As if the president wasn't having hard enough times on the election trail with the failed debate, possible foreign donations scandal, and dwindling poll numbers, the author of a study on the Mitt Romney tax plan has come out saying the president has lied about his study.
According to the Obama campaign “Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000,” wrote H. Scott English of The Inquisitor. But in reality only the $100,000 dollar group was used in the study. Seeing as how this was one of the big pushes President Obama made during the debate, it seems he has gotten himself into quite the pickle.
Mr. Rosen sent an email to The Weekly Standard stating "I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."
Now the question is being raised, was it intentional or not? Many people are asking this question as many articles and Mr. Rosen's own statements show obvious misrepresentation. It seems the list of things going wrong with the Obama campaign are piling up, and this is showing in polling data and prediction models. If this Thursday's VP debates and the two remaining Presidential debates go the Romney and Ryan, Obama may be in real trouble.