Waiting for

Jonathan Chait to document any of the impossible promises Obama made like he did at this New Yorker article.  Via RCP – where the headline was shortened to “Romney’s Impossible Tax Promises”.

Moving on…

“The sub-campaign to define Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, as I never tire of pointing out, is merely about softening up the Republican nominee for the major fight of the campaign: Obama’s charge that his economic program is merely a retread of the Bush-era program of tax cuts for the rich.” – Here Chait admits a team effort between the press and the Obama campaign.

Here “Recall that Romney’s old campaign line about how he wasn’t concerned about the very poor was also packaged with a supposedly parallel line about not being concerned about the very rich — neither group would receive any particular targeted benefit from his program.” Chait – of all people – goes on to imply that context does not matter.

And “Romney’s plan has been to hold together these promises by shrouding his tax and budget plans in a veil of secrecy.” where, Romney is being secretive compared to Obama who told everyone who would listen how badly his plan would work.

Winner! “… insofar as they are known. The finding was simple. Romney’s promises, it found, are mathematically impossible.”  And an airplane is physically impossible if minor details such as vertical tail, pilot training, or air pressure are not known.  This is how Chait makes money from the New Yorker?  Wow!  What impressive intelligence he displays. Right up there with the Brookings Institution and the Tax Policy Center.

“It’s worth noting that the study embraces implausibly friendly assumptions as to how Romney would go about this.” – Why?  This point makes the conclusions of their study no more or less accurate.  Chait is on a roll.

“What’s more, the paper assumes that Romney’s plan would increase economic growth, meaning it wouldn’t have to find dollar-for-dollar replacements for all its lost income.” – Is this a surprise?  Any plan would produce more growth than Obama’s plan has.  All politicians seem to get the benefit of the doubt on how successful their plans are.  Note, for instance, how Obama’s plans keep getting downgraded to match the reality they produce [as in the unemployment will never exceed 8% portion of his stimulus plan.]   I don’t seem to recall the same indignation on the part of Chait for any of the BS plans Obama’s generated.

“… the paper adopts a model created by Greg Mankiw — who is, of course, a Bush administration veteran and one of Romney’s main economic advisers.”  Argument by ad hominem.  Not sure this is the most effective technique taught by Journalist schools.  However – I will remind Chait that in May of 2007 unemployment was 4.7% and the workforce was much larger.  Perhaps this is why Chait is confused.  Perhaps Chait would feel better about Mankiw if he went to the Economic Department Chair’s Blog: “I am a professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University…”  Harvard! Chait. Harvard!

“Piling implausibly optimistic assumption upon implausibly optimistic assumption, the paper nonetheless concludes that Romney will cut taxes for the rich. That means it would result in some combination of higher taxes for the middle class or higher deficits.” – Now Chait is phoning it in.  Completely forgetting the possibilities of reduced spending, larger quantity of net taxpayers, and reduced loopholes and their effect on the deficit.

New Yorker – You pay this man, Chait?


One thought on “Waiting for

  1. Pingback: More Bias from the Fascists | Uncompassionate Conservative

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s