Romney Defines His Record on Taxes/Fees

by Blair Boyd and David Albrecht

At a Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney got into a heated discussion with former mayor of New York City Rudolph W. Giuliani. The controversy centered on the issue of the handling taxes during each candidate’s time in office. Giuliani criticized Romney, saying that per capita taxes and spending under Mr. Romney had increased while per capita taxes and spending under him as mayor had fallen. Romney responded by saying,

“It’s a nice line, but it’s baloney. I did not increase taxes in Massachusetts. I lowered taxes.”

So who is right in this squabble? We look at the context of taxes and fees in Massachusetts.

While this statement is literally true in the sense that he did not “raise taxes”, he did take other measures which can be interpreted as an increase in taxes. These measures included: raising fees upwards of $400 million by increasing costs for getting married, buying a house, bringing a case to court, and using a public golf course. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery charge for gasoline.

In addition to raising multiple fees, Romney also raised more than $300 million by closing so-called corporate loopholes, what the business community considers the same as a tax increase.
According to John Berthoud, president of the National Tax Payers Union, “Closing tax loopholes and not cutting rates concurrently—that’s a tax increase.”

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesperson for Governor Romney countered this concept of closing loopholes by stating that they were more about tax enforcement than tax increases. He goes on to define one of those loopholes by saying,

"The biggest loophole closing involved banks that were calling themselves real estate companies in order to avoid bank taxes. Those were the types of abuses we stopped. That's called tax enforcement."

Steven Slivinski, director of budget studies at Cato agrees with the business side of the loophole concept.

“Romney’s people are trying to spin this by saying he kept his ‘No new taxes’ pledge. I guess if you consider only personal income taxes and sales taxes, he’s within bounds. If you take a broader view, he is not.”

Lesson: Former governor Romney has sugarcoated his record a bit, only presenting one angle to how he handled taxes in the state. He approved of policies that in the public eye might not be considered the same as tax increases, but anti-tax groups beg to differ. We leave it up to your judgment whether closing loopholes equates to raising taxes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Romney Accurate on Illegal Immigrants and Tuition

by Desiree Jackson

On November 13, 2007, while campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa, Mitt Romney accused opponents Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee of supporting tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants.
According to the Des Moines Register,

“Romney contended that Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, fought for tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants in his state, while Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, provided tuition breaks at City University for illegal immigrants.”

Romney also claimed that as governor he vetoed legislation to give a tuition break at state schools to children of illegal immigrants. Is Romney telling the whole truth in this matter?

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education,

“The City University of New York will raise tuition next semester for students who are illegal immigrants, ending a 12-year-old policy of allowing foreigners who have attended New York State high schools to pay lower in-state tuition. Until now, such students have been allowed to pay in-state tuition rates at CUNY as long as they could prove that they had attended high school in New York for at least a year before enrolling in college.”

The article was published in 2001 and Rudy Giuliani was elected as Mayor of New York in 1993. The policy of allowing illegal immigrants was in place before Giuliani took office but it did continue under his leadership as well. Students who had graduated from a New York State high school at least one year before entering college were allowed to attend New York state colleges at the in-state tuition rate, rather than paying more for out-of-state tuition.

According The Deseret News,

“Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tried -- and failed -- this spring to extend state-funded scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. His spokesman Rex Nelson said the proposal recognized that immigrants' children are likely to remain in the state and that Arkansas needs a well-educated work force.”

As recently as November, Huckabee defended his position on illegal immigration. At the CNN-YouTube Debate held on November 28, 2007, Huckabee defended his support of providing state-funded scholarships to children of illegal immigrants.

“I supported the bill that would've allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms. They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship. This bill would've said that if you came here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That’s not what we typically do in this country....It accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status. And the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax- takers. And that's what that provision did.”

Mitt Romney also claims that he vetoed similar legislation when he was serving as Massachusetts Governor. According to the Boston Globe,

“A bill currently being considered by the Legislature would provide in-state tuition at our public colleges and university to individuals who are in the United States illegally. Governor Romney vetoed a similar provision last June, and he is prepared to do so again.”

Lesson: Giuliani supported illegal immigrants paying in-state tuition at state colleges for students who graduated from a New York State high school. Huckabee supported state-funded scholarships for children of illegal immigrants. Mitt Romney did not allow tuition breaks for illegal immigrants while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney’s claims are correct.

Read More...

Summary only...

Mitt Romney: Consistent Gun Rights Advocate?

by Emily Schettler and Ali Jepsen

Has Mitt Romney been consistent on the issue of gun control? This fact check takes a look…

In an interview with Townhall.com, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney spoke about gun control and the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy.

