The tax proposals NBC overhead are pretty tame, according to Yglesias:
The timidity of these proposals is somewhat regrettable, though also understandable. The key point is simply that these are not the kind of ideas that will support large cuts in tax rates. To enact those, you either need to substantially increase the medium-term deficit or else you need to enact much deeper spending cuts than Romney has indicated.
TPM questions Romney's math:
Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said all the deductions Romney proposed to scrap "would pay for less than 20 percent" of the $5 trillion cost of his tax plan. "The deductions he unveiled would raise less than $1 trillion," he said.
So does James Kwak:
Republican tax cut plans fall into two categories: the ones that don’t bother pretending that they’re going to be revenue neutral and the ones that do. But the latter can never make the numbers add up because you can’t have massive rate cuts and be revenue neutral unless you’re willing to eliminate popular tax expenditures for the middle class, the preference for investment income (the most important tax break for the rich people who pay for Republican politicians’ campaigns), or both.
Josh Barro, on the other hand, would support Romney eliminating HUD, which Romney said he is considering.
The Dish 