Democrats, including the Obama campaign, have been heavily invested in accusing Mitt Romney of adopting a plan that raises taxes on the middle class. This came up quite a bit last night, and the editors at FactCheck.org were unimpressed (via Travis Waldron).
The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the "middle class." [Romney] has promised he won't. [...]
The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, repeated a frequent but groundless Democratic talking point, warning that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Castro was joined in this by other Democrats including former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. But they all misrepresented the position Romney has made clearly and repeatedly -- that he would somehow lower taxes on those in the middle class.
I think the keyword there is "somehow."
Look, there are basically two competing claims here. Relying on an independent analysis from non-partisan scholars, Democrats have said Romney will have to raise taxes on the middle class, since there's no other way to make the numbers add up. Romney, still unable to present any substantive evidence to bolster his plans, insists he won't even consider raising taxes on the middle class.
The FactCheck.org suggests the Democratic claim is "groundless" in large part because Romney says it's not true. But is Romney's denial credible?
According to FactCheck.org, the Republican "has promised he won't" raise taxes. Fine. But Romney has also "promised" he'll cut taxes on the wealthy, increase defense spending, increase entitlement spending, and balance the budget -- all while protecting the home-mortgage-interest deduction, the health care deduction, and the charitable-contribution deduction.
The point is, Romney, no matter what his intentions, can't keep these promises -- the arithmetic won't budge. If he intends to even try to keep the promises, a significant tax increase on the middle class is unavoidable. It's as simple as that.
Leave a Comment:
Steve, in your previous item you criticize Romney for his rejection of fact-checkers, particularly re: the Republican's bogus welfare attack, but now you're going after FactCheck.org for its analysis of the Dems' middle class tax increase claim. While I too think the welfare business is dishonest and the tax increase claim is a reasonable one to make given what we know of Romney's plan, I'm not sure it's fair to jab at Romney for ignoring fact-checkers in one post and make an argument for ignoring fact-checkers in the next.
I'm sympathetic to Clive Crook's view that fact-checkers are--in "fact"--pundits, rather than unbiased referees.
Really? If one person continues making a claim after virtually all fact checkers say its dishonest, you cannot call them out for ignoring fact checkers and also point out when a fact checker gets it woefully wrong? Really?
This really is sub par concern trolling.
Devoid of any substantive meaning.
you said:" in your previous item you criticize Romney for his rejection of fact-checkers, particularly re: the Republican's bogus welfare attack"
Then you said: "While I too think the welfare business is dishonest"
Question; How did you come to that conclusion??
You said:"I'm not sure it's fair to jab at Romney for ignoring fact-checkers in one post and make an argument for ignoring fact-checkers in the next."
It's not Steve's opinion,it's a corollary of an Analytic modeling.Unless proving wrong by a counter analytic work from the Romney side or even Right-leaning Economists or experts,it stays true.That's our working Definition.
What I'm saying here is that we need to avoid trying to have it both ways--we'll quote fact-checkers and argue how important they are when we agree with them, knock fact-checkers when we don't and then get irritated when the Romney camp does the same thing.
Fact-checkers are not the judge of all that is true, as much as they'd like to think they are. Sometimes, they get it right and other times they do not (as when Politifact named Dems' argument that the GOP would end Medicare just because the GOP would continue to have a voucher program they call "Medicare"). So, we should treat them as pundits rather that impartial judges and we should judge their arguments on the merits, just as we would any other pundit.
I have no problem at all with Steve or anyone else noting when a fact-checker is wrong. Just because they have "fact" in their names doesn't always make it so. It's opinion and we shouldn't keep relying on them as the source for what is true--at least no more than we should rely on Paul Krugman for TPC.
khayyam-2346608, I judged the Welfare claim by looking at the evidence from news accounts, so-called fact-checkers, Bill Clinton.
I judged the middle class tax claim by relying primarily on the CBPP and TPC analysis on this, as I'm far from an expert on economic matters. I didn't just read the fact-checkers and decide that was good enough.
