Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has pushed an ambitious and expensive tax-cut plan, which he's admitted would benefit "the top one percent." Last week, the Republican candidate, hoping voters wouldn't know the difference, said in a debate, "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
President Obama, Democrats, and those who accept reality have argued that Romney's trying to switch his position a month before the election. Yesterday, a Romney campaign surrogate agreed.
For those who can't watch clips online, here's the exchange between Robert Gibbs and Newt Gingrich:
GIBBS: Standing on the stage with you in Arizona, this is what Mitt Romney said, 'Number one, I said today we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country -- across the country by 20 percent including the top one percent.' Mister Speaker, you mentioned that your opponent, Mitt Romney, had a problem with being dishonest in the primary. My question is, was he dishonest when he said that?
GINGRICH: I think it's clearly changed.
GIBBS: We don't disagree that he changed.
It was a pleasant surprise to see Gingrich concede the point, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture: this was a Romney campaign surrogate admitting on "Meet the Press" that the Romney campaign's line isn't true. Gingrich has been an awkward surrogate for months, but to see him endorse the Democratic line on a key issue on national television is an interesting twist.
Gingrich added that Romney's claim was "good politics," even if it contradicts Romney's policy. That, too, is a curious thing to say out loud -- lying is fine so long as it helps a candidate win?
Leave a Comment:
Yeah- that's pretty much the entire Republican platform right now: say anything, so long as it will get Mr. Romney elected, truth be damned.
I heard Governor Romney say his tax plan wouldn't add 5 trillion to the national debt. I also saw Ms. Maddow scream into the camera that was a lie. Now the Democrats "stipulate" it would add nowhere near 5 trillion to the debt.
Who's the liar?
I will put this simply, in deference to Fox News viewers:
Mr. Obama's spokespeople didn't have to 'walk back' anything he said during the debate. Mr. Romney's spokespeople were on the air shortly after the debates telling us what 'he really meant'.
Mr. Romney is a proven liar. See Mr. Benen's extensive list of Mr. Romney's mendacity.
Speaking of doing anything... Benen, why did you edit the clip above? What don't you want other people to see?
And to put it simpler, in deference to you, shooter, please refer to Mr. Benen's extensive list of 'Mitts Mendacities' (it means 'lies').
The "stipulate" comment was made on CNN after she was presented with facts.
Thanks for the definition of mendacity, I honestly learned something new today. I have read the Mitt's Mendacities column for quite awhile but have yet to see it Fact Checked. I am unsure of the percentage of accuracy.
Watching the MSNBC report after the debates I wonder if MSNBC has been monitoring FoxNews for too long and "caught" the spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnn bug.
Mitt's Mendacity is Benen's BS. Repeating the same old lies, misrepresentations, and strawmen every week is worth exactly the attention it gets in the media... nada.
Take the 5 trillion tax cut allegation for instance. Considering that the entire amount of personal income collected is less than 1 trillion, a 5 trillion cut is laughable.
It's five trillion over the next ten years. A twenty percent cut is quite a large sum, so yes it is quite possible to lose a total of five trillion on that plan in the next ten years
the total federal income taxes collected for 2011 was 1.3 trillion, easily available data on the IRS website places that same receipt being almost 2.4 trillion in 5 years.
That 5 trillion in losses is over the next 10 years, making it entirely possible the government could lose 500 billion on average over the next 10 years as the tax base increases.
I am aware all budget projections are for a 10 year period but if you listen to Governor Ronmey and are not in the business of spinning the facts you would have heard him say he would replace those cuts with loophole duduction eliminations and other budget cuts. But I believe CNN wasn't including savings in their calculations and they came up with a total "not even close" which Cutter had to stipulate
Governor Romney's denial is accurate as all have agreed.
The white queen responding to allegations her sister the Red Queen had bilaterally commanded , "Off With Their Heads" , said "They sure looked different , when viewed pre and post off with their heads statements"
From the Lewis Carroll "Styled" news aggregator
I think it is important to note that Romney did not change his positions as Gingrich stated but simply lied about his position. He claimed that the top income levels were never going to get a cut in his plan and that claims to the contrary were false.
Mitt can't hide his Ryan lies. Mitt is essentially saying by cutting your food budget by 20% you can make up the difference by savings on toilet paper.
It is important to note that after the glow of his debate triumph we are now talking about the viability of Romney's tax plans. I am sure that is something he didn't want us to talk about.
OK let's talk about Obama's tax plan. That would be the largest tax hike in history, yes? Let's also not forget that this is the guy whose budgets were unanimously voted down by Democrats.
Shooter - yes, let's talk about Obama's tax plan. Where in Obama's tax plan does it indicate there would be a tax increase on anything but income over $250K?
Thank you, President has always stated that a tax increase will be for those making 250K or more.
Democrats didn't seem too impressed with that. Perhaps because class warfare is a non-starter for them? After all that's why they are now the Obama tax cuts.
Where do Republicans get this whole "Obama's Plan is the largest Tax Hike in History" crap from. Because the proper way to measure a tax increase, is by it's GDP percentage, not the dollar amount, but the GOP these days care little for accuracy.
