Galupo wishes Romney's tax proposals were less detailed:
I’m sympathetic to NR’s argument that we shouldn’t realistically expect copious policy details from presidential campaign platforms. But I fall back on this point: Mitt Romney could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had not specifically promised a top marginal tax rate of 28 percent.
Gleckman compares Romney to Reagan:
Reagan cast reform in gauzy generalities of fairness, simplicity, and economic growth. He said he might broaden the tax base, but didn’t say how. He said he might cut tax rates, but didn’t say by how much. And he said he wanted the Treasury Secretary to get him a specific plan in December, not accidently a month after the 1984 election.
Romney, by contrast, not only promised to cut tax rates, he even said by exactly how much–20 percent across the board. Reagan’s popular goals of fairness and simplicity play distinct second fiddle to Romney’s focus on tax cuts for job creators. And instead of saying he’ll craft a plan of his own, Romney’s campaign says the details should be left to Congress. Given the level of public confidence in the Hill, he might as well have promised to turn it over to Snooki.
The Dish 