Skip to main content

Yeah, about those six "studies" Romney and Ryan have cited as defending their tax plan...

In both debates to this point, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his P90X workout buddy Paul Ryan have laid claim that there are six "studies" which defend their tax plan as being mathematically possible - to cut taxes by 20% and balance the budget without raising taxes on the middle class. Some light has been shed since both future GQ cover boys made these claims at their respective debates these past couple weeks. These "studies" weren't actually studies at all. No, they were more along the lines of blogs and op-ed pieces written by conservatives. Yes, what you see before you right now - this would be a study in the eyes of the Romney campaign team.

Senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie engaged in the following back and forth on Fox News Sunday today with Chris Wallace:

Gillespie: "These are very credible sources, and, you know..."

Wallace: "One of them is from a guy who is - is a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. So these are hardly nonpartisan studies."

Gillespie: "Look, Chris I think if you look at Harvard and AEI [American Enterprise Institute] and other studies are very credible sources for economic analysis."

Wallace: "You wouldn't say that AEI is a conservative think tank?"

Gillespie: "I would say it is a right-leaning think tank. That doesn't make it not credible."

Wallace: "It doesn't make it nonpartisan."

Gillespie: "It does make it nonpartisan. It's not a partisan organization. I can tell you, there are many instances where there have been things AEI came out with and said, I didn't find it to be necessarily to be helpful to the Republican Party."

Wallace: "Would you say Brookings Institution is nonpartisan?"

Gillespie: "I would say the Brookings Institution is left leaning and nonpartisan."

Mr. Gillespie, define "nonpartisan" for me. I'll save you some time and do that myself.

"Nonpartisan (pronounced non-pahr-tuh-zuhn)
adjective
1. not partisan; objective
2. not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like."

So, let me get this straight - the American Enterprise Institute is a nonpartisan conservative think-tank? This is a group that supports a particular political party - the Republican Party - yet is nonpartisan? Doesn't that kind of run counter to the term's actual definition?

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. In light of this bit of news, I can just hear the following ad:

"We're AEI - the American Enterprise Institute. We're a conservative think-tank, support the Republican Party and believe that if Republican nominee Mitt Romney isn't elected for president in November, Armageddon will be upon us. To show this support and prove to the American people that he's the right guy for the job, we put together a study which shows that his tax plan works! The math is there! Taxes will be cut by 20% across the board, will be the centerpiece of a balanced-budget and no middle-class Americans will see their taxes raised in order to balance the budget due to the tax cuts. Trust us. We're not partisan. We're just a conservative think-tank that is very much in favor of a Romney presidency, will do anything to make that happen, but please believe that we are not partisan and our numbers are legitimate. Romney will cut taxes on everyone in this country and find some way to balance the budget without raising taxes on a significant number of Americans. We're not exactly sure how this is possible, but read our study, look at our numbers and see for yourself that Romney's plan works. We're the American Enterprise Institute and we approve this message, approve of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, approve of doing anything to make him president and approve of great nonpartisan conservative think-tanks like ours."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/14/1009231/fox-host-challenges-romney-study/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/romney-tax-plan-ed-gillespie_n_1964934.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non+partisan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"