Fox News' Gregg Jarrett suggested that Rep. Paul Ryan offered specifics on his and Romney's tax plan during an interview with Fox. In fact, when pressed for specifics during that interview, Ryan dodged, claiming that the plan is “revenue neutral” without offering details as to why.

On Happening Now, Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, called on Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to “lay out a specific plan” for tax reform. Guest co-host Gregg Jarrett then said he wanted to “clarify” that in a recent interview Ryan “twice said that (his tax plan) was revenue neutral. The math, that means, is zero.” Jarrett added, “He was asked about the math, he twice said revenue neutral. That's zero, that's a digit, that's the math.”

Jarrett was referring to an appearance by Ryan on Fox News Sunday, in which host Chris Wallace pressed the Wisconsin congressman for specifics about how the numbers in the Romney-Ryan tax plan add up. After Ryan denied a charge from the Obama campaign that the plan would cost "$5 trillion over 10 years" if rates are cut 20 percent for everyone, Wallace asked the congressman how much the plan would cost. Ryan responded: “It's revenue neutral. It doesn't cost $5 trillion dollars.”

Wallace again asked Ryan how much his plan would cost, and again Ryan responded: “It's revenue neutral.”

Contrary to Jarrett's claim, Ryan's response that the Romney-Ryan tax plan is “revenue neutral” is not “the math.” Ryan insisted that the plan is “revenue neutral,” but he didn't specify how he would make his cuts “revenue neutral” beyond vague talk of eliminating deductions and loopholes. For Jarrett to suggest that Ryan offered specifics is dishonest.

Of course, there is good reason for not telling the American people how the Romney-Ryan tax plan would be made revenue neutral. As nonpartisan, independent analysts have shown, fulfilling the requirements of the tax plan and keeping it revenue neutral would necessitate a large increase in how much middle-class Americans pay in taxes every year.