A group whose reports were recently praised by Mitt Romney as providing “an objective, third-party analysis”, has issued a report that could be devastating to Romney’s White House ambitions.
The independent, third-party Tax Policy Center issued a report this week highlighting the tax burden shift from the wealthy to the middle class proposed by Romney. The new study basically concludes that, under the Republican’s plan, taxes will be cut for the very wealthy while increased for most middle and lower income taxpayers.
Several months ago, Romney cited the accuracy of the Tax Policy Center when the group analyzed the tax plan of Romney primary opponent Rick Perry.
Romney’s middle class tax hikes would come in the form of the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, as well as health care and education deductions relied on by a large portion of middle class families.
Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle income earners, while providing deep cuts for the very wealthy.
Naturally, President Obama seized upon the report’s findings and translated the numbers to mean that the average middle class family would pay and additional $2,000 per year in taxes, while the average family earning over $1,000,000 per year would save about $250,000 via tax breaks.
The Obama campaign provided an online tax calculator to help individuals determine what it would mean to them.
Additionally, team Obama released a new ad whose theme will likely now become the centerpiece of his campaign against the former Massachusetts governor.
While many Republicans like to tie Obama’s prospects of re-election to those of Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, the 2004 election bears too many striking similarities to compare it to anything else.
President Obama’s approval rating as measured by Gallup now matches its highest mark in nearly two years. Obama’s 14th quarter average approval of 46.8% has only led to an increasing number of comparisons between the 2012 and 2004 elections.
George H.W. Bush had an approval rating of 39.2% in July of 1992, Carter’s was 35.8% in July of 1980 and George W. Bush sat at around 47%.
Throw in an unlikable, seemingly out of touch, flip-flopping challenger from Massachusetts and you have your match. As it stands today, I would be surprised to see a final outcome much different than in ‘04.
Mitt Romney sat down for five interviews on Friday to discuss his role, or lack thereof, at Bain Capital from 1999 onward. Naturally, the candidate handled the softball-questions thrown his way with relative ease. This morning, the Obama campaign chose to help out reporters in search of hard-hitting questions by issuing a list of their own:
1. Are you contending that an individual can simultaneously be the CEO, president, managing director of a company, and its sole stockholder and somehow be “disassociated” from the company or accurately classified as someone not having “any” formal involvement with a company?
2. You have stated that in “Feb. 1999 I left Bain capital and all management responsibility” and “I had no ongoing activity or involvement.” It depends on what the definition of “involvement” is, doesn’t it? Clearly you were involved with Bain to the extent that you owned it. Are you defining “involvement” in a uniquely specific way that only means “full-time, active, 60-hours-a-week, hands-on manager?”
3. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?
4. What did you do for this $100,000 salary you earned from Bain in both 2000 and 2001?
5. In 2002, you are listed as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors LLC in its annual report. What does this mean?
6. If, in fact, you did not veto any major investment decision during your 1999 though 2002 ownership, doesn’t that imply your broad consent of management’s decisions?
7. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney also testified that ‘there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought [him] back to Massachusetts, board meetings’ while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001.” You testified that while running the Olympics you took a number of business trips to Massachusetts and for board meetings for companies including Lifelike Co. Bain had a stake in this company until 2001. Are you contending that you could attend board meetings for Lifelike Co at the same time Bain Capital had a stake in Lifelike Co and at the same time you owned the stock of Bain Capital, but that somehow your attending a board meeting for a company partially owned by Bain had nothing to do with Bain because you were on the board as Mitt Romney the individual, not as the representative of Bain?
8. When asked “did you attend board meetings for Bain after 1999″ you responded by saying “I did not manage Bain after 1999,” or that you didn’t attend any meetings involving things like firing people. This seems to suggest the possibility that you did attend Bain meetings in 2000 and 2001 that did not involve hiring or firing people or where you made the final decisions on investments. Is that possible?