Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent.

In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent. Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor:

“In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.” [...]

Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.”

Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion.)

Second, zeroing out the capital gains tax and the estate tax would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, as about 68 percent of capital gains taxes are paid by the richest one percent of the country, and fewer than the richest one quarter of one percent pay the estate tax.

Finally, Bachmann implies that she would raise taxes on those Americans who earn too little to have any income tax liability. (It’s simply not true that they pay nothing, as Bachmann seems to believe, since those who have no income tax liability still pay payroll taxes and any state and local taxes.)

The reason so much of the income tax liability has become concentrated at the top of the income scale is because over the last few decades income inequality has skyrocketed. The richest one percent of the country currently earn nearly one quarter of the income, and therefore pay the lion’s share of the income tax. Bachmann would raise taxes on those who have seen their incomes stagnate or even drop over the last ten years, even as she cuts taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

This past week, former Minnesota Governor and 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty gave a speech outlining his economic “plan.” The speech has been widely, and rightly, panned as radical, unrealistic, and completely out of touch. But few have mentioned that, if Pawlenty had his way, his plan would be unconstitutional as well. That’s right, unconstitutional.

In his speech, Pawlenty called for an amendment to the US constitution to require a balanced budget. But he then went on to propose spending and tax policies that would result in massive deficits and exploding debt. In fact, Pawlenty’s plan would result in average deficits that are more than twice as large as the ones we’d have under President Obama’s fiscal framework.

By 2021, under Pawlenty’s plan, total publicly held debt would exceed 100 percent of GDP — over $24 trillion. That’s more than 20 points higher than under the president’s proposed framework (see below for how we calculated deficits and debt under Pawlenty’s plan).

Of course, that’s what happens when you propose to cut taxes on millionaires by nearly half, and cut taxes for the richest 400 households in the country by 73 percent. Pawlenty’s plan tax plan would cost about three times as much as the extending all of the Bush tax cuts, which he also proposes to do.

The overall effect would be to drive revenue down to levels the country hasn’t seen in more than 70 years. Revenue levels would be so low that even with the incredibly draconian cuts implied by Pawlenty’s simplistic and unworkable 18 percent cap on federal spending, deficits would still be huge.

With budget busting policies like these, it’s no wonder than Pawlenty had to resort to fairy tales about how tax cuts pay for themselves. Otherwise, he’d have to admit that, far from balancing the budget, his plan would make matters much worse. Read more