[T]he opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.Mitt Romney • Explaining why he doesn’t intend to release any of his tax returns from prior to 2010. As an analysis of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Romney is absolutely right: Obama does indeed want to distract from the economy as much as possible. But as an explanation as to why he’s not releasing his returns, this doesn’t cut it. If there’s nothing to hide in the returns, wouldn’t the Obama campaign’s efforts to “pick through, distort, and lie” fail? If not, that would imply that voters are gullible enough to be fooled into thinking there’s scandal when there isn’t—which, to be fair, may well be the case, but we don’t really think that’s the argument Romney should be making if he wants to be elected president. Also, saying stuff like that results in headlines like this. source (via • follow)
The governor has consistently described the mandate as a penalty…[President Obama] insisted publicly and to the members of Congress that the mandate was not a tax. After it passed the Congress, he sent his solicitor general up to court to argue that it was a tax. Now he is back to arguing that it’s not a tax.Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom • During an interview on MSNBC, saying that President Obama has been the true flip-flopper on how the ACA individual mandate’s penalties should be classified. Following last week’s Supreme Court ruling on the matter, many conservatives have been quick to call the individual mandate a tremendous tax hike, with Rush Limbaugh going so far as to say it will be “the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.” While that’s since been proven untrue, it’s a bit surprising to see the Romney camp bucking the party-line on this issue, especially since they were falling in line just a few days ago. source (via • follow)
» A dip from prior years: Obama’s taxes show a dip in income from his book sales — which earned him millions of dollars in prior years — to the point where it makes up roughly half of his income in 2012, with the other half coming from his presidential salary. The president, it turns out, made under the $1 million in income that would force him to pay higher taxes under his proposed “Buffett Rule.” Obama certainly isn’t struggling, though his income doesn’t compare to what his likely GOP competitor, Mitt Romney, has made in recent years. In other news, we’re betting this post is reminding you that you forgot to do your taxes. Better get on that!
We could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule. I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everyone has to do their fair share.President Barack Obama • During a speech before a group of executives at the White House, the second pitch he’s made for the policy in as many days. The President said he agreed with critics who claim the policy doesn’t put a large enough dent in our debt, saying that the absence of a complete fix was not an excuse for inaction, and that it would be “something that will get us moving in the right direction.” Obama also took aim at Republican opposition, saying, “If Republicans in Congress were truly concerned with deficits and debt, then I’m assuming they wouldn’t have just proposed to spend an additional $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates….for every millionaire in America.”source (via • follow)
» Good news for Democrats: GOP leadership has indicated that they’ll pass a 10-month extension of the payroll tax without any offsets in spending. Democrats had wanted to balance the tax cut, in part, with higher taxes on the rich; Republicans wanted to do so, in part, with cuts to unemployment benefits. Ultimately, they couldn’t agree, and so it will be passed with no offsets at all. Why is this good news for Democrats? Well, the GOP took a hard-line against the payroll tax cut—which largely benefits the middle-class—last December, making the once-benign policy a partisan issue. Democrats, by and large, were okay passing it sans offsets—the suggestion to pay for it via tax cuts on the rich was more a general effort to increase taxes on the rich—and so the fact that the extension is going to pass is a political and legislative win for Democrats. But the extension expires in ten months—right around the presidential election—so this fight is only over in the short-term.