Christie And Romney: Good For The Wealthy, Bad For The Middle Class? A Fact Check.

CHRISTIE’S TAX PLAN WOULD DO NOTHING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BUT GIVE HUGE TAX BREAKS TO THE WEALTHY

New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “The Christie Tax-Cut Proposal Would Do Very Little For The Middle Class But Give Large Breaks To The Wealthy.” “You see, all that boasting about the Jersey comeback wasn’t just big talk (although it was that, too). It was, instead, supposed to demonstrate that good times were back, revenue was on the upswing, and it was now time for what Mr. Christie really wants: a major cut in income taxes. Even if the comeback were real, this would be a highly dubious idea. By all accounts, New Jersey still has a significant structural deficit, that is, a deficit that will persist even when the economy recovers. Furthermore, the Christie tax-cut proposal would do very little for the middle class but give large breaks to the wealthy.” [Paul Krugman, New York Times, 8/26/12]

New York Times’ Paul Krugman: Christie “Has Effectively Raised Taxes On Low-Income Workers And Homeowners By Slashing Tax Credits.  But He Vetoed A Temporary Surcharge On Millionaires…” “Also, while much of his program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices.” [Paul Krugman, New York Times, 8/26/12]

ROMNEY PASSED A TAX CUT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY BENEFITTED 278 OF THE WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN MASSACHUSETTS

2005: Romney Proposed Changing The Effective Date Of The Capital Gains Tax Increase From 1/1/02 To 1/1/03, Giving Those Affected An Additional Year Of Tax Relief. “Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that prevents thousands of Massachusetts taxpayers from having to pay retroactive taxes on financial transactions that occurred more than three years ago… The court set the effective date of the tax increase at January 1, 2002. However, this action exposed nearly 50,000 taxpayers to an additional $200 million in state taxes on gains realized during the first four months of 2002. Through a bill filed in June and an amendment made to existing legislation last month, Romney proposed to set the effective date of the tax law change at January 1, 2003, a change that would prevent retroactive taxation. Earlier this week, the Legislature adopted Romney’s proposal.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]

·   Massachusetts Was Required To Refund Up To $275 Million To Taxpayers Who “Paid The Higher Capital Gains Tax Rate In The Last Eight Months Of 2002.” “With the change in date, the state is required to refund between $225 million and $275 million to the estimated 157,000 taxpayers who paid the higher capital gains tax rate in the last eight months of 2002.” [Press Release, Mitt Romney, 12/8/05]

·   Associated Press: “About $78 Million Of That Is Owed By Just 278 Wealthy People, Who Would Pay An Average Of $281,000 Each.” “Gov. Mitt Romney proposed on Friday that Massachusetts residents forced to pay retroactive capital gains taxes from 2002 get the money back in rebates over three years… The Department of Revenue has already begun mailing out the new tax bills. About $78 million of that is owed by just 278 wealthy people, who would pay an average of $281,000 each.” [Associated Press, 11/18/05]

ROMNEY RAISED TAXES AND FEES BY $750 MILLION ANNUALLY ON MASSACHUSETTS’ MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES

Romney: “We Raised Fees On All Sorts Of Things In Massachusetts.”

ROMNEY: “We raised fees on all sorts of things in Massachusetts. Fees hadn’t been touched, in some cases, for decades, and we said, look, we’re going to raise the fees… we’re not going to raise the fees on things that are broad based like driver’s licenses and license plates because everybody gets hit with that. But on those things that are done by a minority of people and where the state provides a service, we did raise fees, yeah.” [Howie Carr, 12/21/11]

Romney’s Campaign “States Incorrectly That He Did Not Raise Taxes As Governor.” “A Romney response ad released Friday states incorrectly that he did not raise taxes as governor.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker: “The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation Estimated That The Former Governor Raised An Extra $750 Million Per Year Through Fees And Loophole Closures.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker, 6/12/12]

·    National Conference of State Legislatures: Massachusetts Imposed More Fee Hikes Than Any Other State in the Nation In 2003. [Congress Daily, 8/28/03]

·    Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: Fee And Tax Increases In Romney’s First Budget “Will Surely Hit Taxpayers’ Pocketbooks As Hard As Any Tax Increase And, Many Would Argue, Less Fairly As Well.” [Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation 8/11/2003]

