Anyone who has been paying attention knows that McCain ran a negative campaign last time around, just as he is this time around. But, because the media forgives and forgets when it's McCain who is involved, he's been hailed for his positive message for America while Romney has been disparaged as running "the most negative" campaign. Insert a few dread-laden words if you will: mud-slinging, attacking, etc.
But the fact is that Romney has kept his discussion of his rivals respectful while honestly highlighting their differences in policy and disagreements on the issues. There's nothing wrong with that, despite that McCain (and Huckabee, certainly) have made a big deal of it.
So, how are we to understand McCain's campaign's claim in an advert that Romney raised taxes by $700 million? We are to understand it as a lie. Or, if you want to be as charitable as possible, we can understand it as a gross misrepresentation which, when combined with McCain's character insults, puts McCain far below any "mud slinging" Romney can reasonably be accused of.
As a friend explained it to me:
$240 million -- Romney's fee hikes on targeted services like highway billboards, multiple copies of driver's licenses, bar exams, etc
$260 million -- Fee hikes that were passed prior to Romney's first year in office, yet did not take effect until Romney was IN office
$150 million -- Romney closed corporate tax loopholes
Add all three up, and there's your $650 million, which usually gets rounded to $700 million. Of course, Romney's contribution is only $400 million. Closing the corporate tax loopholes are simply enforcing existing tax code as it was intended...to call this a tax hike is like calling it a sentencing when you send an escaped convict back to prison. And the $240 million of fee hikes that Romney approved were more than offset by various TAX CUTS he implemented...in other words, better than a "revenue neutral" shift of taxes to service fees, which any conservative should like. The service fees were generally in line with national and local inflationary trends, as well as making the prices more reflective of the actual costs. Fees generally
make accounting in government more transparent, as you can see where the money is going...and there's really no good reason to subsidize a service cost below its market value anyway.
Here's the link for Romney's tax cuts, the biggest of which was his reversal of the $250 million retroactive capital gains tax in 2005.
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Record_Taxes_12.22
My own take is that the distinction between fees and taxes is a good one. I don't have a problem with government requiring people to pay for the services they use (because the alternative IS a tax, a charge to everyone whether you use the service or not!). And to say that forcing corporations to pay the taxes they owed is a bad things is just ridiculous! It's that sort of efficiency that Mitt's going to bring to Washington that's going to turn this country around! Go Mitt.
And, as for McCain? If I hear one more newspaper endorsement talking about how straight-talking, full of integrity, consistent he is... I'm going to lose my lunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment