"NEW YORK -- Underscoring just how hard a political lift Mitt Romney's tax reform plan would be if pursued, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Tuesday that he would be uncomfortable with any plan that cut down some of the biggest deductions.

"There will be a very helpful debate about whether things like the charitable deduction, the health insurance premium, the home interest deduction should be part of the deal," Rubio told a crowd of journalists at a Bloomberg View event. "I don't think that those, especially the home interest deduction, [reducing that] is troubling, because it really helps the middle class. Do you really want to hurt charitable giving in a country when you are saying that you want to rely less on government and more on private institutions to deal with these issues? And how are you going to raise taxes on people on their health care premiums when you are saying you want there to be a system in place where folks can have more control over their own money?"

Rubio's analysis of who benefits from these deductions is correct. It is primarily the lower and middle class. But politically, his statement throws cold water on Romney's tax reform plan. Without touching the charitable, home interest, or health care deductions, there isn't even close to enough revenue to pay for a 20-percent across the board rate cut of the kind that the Republican nominee has pledged -- even including those exemptions and deductions doesn't get you close. A recent Joint Committee on Taxation report suggested that including those exemptions and deductions would get you toward 4 percent of the cost.

Romney has held on to the idea that Congress can and will work out a solution to make his plan deficit neutral. The fact that one of his closest allies in the Senate has set a bar for what shouldn't be included underscores just how hard it would be for Congress to make the math work.

Rubio continued, insisting that the proposed tax cuts themselves would generate enough revenue to help bridge the gap.

"Here is where you get into that debate," Rubio said. "You don't dynamically score these things ... I know you are going to roll your eyes. But I am a firm believer that economic growth is generated by these things and the evidence is there."

The evidence isn't that evident, as pointed out by a number of reporters at the Bloomberg event. But, more to the point, the Tax Policy Center has analyzed the Romney plan. And even when it takes his robust estimates for growth into account, it has determined that the math still doesn't work. "

He also said that capital gains and interest will no longer be taxed. That has to be a huge amount just swept off the table.

My problem is still the whole concept of "revenue neutral". We need to bring in more money to some degree (I know we don't all agree on how much) so that we can begin to reduce the deficit without having to cut social services to ribbons. And as Rubio says, I don't think he's anywhere NEAR revenue neutral with as many things as he's taken off the table.

Remember, for the time being, now is not the time for austerity.

1. The top 5% will pay the same share they pay now.
2. The middle class will get a tax break.
3. His plan is revenue neutral.

So, can someone please explain to me how if the rich pays the same and the middle class pays less, where is the difference coming from to make it revenue neutral.

And, why does nobody directly ask him this question? I just cannot understand why he is not asked this question.

Here it is with the quotes italicised properly:

So, can someone please explain to me how if the rich pays the same and the middle class pays less, where is the difference coming from to make it revenue neutral.
Jill, that is based on higher employment numbers. Romney is basing the plan on the idea that more people will be getting back to work, so a higher number of people paying a little less tax will be revenue neutral.

In theory, it would work. In actuality, you have to get more people working first.

And, why does nobody directly ask him this question? I just cannot understand why he is not asked this question.

Because he has explained it several times. If they understand the plan, and understand that it is based on an assumption, then it's already been explained... no need to ask.

Jill, the man's assumptions and vague generalities, coupled with his insistence that the income of the wealthy not be touched, would indicate that his tax policies and deficit fixes aren't likely to work in the real world... unless you're a member of the extremely wealthy class, in which case you'll make out very well.

I heard Norquist the other day say that removing deductions is the same as raising taxes...and we know that's a no no for those who signed away their loyalty to the Country.

His view was taxes should be lowered 20% and the additional revenue created by all the new jobs that would create would fill the gap.......he really said that.

Absolutely, I agree. That's why I said it would work... in theory.

However, to be fair, all of these political plans are based on assumptions and projections. Romney is by no means some sort of pioneer into the world of assumed projections. That's the standard practice.

I still say that it is his unspoken plans to dismantle Social Security and Medicare that will help pay for the difference.

I also remember that earlier in Obama's administration, some Republicans were arguing that if we do nothing rather than pay out bail-out and stimulous monies, the economic balance will eventually straighten out itself without us having to do anything but wait. So maybe Romney thinks that by 2013-14, we will have waited long enough and he won't have to deal with any left-over problems from Dudya's damaging fiscal policies. You know--pouf! our problems will be gone on their own (sorts like the "self-deportation" solution to immigration), and Romney can lean back and comfortably take the credit.

Kate