·    Cato Institute On Romney’s Claims He Stood By A No-New-Taxes Pledge As Governor: “Mostly A Myth.” [Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006, 10/24/06]

·   Club For Growth: Romney’s “Fee Hikes And ‘Loophole’ Closures Are Troubling.” [AP, 8/28/07]

Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Tax Burden Increased 6.25%. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ tax burden in 2002 was 9.6%. When Romney left office, the burden had risen to 10.2%, which was a 6.25% change under Romney. Tax burden compares the total state and local per capita taxes paid against the per capita income. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts’ State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]

·     Under Romney, The “Total State And Local Per Capita Taxes Paid” Rose By $1,227 Which Was A 30.4% Increase. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $4,038 in 2002. In 2006, Massachusetts’ total state and local taxes paid per capita was $ $5,265. [Tax Foundation – Massachusetts’ State and Local Tax Burden 1977-2009, accessed 3/2/12]

UNDER CHRISTIE AND ROMNEY, MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES FACED HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES

CHRISTIE VETOED PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS

Gov. Chris Christie Twice Vetoed Property Tax Relief For Middle Class Families. “Meanwhile, Assembly Democrats pushed ahead with a separate property tax cut to be paid for by a tax increase on those who make $1 million or more, a measure Christie has vetoed twice before.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/3/12]

UNDER ROMNEY, PROPERTY TAXES ROSE BY NEARLY $800 FOR THE AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNER

From Fiscal 2002 To Fiscal 2006, The Average Single-Family Homeowner Paid $784 More In Property Taxes. In October 2006, Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoff Beckwith wrote: “High property taxes must be a major issue, and it is easy to see why. On average, single-family homeowners now pay $784 more in property taxes in fiscal 2006 than they did in fiscal 2002, a number that will grow even higher once final tax rates are set later this year. Total revenues from the residential property tax increased by a staggering 38 percent between 2002 and 2006, and cities and towns are now more reliant on property taxes to balance their budgets than at any other time in the past 25 years.” [The Beacon, October 2006, Vol. XXXII, #9, taken from the Massachusetts Municipal Association website]

·  Property Taxes Increased As The State Cut Local Aid; By The End Of Romney’s Term, Virtually Every City And Town In Massachusetts Received Less Local Aid Than In Fiscal 2002, Accounting For Inflation. In October 2006, Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoff Beckwith wrote: “And we know why [property taxes have increased]. Beginning in fiscal 2003, the state imposed the deepest mid-year local aid cuts in our history, and then followed with a steeper reduction in fiscal 2004. The cuts were so deep that even after two years of local aid increases (fiscal 2006 and 2007), 113 cities and towns still receive less local aid today than they did in fiscal 2002, and that is before making any adjustments for inflation. If we account for inflation, virtually all cities and towns receive lower levels of local aid than they did five years ago, for a statewide reduction of $682 million, a 13 percent cut below fiscal 2002 local aid amounts.” [The Beacon, October 2006, Vol. XXXII, #9, taken from the Massachusetts Municipal Association website]

UNDER CHRISTIE AND ROMNEY, ECONOMIES STAGNATED AND  BOTH HAVE FAILED AT JOB CREATION

UNDER GOVERNOR CHRISTIE, NEW JERSEY LAGGED BEHIND THE NATION IN UNEMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Under Christie, New Jersey Has Fallen From 35th to 48th In Unemployment.

“When Mr. Christie took office, the state unemployment rate was 9.7 percent, ranking 35th in the nation. Now the rate is 9.6 percent, ranking 48th.” [New York Times, 7/30/12]

·   2011: New Jersey Ranked 47th in Economic Growth.  “The federal

government released data indicating the state’s economy shrank by 0.5 percent in 2011, even as 43 states saw their economies grow last year, with the state ranked 47th in economic performance.” [Herald News, 6/6/12]

Under Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey’s Economy Shrank While The National

Economy Grew.  “While New Jersey’s economy shrank 0.5 percent in 2011, overall the state-by-state gross domestic product numbers grew by 1.5 percent, according to the report released Tuesday by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis…Overall, the state’s economy last year was 3.8 percent smaller than in 2008…Nationally, the economy is 0.7 percent ahead of 2008 levels.” [Herald News, 6/6/12]

