Just last week, Mitt Romney said:
"I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America."
That was a lie, obviously, since we've had a progressive income tax in the United States for about 100 years. Perhaps someone pointed this out to Romney before he went on "60 Minutes" last night, because he completely changed his tune on redistribution.
Pelley: What would the individual federal income tax rates be?
Romney: Well, they would be the current rates less 20 percent. So the top rate, for instance, would go from 35 to 28. Middle rates would come down by 20 percent as well. All the rates come down. But unless people think there's going to be a huge reduction in the taxes they owe, that's really not the case. Because we're also going to limit deductions and exemptions, particularly for people at the high end. Because I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people. What I would like to do is to get a tax reduction for middle income families by eliminating the tax for middle income families on interest, dividends, and capital gains.
[...]
Pelley: You're asking the American people to hire you as president of the United States. They'd like to hear some specifics.
Romney: Well, I can tell them specifically what my policy looks like. I will not raise taxes on middle income folks. I will not lower the share of taxes paid by high income individuals. And I will make sure that we bring down rates, we limit deductions and exemptions so we can keep the progressivity in the code, and we encourage growth in jobs.
"Keeping the progressivity in the code" is Romneybot MBA speak for "taking from some and giving to others" -- exactly the stuff wingnuts point and shriek at Obama for saying. Would've been nice if Pelley had pointed out this contradiction, but, to channel Donald Rumsfeld, you hold elections with the press corps you have.