Everybody tell FactCheck what you think of them for this idiotic false equivalency and their own version of lying to enable liars:
editor@factcheck.org
For some of you: When we have a problem with fact checkers, we can give a reason. When wingnuts have a problem, their reason is that the fact checkers are "liberal" and in the tank for Obama. Wingnuts failed the first day of introductory logic, or never even made it to class.
Can you tell me how FactChecker justifies their calling this attack on Romney untrue, on what basis?
"Because he has promised not to."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/05/796961/fact-check-romney-taxes-dnc/
I have the strong feeling that no one is really defining how these 'fact checkers' define 'fact.' Is it only what is mathematically based, demonstrable on a spreadsheet? Does it have anything in common with what Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology, called a 'total social fact' -- something that links the individual to larger constraints of society. But, hey, that's just way too sophisticated for sound bites, isn't it?
Factcheck.org != fact checking, generally. Huge difference. A fact checker can be wrong, or biased or misleading. The actual facts are just that: facts.
Or, in the words of Homer Simpson:
"You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
How about if everyone just goes to the actual source - the memo and letter issued by HHS to the states on 7/12/2012:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
There you go. Now you don't have to rely on fact checkers. You can read the documents yourselves and see that Romney is lying when he says Obama gutted welfare and removed the work requirement. More people should figure out how to find the actual documents; it's nearly as easy as looking up what fact checkers say.
"And a pony!"
If claims are presumed to be true, why not promise a pony to everybody! Can't call that a lie in modern fact-checking it seems.
For a awhile now Factcheck.org has been going down the path of Politifact.Why couldn't they reach Tax Policy Center for an explanation as to how they came to their conclusion or Call Romney's Campaign for a final analysis of their plan.Let them Prove TPC wrong.It's a shame that Assertive Reasoning is now superior to Analytic Reasoning.
Somehow Romney/Ryan Asserting that they'll not raise taxes weighs more than Analysts findings, who've looked into this "plan" and modeled every possible outcome and concluded that they will raise Tax on the middle class.
Bizarro world! And people wonder how we went from a surplus to huge deficits and debt.
It's not the same.
The fact check conclusion in regards to the welfare claim, was correct.
Not like it matters, anyway. Romney/Ryan still spewed the lie, and the fact check people will believe what they see about the tax hike on the middle class claim, despite evidence supporting it.
Wasn't it the non-partisan budget group that said there was no way that Mitts figures added up, ergo it will be a tax hike on the middle class. As for what Robme "says", don''t worry next week he'll change his mind and say something else!
It was non-partisan up until the point the GOP deemed them liberal.
And now Factcheck.org and other "fact checkers" are insulting them with no evidence that their analysis is inaccurate. All to give a proven liar the benefit of the doubt.
They can't be this incompetent. They're complicit.
I'd love to hear again how the media "is in tank" for Obama.
"Fact"Check.org has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a bunch of Republican stooges. And that is a fact.
And you don't really need to know that history to determine that this is just another partisan attempt. All you have to do is think about the word "groundless".
What does it take to say a claim is groundless? Apparently it only takes the folks at "fact""check" to hear someone promise them something. For everyone else it takes asking the source of the comment what their grounds for making such a claim is. That really puts the lie to both the fact and the check in their name. They don't appear to understand either word--or perhaps they're just partisan. Okay, their just partisan then.
Where is the lie?
Is it in Romney's claim that his incoherent "plan" will work despite defying basic math? Or is it in the Dems assuming that Romney will care enough about deficits to do the only thing that will lower them (raise taxes on the middle class) once he's put his tax cuts for the rich in place?
Personally I think the R plan is to use the exact same playbook they've been running since Reagan - balloon the deficit and then expect the Dems to clean up after them (while they lie and whine and obstruct). I think Romney would be happy no be a one-termer if his dishonest scheme blows up and the taxpayers end up on the hook for the rich-guys' looting party he is running. After all it's the same thing he did for years at Bain Capital.
