My theory is that Mittens knows he is going to be hammered in the debate about not specifying the deductions he would trim back, and they need to be trimmed back substantially to make his rates cut work while being largely revenue neutral. So he is now moving in that direction, which is smart, rather than waiting for the debates. No, the middle class will not get a tax increase, because what is lost in deductions will be made up for by lower rates, and maybe even cause the overall tax bill for the middle class to go down a tad. Mittens has only promised to keep taxes revenue neutral for the 200K-250K plus crowd.
Of course, Mittens should have been specific long ago (if only to demonstrate that the details of the numbers add up to the general claim he is making about what his tax policy will accomplish, as opposed to leaving it the smoke and mirrors zone). The man lacks guts - just like Obama. We have two gutless wonders running against each other. Splendid - just splendid.
What do you expect, though? The National Education Association has corrupted generations of minds into believing that the world is only about benefits, not costs too. You speak about costs, even the notion of short-term pain for long-term gain, and you'll lose with these people by large margins.
Romney is being honest about our dire situation to the largest degree one can be at this stage. However, one commitment he will not break is the commitment to not raise taxes on anybody (otherwise, he will lose a primary challenge). Obama has no incentive to not raise taxes. Indeed, the whispers are that he will let the 2001 tax cuts expire FOR EVERYBODY due to hard economic constraints (specifically, getting a future tax hike through will be impossible, he refuses to cut spending that benefits his special interest groups, and we cannot run perpetual trillion dollar deficits).
