One way to look at how "conservative" a tax plan is to consider the overall tax burden. President Obama's tax plan, for example, raises corporate taxes $250 billion. Another is to consider the degree to which the government tries to control private sector decision-making and investment through the tax code.
Rick Santorum doesn’t go nearly that far, but he does come out with a special manufacturing rate. Just like Obama, he thinks he knows best where investment dollars should go.
Mitt Romney's plan, from what we can see, does the least amount of picking "winners and losers." He comes up with a uniform tax rate, which depends on eliminating special credits and deductions. He is, in effect, taking away the incentives for corporations to game the system. It is the lobbyist/crony capitalist unemployment act since, of course, their lifeblood requires a tax code (and a budget) riddled with special carve outs, credits, deductions and give-aways.
In the House Budget Committee's report on income inequality, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made this critical point in an interview last year:
So in assessing a candidate’s tax and spending plans, conservatives should consider a number of factors: whether the tax code proposal minimizes government distortion of the economy (thereby limiting cronyism and inefficiency); whether it raises revenue required (which for Republican proposals is between 18 and 20 percent of GDP); and whether there is a credible and sufficiently specific plan for cutting discretionary spending and reforming entitlements. On all counts Obama strikes out.
Conservatives should avoid focusing solely on tax rates. The difference between Romney’s 25 percent rate, for example, and Obama’s 28 percent rate is not enormous. But the impact and philosophy of the two plans could not be more different.