KEITH OLBERMANN: The four Republican candidates' tax plans coming under scrutiny from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a day after the president had put out his own plan, and the president looking to lower most corporate tax rates to 28 percent while dropping manufacturer's tax rates to 25 percent.
As for the fiscally responsible Republicans, U.S. Budget Watch — a project of the Committee for a Responsible Budget — taking a middle path in evaluating its proposals, saying that Newt Gingrich's plan would add seven trillion to the national debt by the year 2021. Santorum's plan would tack on four trillion plus. Business wizard Mitt Romney's plan would only cost another $250 billion in extra debt, while Ron Paul's plan would actually cut 2.2 trillion in debt, mostly by slashing entitlements and the State Department and eliminating no fewer than five other federal departments.
For more on the president's plan and the would-be Republican budgeteers, I'm joined by the former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now professor at Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and the author of "After Shock: the Next Economy and America's Future." Thank you for your time again tonight, sir.
ROBERT REICH: Good evening, Keith.
OLBERMANN: You blogged today that, "Corporations don't need a tax cut, so why is Obama proposing one?" I believe, to sum it up, the president's argument was something to do with international competitiveness, but since, as you described, the corporations are almost literally rolling in cash, why is the president proposing to cut their taxes when the public gradient on this is certainly tilting against anything favoring any corporation under any circumstances?
REICH: Well, it's hard to figure out, Keith. Again, we have this big budget deficit, and we've got to deal with it, somehow, in the out years. Corporations are rolling in money. Corporation — corporate tax revenues, as a percentage of total tax revenues, are down to about 10 percent. They were — they were 33 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. So it's hard to understand why the president feels compelled to reduce corporate tax rates.
Nobody's out there — and, certainly in the Democratic base or among independents — saying, "you have got to reduce corporate tax rates."
Now, the cynic would say he's doing it because, after all, there are a lot of campaign contributions coming in from big corporations and CEOs. I don't — I'm not that — quite that cynical, Keith.
I think there are people in the Treasury Department that say, essentially, we ought to rationalize the tax system, get rid of some of the loopholes, make it revenue neutral, some of the "good government" types, and I think there are also some political advisers to the president saying, "Let's take away an issue that the Republicans are going to try to nail you with in the general election," which is corporate taxes being too high relative to our international competitors. Well, to me, those are not very good reasons, but nevertheless, that's what we have.
OLBERMANN: Could the argument be made that it looks pretty bad that, perhaps, there is some sort of quid pro quo because we've had, in the last week, these quotes from Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, to New York Magazine, about, "Sure, let's have threshold increases for tax rates — personal tax rates — of more than a million, of more than 10 million. Let's make sure no one can inherit the full riches of the father." The Wall Street Journal saying Congress should pass laws that would break up the big banks. It certainly does seem suspicious that that would be followed up by a presidential plan to reduce corporate taxes.
REICH: Well, it's a little odd, particularly — not only given everything you've just said, but remember that wonderful speech the president made on December 6th in Kansas, in which he set out the big challenge in the future being overcoming widening inequality, a plutocracy at the top that's taking more and more of the national gains, and making democracy stronger by building the middle class and, obviously, dealing with other problems that the nation has.
So I would hope — I mean, maybe — I hope this is an aberration, Keith. I really — I hope the president goes on to really — to come up with a set of proposals that make his words in Kansas, in December, the kind of words that really have content in this election season.
OLBERMANN: On the other side of this — the Santorum and Romney and Gingrich plans that would actually add billions, in some case trillions, to the deficit. Obviously, they don't expect people who can do the math to be reading their proposals. They just want to hear the words. They don't want to check it out. They don't want to hit the link. They do not want read the details. They don't want to do the math. But, having left this material on the battlefield, isn't each one of those plans exactly what the president would need in that future debate against whoever it is against on the budget?
REICH: Oh, absolutely. I mean, these — you know, because they are cutting taxes on the wealthy, they are cutting corporate taxes much more than the president is proposing, they are going to be creating — according to nonpartisan groups — I mean, this report that you referred to is a nonpartisan group. They are known for just, you know, playing it absolutely straight, and they are showing gigantic — I mean, six, seven trillion dollar deficits as a result — or four or five, six trillion dollar deficits — as a result of these gigantic tax cuts, you know, again, at a time when you've got a budget deficit hanging over everybody's head.
It is the utter irresponsibility of these Republicans.
I think Ron Paul is the only — the only Republican that comes out with a plan that has any relevance in terms of the budget deficit of the future, but Ron Paul is getting rid of most of government. I mean, you can deal with the budget deficit if you get rid of most of government and if you don't want to raise taxes, but that's not exactly what most people want.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, if you sign up for that insurance plan that does not pay you anything in the event of a claim, you have the perfect insurance plan, from the insurance point of view.
REICH: Well, I mean, get rid of Medicare.
OLBERMANN: Exactly.
REICH: Social security and get rid of education and roads. Yeah, you can really reduce the budget deficit and not raise anybody's taxes.
OLBERMANN: Very simple, very simple thing. Only money coming in, no money going out, it's perfect. I can even understand it.
Robert Reich, the former U.S. Labor Secretary from Berkeley and the author of "After Shock: the Next Economy and America's Future." Many thanks again for some of your time tonight.
REICH: Thanks, Keith.