ROMNEY RANKED 47th OUT OF 50th IN JOB GROWTH AS MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR

Wall Street Journal: “The Most Powerful Statistic May Be That Under Mr. Romney, Massachusetts Was 47th Out Of 50 States In Job Creation, Down From 36th When He Took Office.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/31/12]

USA Today Fact Check: Under Romney, Massachusetts Net Job Growth That Was “Far Slower” Than The National Average And Ranked 47th In Job Growth Over The Entirety Of Romney’s Term. “Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3%. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.” [Fact Check, USA Today, 1/5/12]

WHEN ROMNEY ENTERED OFFICE, THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE, IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE

When Romney Entered Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Lower Than The National Average. When He Left Office, The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Was Higher Than The National Average. [BLS.gov. Accessed 5/22/12]

·    Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Dropped From 5.6% In December 2002, To 4.7% In December 2006. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, 9/16/11]

·         Nationally, Unemployment Dropped From 6.0% To 4.4% While Romney Was Governor Of Massachusetts. [BLS.gov. Accessed 5/22/12]

·     Massachusetts Leapt From 29th Highest To 17th In Unemployment Showing The State “Wasn’t Keeping Pace With Other Parts Of The Country.” “But the state’s jobless rate stayed the same during Romney’s final year as governor, and Massachusetts leapt from 29th highest to 17th in unemployment. Clearly the Bay State wasn’t keeping pace with other parts of the country.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]

UNDER ROMNEY, MASSACHUSETTS LAGGED BEHIND THE NATION IN JOB GROWTH

Washington Post Fact Checker: Massachusetts Added 50,000 Jobs During

Romney’s Tenure In Office Representing “Only 1.5 Percent Growth” In The State, “Compared To A Higher 5 Percent Increased For The Nation As A Whole During The Same Period.” “Data from the Bureau of Labor statistics shows that Massachusetts added 50,000 jobs during Romney’s tenure in office. But that number represents only 1.5 percent growth for the Bay State, compared to a higher 5 percent increase for the nation as a whole during the same period. (We used seasonally adjusted data for our comparisons).” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 8/10/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Unemployment And Underemployment Decreased By 7.5 Percent While Romney Was In Office, “Compared To A Drop Of About 15 Percent For The Country As A Whole [During The Same Period].” “In terms of combined underemployment and unemployment, the level in Massachusetts decreased from 241,000 to 223,000 while Romney was in office, representing a decrease of 7.5 percent. That’s compared to a drop of about 15 percent for the country as a whole.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 8/10/12]

Washington Post Fact Checker: “With Unemployment Rates, Massachusetts Dropped .9 Percentage Points Under Romney, While The United States Fell By 1.4 Percentage Points During The Same Period.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 8/10/12]

UNDER ROMNEY, THE RATE OF NEW START-UPS IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, DECLINING DURING ROMNEY’S TENURE

Start-Up Creation In Massachusetts Declined Over The Course of Romney’s Tenure. During the fourth quarter of 2002—the quarter before Romney took office, 4,510 establishments were born in Massachusetts. During the 4th quarter of 2006—his final quarter—only 4,026 establishments were born. As a whole, 2006 had the lowest level of establishment births since 1993, when state data is first available. [BLS.gov, accessed 6/4/2012]

By The Time Romney Left Office, More Business Establishments Were Going Out Of Business Than Being Created. In 2002, the year before Romney took office, Massachusetts on average had 4,517 new start-ups per quarter compared to 4,334 business “deaths.” By 2006, there were an average 4,084 new start-ups per quarter in Massachusetts compared to 4,099 business deaths. [BLS.gov, accessed 6/4/2012]

The Average Rate Of Start-up Creation Was Lower Than The National Average During Romney’s Tenure. In total, the average start-up creation rate for Massachusetts from the 1th quarter of 2003 to the 4th quarter of 2006 was 2.7%, while it was 3.2% for the nation. [BLS.gov, accessed 6/4/2012]

• Tweet This
• Digg This
• Save to delicious
• Stumble it
• RSS Feed