Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Romney's Changing Tax Policy
In June, Willard Mitt proposed three new tax increases: one on IRS closing agreements, another coming on changing diversified savings and loan company definitions, and a third hitting late-filed refund returns. The hikes are expected to bring in tens of millions of dollars in new state revenue. (source: State House News, 10/7/2003)
But Team Reform is officially against taxes - or so they said.
Remember Willard Mitt flapping his arms and screeching to the Republican State Convention that "Democrats want to raise your taxes, and my friends, they are wrong." (source; Boston Herald, 4/7/2002)
Which is why we so confused by the explanation ushered up by the DOR spokesman, who said of Romney's changes that "I don't think they are necessarily tax increases. There isn't anything here that raises rates or does anything of that sort. They are all trying to fix, clarify, or formalize policy at the state level." (source: State House News, 10/7/2003)
We would have bought the statement, except he said "necessarily." The changes are not "necessarily" tax increases. It all depends on how you define 'define.'
Personally, we liked it when things were simpler, and people made clear cut statements, like when Romney's now loathsome $150,000-a-year spokesman said that if elected, Willard Mitt “will not raise taxes” because the state is hampered not so much by a fiscal crisis but by a "leadership crisis." (source: Boston Herald, 3/20/2002)
Much easier to understand. And like all great statements, truer today than when it was first uttered, at least with respect to the corner office.
In June, Willard Mitt proposed three new tax increases: one on IRS closing agreements, another coming on changing diversified savings and loan company definitions, and a third hitting late-filed refund returns. The hikes are expected to bring in tens of millions of dollars in new state revenue. (source: State House News, 10/7/2003)
But Team Reform is officially against taxes - or so they said.
Remember Willard Mitt flapping his arms and screeching to the Republican State Convention that "Democrats want to raise your taxes, and my friends, they are wrong." (source; Boston Herald, 4/7/2002)
Which is why we so confused by the explanation ushered up by the DOR spokesman, who said of Romney's changes that "I don't think they are necessarily tax increases. There isn't anything here that raises rates or does anything of that sort. They are all trying to fix, clarify, or formalize policy at the state level." (source: State House News, 10/7/2003)
We would have bought the statement, except he said "necessarily." The changes are not "necessarily" tax increases. It all depends on how you define 'define.'
Personally, we liked it when things were simpler, and people made clear cut statements, like when Romney's now loathsome $150,000-a-year spokesman said that if elected, Willard Mitt “will not raise taxes” because the state is hampered not so much by a fiscal crisis but by a "leadership crisis." (source: Boston Herald, 3/20/2002)
Much easier to understand. And like all great statements, truer today than when it was first uttered, at least with respect to the corner office.
