Fact-Checker Claims Romney Won’t Raise Taxes On The Middle Class Because ‘He Has Promised He Won’t’

[ProSense]

Fact-Checker Claims Romney Won’t Raise Taxes On The Middle Class Because ‘He Has Promised He Won’t’

By Travis Waldron

FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking organization, highlighted several claims from the Democratic National Convention’s first night of speeches that it called “dubious or misleading.” But a closer examination of at least one of those claims leads to the conclusion that FactCheck.org needs to check its own facts instead of relying on baseless promises from political candidates.

San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro cited a well-known study from the Tax Policy Center when he stated that Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan would “raise taxes on the middle class.” FactCheck.org, however, found that claim to be misleading because Romney “has promised he won’t” raise middle-class taxes:

The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the “middle class.” He has promised he won’t. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.

FactCheck.org is right that Romney’s plan “doesn’t necessarily” raise taxes on the middle class, but it is absurd to base that conclusion on the candidate’s promises. Romney has, indeed, promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But he has also promised that his tax plan will maintain current revenue levels.

Those promises, by any measure, are totally incompatible, something the Tax Policy Center study made abundantly clear when it found that Romney couldn’t possibly raise enough revenue to maintain current revenue levels by closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Thus, Romney’s plan will either add to the deficit or raise middle-class taxes, unless he forgoes his 20 percent rate reduction altogether.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/05/796961/fact-check-romney-taxes-dnc/

Trust Mitt: Releasing his tax returns would be "damaging" and policy details would be "suicidal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021151118

Even if one ignores the TPC analysis, Romney's plan raises taxes on the low-income Americans.





Glad someone else is focusing on these GOP shill fact checkers.

WaPo's Glenn Kessler: After defending Ryan's dishonest speech, takes issue with DNC speakers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021274205

[RedStateLiberal]

1. I guess we're suppose to trust a pathological liar.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I really hate it when fact checkers try to appear balanced with BS like this. Ruins their credibility.

[ProSense]

2. Think that's bad, here

is what Factcheck.org is calling "disinformation"

■Two advocates of equal-pay legislation said women make 77 cents for every dollar men earn. That’s true on average, but the gap for women doing the same work as men is much less, and not entirely or even mostly the result of job discrimination.
■A union president accused Romney of seeking “a government bailout” for “his company.” Not really. In fact, Romney negotiated a favorable but routine settlement with bank regulators on behalf of a former company, the one he had left to form his own Bain Capital firm. No taxpayer funds were involved.
■Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That’s a figure that applied to Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous. The Congressional Budget Office says it “may” lead to higher costs for beneficiaries, but it can’t estimate how much.

Factcheck: Oh, it's true, but let's not get carried away!!!

On the FDIC, that's like claiming that TARP wasn't a federal bailout. An FDIC bailout is “a government bailout," you liars.

Facts:

In addition to the legal proceedings, Bair has made the following remark, which spoke to the FDIC’s lack of statutory authority pre Dodd-Frank. In a response to the Inspector General for the TARP program, Bair remarked, "We were told by the New York Fed that problems would occur in the global markets if Citi were to fail. We didn't have our own information to verify this statement, so I didn't want to dispute that with them." In 2008, the FDIC did not have the legal authority to put large holding companies into its bank receivership process and little authority to access information outside of the insured institutions. Since these were holding companies, and not banks, the FDIC had to rely on information from other regulators. That is no longer the case. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, expressly prohibiting bank bailouts by extending the FDIC’s resolution authority to close the largest financial firms and make their shareholders and creditors bear the losses without creating a systemic disruption. Dodd-Frank also gave the FDIC new authority to directly access information from large bank holding companies which are not in sound condition.13] [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Bair#Criticism

Ends Too Big to Fail Bailouts: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf