Candidate Watch
Mitt's Memory Lapse
Arriving in Detroit, Jan. 13, 2008.
"Governor Romney says he supports the [auto] industry, yet when he was running for the governor of another state he wanted to raise the tax on SUVs."
--John McCain, campaigning in Michigan, Jan. 13, 2008.
"Absolute nonsense...Senator McCain has abandoned the facts for his own brand of hypocrisy."
--Romney spokesman Kevin Madden, responding to McCain, Washington Post, Jan. 14. 2008.
With one day to go to the GOP primary in Michigan, Republican candidates are competing against each other to depict themselves as champions of the beleaguered American auto industry. Mitt Romney has accused Sen. John McCain of contributing to the "overregulation" of the industry. But he is on shakier ground when he attempts to fend off charges that he favored higher taxes on gas guzzlers while running for governor of Massachusetts.
The Facts
Running for the governorship of Massachusetts in September 2002, Romney portrayed himself as a commuter-friendly candidate, pledging to take steps to ease traffic congestion and pollution. He promised to clean up the traffic mess with a "commuter bill of rights," unveiled to reporters in a PowerPoint presentation on a bus trip around Boston. His proposals included a reworking of the annual motor vehicle excise tax to favor "fuel efficient" vehicles. (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2002.)
Romney stressed that the excise tax structure would be reworked in a "revenue neutral" way so that the cities and towns that collected the taxes would not lose money. Although he did not explicitly refer to an increase in taxes on SUVs, his aides acknowledged that a reduction in excise taxes on hybrid vehicles would have to be accompanied by an increase in taxes on gas guzzlers in order to bring in the same amount of revenue. (Associated Press, Jan. 23, 2003.)
In addition to the restructuring of the annual vehicles excise taxes, Romney also proposed a 10-year sales tax moratorium on hybrid vehicles. Unlike the excise tax, which is paid annually, the sales tax is only paid once.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said that Romney had only called for a tax cut on hybrid vehicles. Campaign officials said today that the the revamping of the excise tax was just a proposal "studied during the 2002 campaign," which was never implemented.
"There's a big difference between proposing tax breaks to encourage consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, and imposing costly mandates on automakers that make it harder for our domestic manufacturers to compete, as John McCain has done," said Romney spokesman Ted Newton.
The Pinocchio Test
As he chases votes in Michigan in an attempt to keep his presidential bid alive, Mitt Romney has conveniently forgotten what he told Massachusetts voters back in 2002. It is true that nothing came of his 2002 campaign proposal for revamping the vehicle excise tax to favor fuel-efficient vehicles at the expense of gas guzzlers. But it is a big stretch for the Romney campaign to deny that he ever made such a proposal.
Posted on January 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM ET
| Category:
2 Pinocchios, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Economy, John McCain, Mitt Romney
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Huckabee's Cut-and-Paste Job |
Next: Democratic Debate Las Vegas
Posted by: bokonon13 | January 14, 2008 03:08 PM
Someone needs to logic check the fact checker. Giving tax breaks to more fuel efficient cars does not require raising taxes on SUVs. As proven time and time again, the government can come up with multiple creative ways to increase revenues in a "revenue neutral" way. Presenting the speculation of a political aide as "fact" in the absence of any hard evidence that this policy proposal existed is absurd at best, dishonest at worst. But then again, if you had to present facts as facts, you would have had to spend more than 15 minutes writing this article, and who wants that?
Posted by: anjos | January 14, 2008 03:30 PM
Anjos, Mitt himself said his plan would be "revenue neutral". That could only be true if vehicles other than hybrids were taxed more. In this case, the Fact Checker seems to be on pretty solid ground
Posted by: desert jim | January 14, 2008 03:42 PM
Screw this lie, I'm still not satisfied with Romney and his explanation on the Mormons anti-black policy. What kind of man says he didn't like the policy but did nothing to change it? Why not? Did he really not want it changed? Was he afraid of the top echelon of the church? If he was, why wouldn't he be afraid of them as president? His hiding behind his personal religion and using it to show what a good "christian" (I"M really not sure about that one)he is are two diametrically opposed ways of talking out of both sides of the mouth.
Posted by: dwashington314 | January 14, 2008 03:47 PM
Desert Jim,
One could only dream that the government interpreted "revenue neutral" as exactly as you and the fact checker posit. It would certainly make it easier for citizens to figure out where the money is coming and going, but the fact is that it does not. A fair attack would be that Mitt was playing politics (like any candidate does when they deal with tax issues), but it is naive to claim that this means lower taxes on hybrids equals higher taxes on SUVs given the array of tax mechanisms available to state and local governments and the number of pots they can pick from.
Posted by: Anjos | January 14, 2008 04:49 PM
Here are the FACTS, Mr. Checker. A substantial tax on SUVs would not have been as affective as a gasoline tax, but, it WOULD have curtailed the proliferation of gas guzzlers: this would have forced Detroit into a more efficient product mix. FACT.
Posted by: craigslsst | January 14, 2008 05:24 PM
This is my first visit to your "Fact-Checker" website, Michael Dobbs, and upon reading your article "Mitt's Memory Lapse" I think it may be my last because my impression is that you bloviated here, trying to make something out of nothing, hoping (in the words of the famous Dennis-the-Menace Kucinich) to look smart by a half.
Posted by: SmellTheComposte | January 14, 2008 06:58 PM
Even if this had gone into law and been revenue neutral why should that be bad on the auto industry? If the revenue remains the same the taxes remain the same - taxes on autos (in aggregate) would not have changed. Perhaps US cars aren't as fuel efficient in general but why shouldn't they be?
Posted by: Dan | January 14, 2008 09:59 PM
Here's a thought experiment: If, in 1975, after the first gas crisis, the Government had mandated and increase in gas mileage, increased gas taxes and FORCED American auto makers and consumers to move to more efficient cars and trucks..........we might have a competitive auto industry in America, we might have better mass transit in the major cities, we might have better intercity high speed trains, we might no be in the MES we're in now. Thank goodness Ronald Reagan came around and began the anti-government movement. Hell, ya just gotta love my hemi! Sheeeeiit!
Posted by: thebob.bob | January 14, 2008 11:33 PM
I wish these guys wouldn't attack each other on something that is actually a pretty smart idea. McCain has a great environmental record and Romney shouldn't be ashamed of favoring fuel efficiency.
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/mccain-and-environment.html
Posted by: Brandon | January 15, 2008 04:41 PM
Romney, friend of the working people? He doesn't give a diddly about working people. Look at his "forced to buy health insurance in Mass., whether you can afford it or not". According to the article in our paper it said one got fined by the state if one didn't have med. ins., until such time as one proved they had it. And his con on the Mich. people to get their vote of "my home state", and then bragging in SC about it and that he hadn't lived there since 1965! Rich, arrogant, and thinks he's hot snot! Another lying, back stabber that will outsource anything that will make him a buck!
Posted by: et | January 24, 2008 08:42 PM
Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.
Posted by: Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 09:17 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Mitt Romney should have a default rating of at least three Pinocchios on anything he says.