Which means the Dems saying Romney will raise taxes on the middle class are wrong; he isn't planning to do that. He's planning to do something much worse.
With the over all idea that everything will collapse , and they can start any rand land
gop governing confirms that over and over again , hopefully enough americans will wake up before they succeed , the conservatives declared war on america long ago , to many people are just completely oblivious to that fact tho
TC, I agree with you. I am a little cranky today and so, I say, call them Republicans and end the discussion.
When a politician takes both sides of an issue or contradicts himself, what is a fact checker to do? Well, it seems, fact checkers have chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This post illustrates one example. Another case in point-- Romney gives full-throated endorsements of personhood legislation in front of conservative audiences while telling others that he supports abortion exceptions that such personhood legislation could outlaw. So when Obama advertises the consequences of Romney's statements on personhood legislation, fact checkers say, "No, no, no. Romney says..."
Following these fact checkers is like riding an emotional roller coaster.
So as long as it is people are being non specific , we can count what they say , and do not say , as fact,,,, that is hilarious , I mean your going to have things change once in office , but you have a blue print , a platform , and what the gop represent as a base line for what they are going to do , to just dismiss all that is what could be called ANTI JOURNALISM / FACT CHECKING
I am perplexed that these journalist are clueless that romney and the gop play them like cheap fiddles , , they either do not mind , or are complacent in the whole deal , as is being suggested , it would appear to be low brain power and low pride also
The underlying game being played here is the political assault on arbiters of truth. Up with Chris Hayes treated this briefly. A clip was played of a comment by Wolf Blitzer "covering" the GOP convention. He was saying "We'll have to see what the fact checkers say about that..." The absurdity is that this is what journalists do. They point out the friction between fact and what public figures are saying- whether they are politicians, or representatives of corporations or union bosses.
It's not just the internet that's doing it. The balkanization of zeitgeists going on is driven by the multiplicity of channels on cable, satellite and the broad digital radio spectrum. People no longer have to live in a world of 3 networks, where your choices are CBSs' Walter Cronkite, NBC's Huntley-Brinkley or ABC. Remove Fox and you'll just have someone else take their place.
The point is that people can now go to a news source to provide confirmatory evidence of what they already know to be true. Don't flatter yourself that you are an empirical thinker and your openness to alternative viewpoints make you "right" and other other guys nuts. Sure, we can make fun of the extremists who check out of reality and get a condo in the theme park of Beck-World, Limbaugh Land or the Savage Nation. But let's be honest. Listening to the GOP convention's litany of hatred resentment and shameless fabrications is not pleasant. Similarly, conservative viewers no doubt felt the same about the Dem convention speakers last night. We "tune them out" because we can, and it is uncomfortable to consider points of view that are not confirmatory to our own. We naturally avoid cognitive dissonance.
Which brings us to the ongoing assaults on who is above the fray- who are the truly unbiased sources? Blitzer's strategy is to simply not alienate viewers, and studiously applies a filter to his presentation, mindful of any criticism that if he points out a falsehood from a conservative politician, he will be accused of liberal bias.
So he out sources truth to the fact checkers.
It's cowardice.
Here is an example of this. Consider the reality bending statements of Alex Castellanos and Rachel on Meet the Press. (Mediate article)
The question seems almost absurd: "Do women make less than men for the same job?"
Give me a fricking break. This is controversial? Really? Are we relitigating the 70s? Ok great. So this is something that Blitzer is going to "fact check", and accept the premise that there is some kind of equivalency between the commonly held view that it is true and extremists who find it politically advantageous to call it into question?
The reality bending strategy is to take a position that is generally accepted by the public, and change public perception by suggesting the commonly held view is controversial. This attempts to get liberals to spend their time defending against an erosion of support for advances made. By doing this, the left has little time to move the ball down the field- advancing progress on other issues.
