The Mittster Mash: Romney Was Against the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts Before He Was For Them

(To the tune of “The Monster Mash“)

This is to be the first of quite a few posts,
That will show why Mitt Romney and his bid should be toast.
This man is much more scary than any mere ghost.
And thus should be rejected by the voters coast to coast.

We’re doin’ the Mash.
We’re doin’ the Mittster Mash.
The Mittster Mash.
It’s fueled by tons of cash.
The Mittster Mash.
Of his credibility we will make hash.
The Mittster Mash.
We’re doin’ the Mittster Mash.

Mittster Mash posts will go up periodically between now and just after midnight on January 3 ahead of the Iowa caucuses.

___________________________________________

Jan. 1, 8:00 p.m. Mittster Mash — Romney “did not agree with” the Bush tax cuts of 2003, yet criticizes opponents who opposed them now.

From the April 11, 2003 Boston Globe (ProQuest database article saved to BizzyBlog hard drive for fair use and discussion purposes; HT EyeOn08) — two days after the fall of Baghdad, Romney would not endorse the proposed Bush tax cuts on dividend income and capital gains (bolds are mine):

Representative Barney Frank of Newton asked the governor whether he had spoken against the $726 billion worth of tax cuts the president is currently pushing at the federal level.

….. Romney said he had not publicly opposed the cuts, according to one observer at the meeting, prompting Frank to ask, “Will you?” Romney replied that he probably would not. The answer triggered laughter in what both sides described as an otherwise bipartisan session.

“I was very pleased,” Frank said afterward. “Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”

According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he “won’t be a cheerleader” for proposals he doesn’t agree with, “but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House.”

Shawn Feddeman, Romney’s spokeswoman, said the governor has neither endorsed nor opposed the tax cut plan because “it’s just not a state matter.”

The fact is that tax receipts soared by 44% in the four fiscal years following the Bush tax cuts as a result of increased economic growth and greater generation of taxable investment income by the highest earners. Even though rates were lower, reported income was so much higher that taxes collected increases markedly — just as supply-side economics would predict.

On December 22, 2007, Romney criticized John McCain for — you guessed it — opposing the Bush tax cuts:

“He voted against the Bush tax cuts — twice,” Romney said. “That’s failing Reagan 101. (Ronald) Reagan taught … almost all of us in the Republican Party that lowering taxes would grow the economy and was good for our economy and good for individuals. And I believe that the Republicans are going to nominate a tax-cutter to become president of the United States.”

Does this guy, or so many of his supporters who should know better, have any sense of shame?

I do hope the Mittster is right, because:

• He was not a tax cutter while he was governor (to be shown in the next post);
• And opposed the signature bill that led to the economic growth of the past four years.
• Ergo, he must not think that Republicans are going to nominate him. Cool.