Oh, snap! Remember back on June 8, 2012, when President Obama said that the private sector was "doing just fine," meaning in comparison to how the public sector was doing? Republicans went crazy calling the comment a gaffe, and an indication that President Obama was "out of touch."
Imagine my surprise at seeing the headline, Romney: Wealthy will do fine no matter who wins in Nov., for an article that goes on to say:
"I know the very wealthy are going to do just fine whoever is elected," Romney said in an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger that was conducted Saturday. "The middle class is the people that is the group of people that I am most concerned about, they need our - and the poor - they need our help. They need our help with good jobs. That is only going to come if we encourage this economy by keeping the burdens on small business down."Just days after a nonpartisan analysis sums up Romney's Plan as providing lower taxes for the rich, and higher taxes on the middle class at an average of $2,000/family, Romney admits that no matter who wins the election, the rich are "going to do just fine." If President Obama wins the election, the rich will have to pay higher taxes but are "going to do just fine." If Romney wins, the rich will pay lower taxes and still are are "going to do just fine," but more probably even better.
He added that it would be "an enormous mistake" to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year, including on those who make more than $250,000 per year, which is what President Obama proposed.
Thank you, Willard Mitt Romney, for admitting this. Now shouldn't the House pass the same bill that the Senate has already passed "that would allow tax rates to increase on income above $250,000 per year for a family, $200,000 for an individual?" After all, according to Romney, if this bill is passed, the rich are still "going to do just fine."
Did you notice that Romney only manages to mention "the poor" as an afterthought? He also claimed that we can't raise taxes on "small businesses" failing to conveniently leave out the fact that only 3% of small businesses would be affected by the bill passed by the Senate. Romney is also short on details about how his plan will do what he claims it will. In an editorial that will appear in Monday's print edition of the Tampa Bay Times in Tampa where the Republicans will be holding their convention in three weeks, the editors call Romney to task for his campaign's reaction to the Tax Policy Center analysis of his plan, as well as the plan itself:
The numbers speak volumes about the Romney campaign's priorities. While President Barack Obama is proposing that taxes rise on the wealthiest Americans by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse only for those with incomes of $250,000 or more, Romney would flip that formula and give further breaks to the nation's millionaires, people who are already paying the lowest effective tax rate in 60 years.Meanwhile, Mr. Romney continues to refuse to release his income tax returns to the public for fear that he will be admonished for having manipulated the complicated tax system to pay only minimal taxes on his enormous earnings which mostly comes from investment income. Mr. Romney, We the People still want you to show us your taxes!
The Romney camp attacked the messenger as politically biased since one of the three authors had worked in the Obama White House. But previously the Romney campaign had promoted the center's work as providing an "objective, third-party analysis," and the center is directed by a former economic adviser to Republican President George W. Bush.
Romney's campaign also said the authors failed to incorporate the 5 percent nondefense domestic spending cuts Romney calls for that would offset some revenue losses from tax cuts. But that only accounts for $145 billion, and the campaign won't say where the other $215 billion would come from.
Too often candidates get away with fanciful claims that they can cut taxes without reducing defense spending or worsening the deficit. Romney's attempt was properly called out by a group of number-crunchers. If he has a dispute with the results, he needs to provide specifics on just how he will provide massive tax relief to those at the top without adding to the tax burdens of average people.