Mediate has an article on a CNN segment where Blitzer Fact checks this. Take a look at the CNN video at the bottom. The way they "fact check" is to present two people. Maatz, and advocate for equal pay for women, and a representative of the conservative Manhatten Institute think tank.
The outcome? Victory conservatives, because the outcome of the CNN fact check is that while there is a difference, CNN stamps truth on the idea that the real difference is relatively insignificant- Blitzer doesn't say this, his "fact checker" does. According to Sylvester's assessment of the competing advocates on each side, she steps in the false equivalency trap and goes for the "the truth is somewhere in the middle between two competing views" fallacy. She says Catellenos was wrong, but undercuts the commonly held view of this injustice by stating that "Controlling for all factors, it is about 5%."
5%! Holy Crap!?!?!
I don't know if this is a misquote of Maatz, but Castellanos achieved his goal. Now people have looked at an "unbiased" fact check from centrist CNN and concluded that the difference is there, but so small that it is not that big a deal to make a lot of noise about. This provides fuel for the view that Maddows relatively mild statements are extreme "feminazi" type "hypersensitivity".
Cue the condescending patriarchal memes.
Possibly off topic, but here's a little idea I've been playing around with: What would it do to the budget numbers if we kept the charitable donation deduction but made it inapplicable to direct donations to churches and synagogues (i.e. tithing). If a religious group wants to get involved in something that is recognizably charitable (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hell, even symphonies and museums), they can organize them into LLCs. But no more tax deductions for tithing that goes to buy a fancy house for the pastor or to install new stained glass windows for the church or to build a gym out behind the church for the church kids (and ONLY the church kids) to have a place to play after school. We don't let people deduct their country club expenses. Why do we let people count religious donations as "charitable" when they're really just to social clubs for the hyper-moralistic.
Hear hear! Frankly, I don't know why churches are tax-exempt either. You can't tell me that a minister who hauls in half a mil a year is engaged in a non-profit organization...
I haven't been completely happy with the fact checkers, although we don't want to fall into the Romney tactic of saying: if they don't agree with us, then they must be partisan. With factcheck.org, I think some of it isn't clearly reasoned and is a little too literal. Take the Republican plank on the Human Life Amendment, which factcheck.org said may have abortion rights exception for incest, rape, and life of the mother, even though no exceptions were mentioned. factcheck's defense was that no specific amendment was quoted and if no exceptions were mentioned, that didn't mean there couldn't be any.
This is problematic. Even if you bring up a counter example, say, laws state you cannot murder *but* we do have the exceptions of self-defense which are not written, the issue of exceptions does require clarification w.r.t. abortion. There have been previous versions of the HLA which specifically did not recognize exceptions, so saying of course there are unstated exceptions is not adequate. Moreover, how can you make allowances for rape and incest? Do you have to have trials convicting the rapist or incest perpetrator to clear the way for abortion and can that be done quickly enough? Probably not, however it's something that takes a deeper line of questioning and greater knowledge of the subject.
So yes, just because Romney says they won't raise taxes on the middle class, doesn't mean that everything else he's put out suggests that these claims are groundless On the other hand, he may not tax, he may institute fees which would probably impact the middle class more than the higher wage earners. Because if each person pays the same fee, it's still a smaller percentage of the higher wage earner's net worth. But factcheck would probably need it stated explicitly in writing, even though someone, non-partisan, more knowledgeable with the plans and revenues could reasonably read between the lines.
Fact checkers want to look non-partisan, which is both a strength and a weakness. They don't want to get caught saying one side has a preponderance of lies, so they will want to say both sides lie, and both sides may.
I try to be grateful that at least the fact checking agencies all agreed on the welfare lies, but I do find some of their determinations debatable. If all the major fact checkers agree, then unlike Romney, I think it's more likely that it's not partisan.