About the shooting, Romney stated:

“I realize people will always take the occasion of a major news event to push their own agenda. There are people in the country who fundamentally believe that people in our country should not be allowed to have guns. They’re wrong. The Second Amendment protects the rights of individual citizens to bear arms or protect themselves, and I will defend the Second Amendment. I think efforts to politicize this tragedy are mistaken and misdirected...we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.”

However, Mitt Romney has not always held this position. In 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Romney supported the Brady Bill and a ban on assault-style weapons. These measures for gun control were opposed by gun owners and high-visibility gun rights groups like the NRA. Romney maintained this stance on the issue when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

As governor, he took measures to tighten gun laws by making it difficult to obtain a weapon. In one gubernatorial debate, he announced his strong convictions on guns:

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them….I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."

In 2004, he helped permanently ban “assault weapons” in Massachusetts when it became apparent that national laws would become more lax.

In 2005, Romney refused to pardon a military man, Anthony Circosta, who had been charged with a felony firearm offense for shooting a friend with a BB gun when he was thirteen. Romney claimed that he did not want to overturn a jury decision, but a spokesman for Romney’s campaign, Eric Fehrnstrom, also said a pardon was not given because Circosta was charged with “felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.” Circosta requested a pardon to obtain a license to carry so he could become a police officer in his hometown.

In June of this year, Fehrnstrom reiterated:

“Our executive clemency guidelines discouraged pardons for felony firearm offenses if the purpose of the pardon was to obtain a license to carry.”

Considering Romney’s current support for gun rights, it seems odd that Romney would not pardon a man for misusing a BB gun as a thirteen-year-old.

Since beginning his presidential run, Romney’s views on gun control seem to have shifted. While he still supports the banning of all assault weapons, he now refuses to take a position on the Brady Bill – a bill he stood behind in his 1994 Senate bid. In that same campaign, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t line up with the NRA.” In August of 2006, Romney applied for membership to the NRA and now claims to be a “lifelong member” (a top membership “level” in the group).

Lesson: Voters on either side of the gun control issue should take care in examining Romney’s current stance on the issue. In this presidential nomination race, Romney has contradicted some of his prior views and aligned himself with the gun rights lobby, a core constituency in the Republican Party base.

Read More...

Summary only...

Romney Promises Spending Cuts, "Likes Vetoes"

by Katherine Hanson and Kayte Hennick

At The Mackinack Republican Leadership Conference on September 22, 2007, Governor Mitt Romney made the following statement:

“If I am elected President, I will cap non-military discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. If I get appropriations above that amount, I will veto them. And I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of items already. Let’s put some fresh ink in the Presidential veto pen.”

How credible is this promise? Let’s look at the context.

“If I am elected president, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent.”

First, what is non-defense discretionary spending? Non-defense discretionary spending refers to spending set by annual appropriation levels decided by Congress (and later signed into law by the President). It includes programs like education, public highway funds, and national parks. With the growth of entitlements (i.e. social security, Medicare, Medicaid) every year, it will become increasingly difficult to find non-defense discretionary spending to cut (without running up more deficits).

Romney recently stated, “America has seen an embarrassing spike in non-defense discretionary spending” and “[capping non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus 1 percent] would save $300 billion - $300 billion - in 10 years. And if Congress sends me a budget that exceeds that cap, I will veto that budget."

Another site provides more information about Romney’s statement. According to non-partisan watchdog FactCheck.org, what Gov. Romney is promising is literally true, but voters need more context to properly evaluate the claim. Based on interviews with Romney’s staff, FactCheck.org reports that

"Romney would make no exception for those popular programs [non-discretionary], nor would he spare law enforcement, farm aid or scientific research. The Romney campaign says he would make an exception only for "one-time spending for natural disasters and other catastrophic situations."

“I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of items already.”

Romney has made this claim a number of times and even went so far as to make a television ad to show how strongly he feels about vetoes. What he doesn’t say is that the Massachusetts legislature overturned more than 700 of Romney’s vetoes. (In Romney’s four years as Governor he issued more than 800 vetoes in total.)

Romney promises to veto, as President, any bill he believes constitutes out of control spending. In Massachusetts, the process of vetoing a bill is easier because portions of a bill can be vetoed. This is called a line item veto. The president of the United States only has two options, sign the bill or send it back to Congress.

Lessons: Mitt Romney is promising to cap non-defense discretionary spending and we have no reason to doubt his intention to do this. Romney does like vetoes and he is truthful in saying that he has vetoed hundreds of items. He doesn’t say that most of his vetoes did not stand. Romney’s voting record follows in suit with his statements. For a history of Romney’s vetoes and budget statements, click here.

Read More...

Summary only...