Chris Wallace Takes On Romney Adviser Over 'Questionable' Studies Supporting Romney's Tax Plan

» 7 comments

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace spoke to Romney adviser Ed Gillespie about the Romney campaign's tax plan. The pair sparred over the campaign's lack of details ' and Wallace went on to deem the studies that support the plan 'questionable.'

During the debate, Wallace said, Paul Ryan provided no additional specifics about the tax plan. He's said we should leave the matter up to congressional negotiation.

'Why is it all right to tell voters about the candy [the 20-percent across-the-board tax cut]'but let's not tell them about the spinach, which is, you're gonna lose some deductions?' Wallace asked.

Gillespie said they have discussed deductions, and said they can't start negotiating 'in a campaign environment.' Gillespie further defended the math, saying, 'Six different studies have said this is entirely doable.'

Wallace deemed some of those studies 'questionable.'

One of them 'is a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush,' Wallace added. 'So there are hardly nonpartisan studies.'

Gillespie argued that Harvard and the American Enterprise Institute, among others, 'are very credibly sources for economic analysis.'

'You wouldn't say that AEI is a conservative think tank?' Wallace asked.

'I would say it is a right-leaning think tank,' Gillespie replied. 'That doesn't make it not credible.'

'It doesn't make it nonpartisan,' Wallace countered.

Gillespie disagreed:
It does make it nonpartisan. It is not a partisan organization, I can tell you, there are many instances where there have been things AEI came out with and said, I didn't find it to be necessarily to be helpful to the Republican Party.

'Would you say Brookings Institution is nonpartisan?' Wallace asked. Gillespie said he would call it 'left leaning' and 'nonpartisan.'

The segment below, via Fox:

• Apparently the right wing hacks at the AEI have seen Romney's plan. I wonder if they would be good enough to share the details with the rest of us, since Mr. Romney sees fit to keep everything a secret from us.

• Seems like Gillespie acquitted himself quite well there. Harvard and Princeton aren't right-wing nutjob institutions.

• This is all you need know about these '6 studies':

  ''I imagine that doing so [making Romney's numbers work based on current 2013 tax law and protecting people with incomes below $200,000] would not be mathematically impossible.' This not-so-ringing endorsement is from perhaps the most credible economic study cited by the Romney campaign itself to show the validity of its plan.'

  http://www.samefacts.com/2012/10/taxation/my-favorite-quote-from-sort-of-supportive-study-of-romney-tax-plan/

• oh lookie here .
  giggles

• Come on, Chris, no tough questions. His Etch-A-Sketch can't handle it.

• To the Romney campaign, a thumbs-up from Hannity constitutes an independent, non-partisan study supporting his tax plan.

  Furthermore, Mitt continues to insist that his grand tax plan has specifics, but he refuses to provide them.
  Possible explanations:

  Door #1: The specifics do not exist.

  Door #2: The specifics conflict with the fundamental assertions being made by the Romney campaign.

  Door #3: If the undecided and moderate voters knew the specifics before the election, Romney's chances for winning would plummet.

  Door #4: The specifics are so brilliant and revolutionary that Romney is afraid his opponent will steal his tax policy proposals if he discloses the details before the election.*

  * you always need to throw in a completely absurd choice in a multiple choice quiz ' for comic relief.'

• In the debate, I pray President Obama looks right into the camera and says: Folks, can you trust a person who has/had a Swiss bank account and tax avoidance trusts to fairly amend the Internal Revenue Code?