The ABC interview was an utter disaster for Romney, and it was more than just his response to the protest and it was more than just his middle class earning expectations.
By now we have all read that Romney thinks $200,000 - $250,000 is middle class and we have all heard his argument about tax cuts, only someone did the MATH, (this math thing keeps biting him in the butt in more ways then one.) Perhaps the full story first, before we see how he would have to raise taxes on anyone making $100,000 or more(yes for the rich too) just for this pesky MATH thing to work.
On Sunday during his interview with Meet the Press Romney sited 5 studies that he claims support his tax argument (lower taxes for the rich and it will all work out for the lower income people in the long run,). According to the story his team has been making the rounds for weeks referencing these studies, and after Sunday’s interview they finally handed over the studies…
Problem #1, three of the five are not actual studies, or academically accredited ones, they are Blog Post and Op-Eds
Three of the five are blog posts or op-eds (as opposed to academic literature), and two of those three are written by the same author: Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.
Problem #2, one of the five came from their camp
one is the tax reform white paper authored by Romney-backing economists and paid for by Romney for President, Inc.
a study really doesn't count when you make it up for your benefit.
Problem #3, the last study is a real study (yeah for them,) but it contradicts Romney’s argument. (booo for them.) see problem #7
Problem #4, the blog post and op-eds written by Harvard economist Martin Fildstein do not support Romney’s tax argument.
Feldstein has said that to make Romney's math work, some of those deductions would have to be eliminated on incomes over $100,000. In his August 28 Wall Street Journal piece, what Romney calls a "study," Feldstein writes that Romney could generate $191 billion by scrubbing these deductions, "more than enough to offset the revenue losses from the individual tax cuts proposed by Gov. Romney."
So as the article points out,
Romney would have to eliminate tax preferences for people making over $100,000 per year in order to make his plan work.
Problem #5, the daily flip flop
And that is how we get our daily flip-flop from team Romney.
when asked in an interview with "Good Morning America" on Friday morning if he would remove those deductions and exemptions for incomes over $100,000, Romney said "no."
No real surprise there since it means he would have to raise taxes on not only the upper middle class, but also the rich. This man will say anything to get a vote, ANYTHING. When pushed in the ABC interview he then
claimed he had not seen the studies he and his team have referenced. Now that is ballsy, to go into an interview claiming you have five studies that support you, (here they are thank you very much) and then claim that two of those studies (which are not studies) are BS and you no longer support as of rigggghhhhht…. Now.
Problem #6, now they only have three studies, one still a blog piece, and the other they wrote and paid themselves handsomely for (so that one still doesn't count), but they still have that big shiny Princeton Study. From 5 to 2, not good numbers.
Problem #7, they don’t have that Princeton study anymore.
With that measure of middle class, Princeton economist Rosen's study may still suffice. Rosen argued that Romney could get his tax plan to deficit neutrality by eliminating deductions for income over $200,000 a year. But in a separate interview with Reuters on Friday,
he seemingly revised that figure downward to $100,000 per year.
Problem #8, all they have is a blog post now.
A few minutes of video turned into a 100% (MATH) disaster. I am looking forward to the debates. All the POTUS has to do is stand there and let Romney debate himself. As we all have seen, he’s damn good at it.