With this campaign, we definitely need fact checking and fact checkers who are open to verifying themselves as well.
Of the three fact checkers with the most visibility, "FactCheck" has easily been the most aggressively and consistently stupid. Kessler is a maddening false equivalence soldier looking for any unimportant Democratic statement to laughably assign Pinocchios to to even out the ones he must give to the subtantially important whoppers Republicans spew that affects the entire nation.
And who can forget PolitiFact's ridiculous Medicare nonsense. But "FactCheck" is a joke out of the gate. They put Kessler's false equivalence to shame.
I've already told FactCheck what I think of them. I hope you do to. Here's the e-address:
editor@factcheck.org
Fact is Mitt is a liar. Why go beyond that?
Why do so called Christians back a liar?Well now since those backers claim the Earth and Universe are mere youngsters less than a million years old, claim that we are a "Christian Nation whose laws were taken from the Bible, claim that they can control the weather with prayer, claim that man and dinosaur lived together and so on, it seems logical that they would back lying scum.
It's maybe worth noting that "fact checkers" aren't exactly licensed; they're self appointed. Thus, they have no presumption of credibility. Their conclusions are only as good as the reasons they give in support, just like any other commentator or pundit.
"fuzzy math" again….
I cannot believe people will fall for "no new taxes" again.
There's no magical cure for what cutting taxes and waging 3 wars (according to S.P. prep Steve Schmidt) did to our budget and debt.
The jobs need to come home with good wages, as tax rate is higher on higher wages, until a certain point. Then they go down again. FIX THAT. And bring troops home and maybe KEEP Obamacare to reduce spending. That is what the t.p.ers keep saying they want.
Seems R&R obfuscating duo would have the poor and middle incomes pay more to offset the tax cutting, which makes no sense if you want to balance a budget, so I can only conclude they just want more tax cuts and Medicare (and SS) gone.
It's the lower profit level for insurance companies that drives the rhetoric of repeal ACA. There is no replacing, so those great ACA things will go away with a return to caps, no older children on family plan, donut holes and Medicare becomes a limited voucher that would cost seniors $6400.00 more. ABC refers to an Obama attack ad, but I'd have difficulty calling it an attack.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/15/fact-check-obamas-attack-ad-on-romney-ryan-medicare-overhaul/
I've been noticing since at least the 2008 primaries that inexorable mathematical reality--not hard squishy math involving statistical probability calculations or exotic computer models running on supercomputers, but simple, easily understood arithmatic--simply has no meaning to the average journalist.
Throughout 2008, we saw reporters breathlessly reporting on the Democratic primary race as if it was still a near-run thing long after the delegate count hit the point where Hillary would have had to win quite obviously impossible percentages of the votes in the remaining states. Indeed, they were still doing that even after Obama actually crossed the line. Then, they proceeded to do the same thing based on horse race polling while studiously ignoring the inexorable Electoral College math. Hell, for that matter, its what they did when they were reporting on Bush's cunning plan to allocate the same dollar of Social Security payroll tax revenue to a private account that would be ploughed into the stock market and into the Social Security Trust Fund
This is the same thing. It's simple addition and subtraction. The numbers are big, but the calculations are easy to follow. And yet, that mathematical reality simply has no reality in Politifact's world because, well, maybe the zombified corpse of Bertrand Russell will rise from frikkin grave and rewrite the axioms of Principia Mathematica in a way that 2+2=one billion jillion if Republicans propitiate the Confidence Fairies by starving granny and giving more tax cuts to rich people.
Republicans don't believe in science so what would make you think they believe in math? Seriously, we are dealing with people who think of math in terms of fingers and toes.
Yeah, okay. Republicans are want to return to the good old days of the 1300s, when serfs knew their place, war was fun and noble, and epidemics were just God's way of saying you're a naughty person who had it comin.
But I'm talking about journalists. They're just embarrassingly innumerate.
