for a foundation to honor the late John Murtha (D) the “King of pork,” on capital hill. Check out McCain’s earmarks on GOP United Against Pork – Amy Kremer. As an unemployed teacher in the state of Arizona, which by the way ranks 49th or 50th in spending for education, it sickens me to hear McCain condemning earmarks when he himself is one of the biggest violators.

Posted by: Deana Vance | January 6, 2012, 10:38 am 10:38 am

lol The reason almost 50% don’t pay any federal taxes is because the republicans already raised that child deduction during Bush. This should greatly increase that. They bemoan this yet they propose to jack it up.

Posted by: lexingtonlady | January 6, 2012, 10:56 am 10:56 am

Rick Santorum and I have a lot of things in common. We both had fathers that were Italian immigrants who worked in the western Pennsylvania coal mines. I agree with him on most social issues (abortion) but not on all (gays serving in the military).

Rick Santorum is not blue collar. He has forgotten his roots.

To the coal miners, the coal companies who exploited them were the enemy. Most steel workers and coal miners in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee don’t trust CEOs and other company executives.

Now Santorum defends corporate interests over the interests of the working man. That’s why he lost his bid to continue to be the Senator from Pennsylvania. He forgot about the hard working people in this country who are part of a shrinking middle class.

Romney has always been the defender of the corporations over the middle class.

Posted by: tmferretti | January 6, 2012, 11:15 am 11:15 am

I think any responsible person that is serious about upholding their campaign promises will err on the side of caution given the $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and the serious concerns plaguing the economy.

Currently, the bigger problem is cutting red tape, creating a climate to spur private sector economic growth, incenting private sector job creation, and reducing unemployment.

Without solving this problem, a major portion of the workforce will continue to be unproductive. If that workforce which is under employed or unemployed becomes incrementally more productive, that will boost the economy and government revenues through the added economic activity.

The second biggest problem is bringing the deficit under control.

Economic growth will grow revenues and spending reductions achieved by prioritizing expenses will cut expenses.

I think that if the problem of economic growth is solved and sensible spending reductions take place in government, it will restore a balanced platform for growth that will ultimately enable more aggressive tax reductions.

However, we can’t put the cart before the horse. The most immediate concerns need to be addressed – first – and while those concerns are unresolved it is imprudent to make populist commitments which are uncosted.

Posted by: P&L Statement | January 6, 2012, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm

Seems like Mr Santorum has failed to understand basic math. Giving out more than you take in puts you in the negative.

Posted by: LordofTime | January 6, 2012, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm

P&L STATEMENT

Your post is well taken. I disagree on one issue. Now is not the time to be cautious. We need to spend like hell.

FDRs “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” addressed Americas fear to spend money. We need programs such as the WPA, CCC, TVA, etc to get people back to work.

Working people spend money creating demand which is the only driver that promotes hiring. Lower corporate taxes and de-regulation are insignificant. Companies aren’t in business to hire people; they do it when their current work force is too small produce products and services that are wanted by their customers.

Now is not the time to worry about the debt and deficit, do as President Clinton did, in good economic times, not in the middle of a recession. The republicans know this as much as we do. Their only reason for the attention to spending is to keep this slow economy going to defeat President Obama.

Posted by: tmferretti | January 6, 2012, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

So if I’m a corporation and I manufacture one thing in the U.S. while the bulk of my production is offshore or I manufacture all of the components offshore and just do a bit of final assembly in the U.S., will that allow me not to pay taxes? I think he has a bit more explaining to do. This man isn’t any more blue collar than Romney.

Posted by: Catherine | January 6, 2012, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm

Hello America, January 06 2012,
the only way you can spure economic growth is by cutting out extravigant goverment spending.
thats it.
the U.S. Goverment is a consumer of goods not a producer of goods.

where as Home owners in Ohio are so desperate for economic growth that they
are pulling out the Kitchen and Bathroom sinks to sell on Ebay, and ripping out any copper wiring,
only to be found in homes built before 1976.
sincerely Fezzy Bear

Posted by: Fezzy Bear | January 6, 2012, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm

FEZZY BEAR

Just the opposite is true; we need to spend like hell with the goal of putting more money in the pockets of the public. They will spend it, creating demand.

Lowering corporate taxes will do nothing. If I’m a business man and I see a demand for my products and expect a $3.00 per item profit and Uncle Sam comes along and says we are taking $0.20 more out in taxes and I’ll make a $2.80 profit instead of $3.00 per item, that won’t stop me from hiring to meet the demand, unless I’m extremely greedy or foolish.

Posted by: tmferretti | January 6, 2012, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm

No way the Republicans let this guy win. The GOP wants Romney. They’ll figure out a way to make it happen. Why do you think that Perry decided to stay in? Perry can’t win…. but he can dilute the votes…. and Romney can keep “Winning” with 25% of the votes until he’s the nominee.

Posted by: blip | January 6, 2012, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm

Rick Perry is the best supporter Romney has. I have no doubt they cut a deal the day after Iowa for Perry to stay in the race to dilute the conservative vote. Perry either expects a VP slot or a cabinet appointment. The proof will be to see who Perry attacks, if it’s not Romney and just the other conservative, we will know for sure.

Posted by: tmferretti | January 6, 2012, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

Rick Santorum swaggers that he is the most conservative candidate. Yet, his proposals to triple tax exemptions for some people and to eradicate taxes on corporations which manufacture in America would impel the deficit to soar.

Posted by: Todd | January 6, 2012, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm

II believe ABC is hosting the debates Saturday night. One of the ABC moderators should ask Rick Perry directly if he cut a deal with the Romney campaign to stay in the race. If anyone knows how to forward this post to ABC news, go for it, I don’t know how.

Posted by: tmferretti | January 6, 2012, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

Read my lips? Tmferretti; Perry could pull votes from Gingrich and Santorum as well.

Posted by: newcountryman | January 6, 2012, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm

Neither of them is blue collar.
How is Santorum’s plan blue collar when someone with an income of $50,000 to $75,000 will get a tax break of 2.7% tax break while someone making a million would get a 9.3% tax cut?
His whole plan would cause our deficit to grow even faster,

Posted by: Librarian53 | January 6, 2012, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm

Why else would Perry keep spending money on a fool’s errand? Romney can’t pull in large numbers of votes when Republicans are faced with alternatives… he can, however, come in first place… and that will help force the Republican voters to vote for him in the general election. Perry is a spoiler at this point. But I doubt the rank and file will even see that they are being delivered to Romney…. They will blame Obama or Ted Turner before their look at the actions of their own party with any level of critical thinking. (I mean, they blame the Democrats for the attack ads that Romney-friendly PACs were running against Newt.)

Posted by: blip | January 6, 2012, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.