Now if you go by the proper way to measure Tax Increases. Obama's Plan comes in 7th over all. The 1968 Revenue and Expenditure Control Act tops the list. And of the remaining 5, Regan has 2 of his tax plans coming in at 5th and 6th. While Clinton's '93 comes in 3rd, Bush 41's comes in 4th, and Carter's coming in 2nd.
Day by day, more and more
childrenvoters are saying, "TheEmperorMitt has no clothes."With eight years of unending practice the sunny side of "The Emperor has no clothes" is officially moth bound .
Gibbs did an excellent job on MTP yesterday. Although I've also been a harsh critic of Obama's performance at the debate last week, I wish more air time was being given to the lies Romney told at the debate, instead of people oo'ing and ah'ing about his performance. As you've written here and the director of the film coming out tomorrow night about Obama and Romney (forgot the title) said on Morning Joe this morning, Romney is a salesman and it looks like he'll say anything to get elected.
Ok, credibility gap before the credibility canyon should Slick hit 270.
Technically, I don't think Mitt has changed his position. He always said that he would cut marginal rates, but keep it revenue neutral by eliminating deductions and loopholes. He has however changed his emphasis and presentation. He had no problem in the past calling this approach "tax cutting", but the newly rebooted Mitt Romney seems to realize there's a political liability there, so he's avoiding that terminology. He's now presenting himself as a reformer, not a cutter. It's a matter of art and language with no real substance, like arguing over whether the affordable care act includes a "mandate" or a "penalty" or a "tax hike".
This in itself is remarkable and says something substantial and the politics of the issue. The Republican strategy has, for a while, been to always promise tax cuts because voters are expected to always respond positively to a candidate who promises to cut their taxes. That Romney is abandoning that language suggests this is no longer the case, that many Americans are now saying that cutting taxes on the richest of us is not a great idea, and that Republicans have undermined their own case with the rest by their own regressive taxation sabre-rattling about the 47%.
Mitt Romney's plan is just as incoherent and impossible today as it was a month ago, but that's the great thing about an imaginary policy; you can reshape it at will to fit the situation without altering its nonexistent essence. But it's better for him to over-promise and deal with disappointment when he fails to deliver, because that would mean that he's won the election, which was always his only goal.
The tax policy center has found that, even with extremely generous amounts of cuts, not enough tax loopholes exist for Romney to cut to offset the loss in tax receipts.
If it's awkward it's because I honestly believe Gingrich genuinely doesn't like Romney, but he is still a good soldier and will carry the water if he must and I think that is whats going on here. They are explaining to their base that "Ok so Mitt lied but he lied to Obama not to you so it's still ok to vote for him". It's a subtle line that has been filtering through the Romney campaign all week. He has basically been putting out the idea that he is actually only pretending to be a moderate. If you look at some of the things he has said starting with the debate and some of the references he has made he is sending some very powerful smoke signals to the tea party. When he started referencing the declaration of independence, with a special emphasis on the word "Life" (go back and listen to it) among other things. The whole PBS thing is just a nod to the idea that the federal government is to big and needs to be shrunk radically by basically gutting everything but defence. He still holds the same attitude toward he expressed in the 47% comments only now he has Ryan saying them.
He will say anything to get elected and the things he has been forced to retract and modify he has done in such a way as to present them as necessarily understandable and expedient political concessions.
Again, all that the dems have to offer is that Mitt lies. What is their plan? Where are the details in their platform? More of the same I suppose. 4 more years of more of the same. More of the same that has not done anything to improve our situation. They have nothing more and different to offer so they just call names. They know that what they have is not very enticing. So... Liar, liar, pants on fire is what we get from them.
It would be rilly kool if they could vote on some thing other than the rilly kool Ryan "Budget" . Maybe they could vote on a Jobs bill ?
jes33 - I'll take steady growth and recovery (which is what we have now) over a president whose word I can't trust any day.
And I notice you aren't making any claims that Mitt isn't lying. Do you really think nobody should call him out on those?
Regardless of who RomneyHood is running against, he's PROVEN LIAR. Is that what you'd prefer in the White House, a liar? Hating President Obama so much that you'd prefer a liar, that signals to me that you have SEVERE bigotry issues. Name 1 area wherein POTUS lied to the American people..just 1. Most of what he campaigned on in '08 he has gotten done. What he hasn't gotten done, the Republicans have blocked. As for Obama having no plan, can you say THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT? Can you say Tax Reform Act of 2011 which the Repubs killed? Can you say Green Energy Bill of 2011 which the Repubs killed. Repubs in 2010 promised to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead all they've focused on is trying to make me adhere to their religious views & force them on the country. Repubs are actually ANTI-RELIGION unless it's their sick, sadisctic version of Christianity. Lie thru their teeth, screw over the poor, steal elections, warmongers, then claim Christ as their saviour? Please!!! Give me a break.
I am not one that believes Romney won the debate on style or substance. I have always believed that Obama won the debate because honesty and truth matters. Romney in that debate was doing a performance and everything else was empty. Romney in that debate was full of lies. Romney would not know the truth if it hit him in the face.
It makes me angry that Romney would be on national television and lying to the American people. It is simply wrong and it is wrong to manipulate and deceive the American people including lie. The American people deserve the truth and the truth in how one would govern. Romney does not tell truth because there is a hidden agenda to cut tax rate for the top 1% at the expense of middle class Americans. I pray the American people will see this and re-elect president Obama.
Obama/Biden 2012