I first started paying attention to presidential polling in Bush v Gore. Every morning the radio people were so excited. Bush over Gore 52-48. Then the next day Gore over Bush 51-49. And back and forth. Day after day they were so excited at how the people kept switching who should win.
The margin of error for these polls was between 3 and 5%. I chose to laugh as I listened to the radio for two reasons. 1) it feels pretty darn good to know you're smarter than the radio people. And 2) it's really hard to drive when you're crying at how little people who announce the news know and the vast number of innumerate people who would sagely nod their heads at how volatile that race was.
Innumeracy is, in my not so humble opinion, worse than illiteracy. People are ashamed to be illiterate. They are proud to demonstrate how innumerate they are.
Democratic LIES... FactCheck.org
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — We heard a number of dubious or misleading claims on the first night of the Democratic National Convention:
Persistent little Hezbollah (God's Own Party) Al Qaeda (the base) troll, aren't you, little boy?
The first bullet point has been debunked:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/05/796961/fact-check-romney-taxes-dnc/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/transcript-julian-castro-speech-at-dnc/
Sorry, I cannot locate where the keynote speaker Julian Castro said Mitt Romney would raise taxes on Middle Class, only where Middle Class would pay more and millionaires pay less. chirp chirp?
Yes, we can only guess what their plan is based on Ryan budget plan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-medicare_n_1789480.html
Democrats fashioned Medicare and Social Security and have been demonized lately by Republicans as socialism and must be repealed, they are working on THAT, according to the oxy addled, ED medicated woman hating Rushbo. http://www.findthatdoc.com/search-23394121-hDOC/download-documents-165transcript-healthvotepostgame-doc.htm "Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live on but we're in the process of doing something about that as well."
SS: looks like a whole lot of Democrats were responsible, but back then, Republicans were more sane. Eisenhower called anyone who wanted to do away with it "stupid". http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp
Medicare:http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm
I Googled Factcheck.org and can't find what you're posting, but from Newsmax they claim it. Is that what's going on?
meo-whatever-the-@!$%#-real-name you are:
New troll, just started on Sept.1st right wing tool:
Get this: go get your face out of the Krotch brothers and the GOP and get a real job. You are absolutely terrible at trolling.
Why would anyone believe anything Romney says about ANYTHING! He is a liar. All he does is lie. He'll say anything to get elected, even LIE. Why are people so afraid to call a liar a liar?
Raise taxes or eliminate those pesky deductions like mortgage interest, the no-tax on medical plans. Bring Ezra back: he showed the nice presentation of how Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, even after they gouge the middle class.
If he can't balance it out, then, in big letters, "big tax cuts = big deficits."
I'd also like to see some analysis of how Romney will magically create 12 million jobs by cutting taxes severely. Corporations say they want "certainty", which of course we could have done long ago by passing any old budget. Done, there's your certainty. But big tax cuts? Taxes are low now. I still don't make the connection here.
http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/ma-record/ma-record-slide-01 This is pretty nice tool the timeline at the bottom can show important information regarding Rmoney's past experience he claims to make him qualified.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/03/nation/la-na-romney-bain-20111204
Most don't care if they are slightly off on some random numbers. The fact that so many acquisitions of Bain were dissolved, jobs lost/off shored/outsourced, pensions absorbed, profit made by those playing the "game" where they profit and others lost.
That's enough for anyone that wants good jobs in the U.S. to decide against Rmoney and for Obama. Jobs have been added, I can see construction out and about. I see FB posts of "I got a new job". I can read graphs that show job losses turning around to gains.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?utm_source=research&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=data-tools#
This trend upward is despite the lack of Congressional jobs bill.
"Romney has yet to provide details of just how he would manage to avoid either losing revenues (and thus increasing the deficit) or shifting the tax burden onto middle-income taxpayers. But as things stand, he’s promised that neither will happen, and Democrats who accuse him of proposing a middle-income tax increase are misrepresenting what he’s said."
That seems fair, actually.