Conservative
Type 40
FactCheck.org : Obama Twists Romney’s Economic Record
■The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts fell to 47th under Romney. Thats a bit misleading. Massachusetts state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
■The ads claim that Romney cut taxes for millionaires isnt as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. Thats different than pushing for a tax cut.
■The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. Its true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers but he was rebuffed every time by the states Democratic Legislature.
■The ad claims Romney left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt. Its true that long-term bond debt used for capital improvements rose under Romney, as it had in the years before he took office. But Romney wasnt piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is, because Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
■The ad claims that when Romney was governor, Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average. Thats close to true, but the state lost a greater number of manufacturing jobs in the four years before Romney took office, and more in the four years after he left. In fact, the rate of job loss in manufacturing slowed during Romneys time as governor.
■The ad claims Romney outsourced call center jobs to India. Not exactly. What he did was veto a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India. Democrats who controlled the Legislature could have overridden the veto, but didnt. The veto was supported by leading newspapers as a savings to taxpayers
■The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts fell to 47th under Romney. Thats a bit misleading. Massachusetts state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
■The ads claim that Romney cut taxes for millionaires isnt as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. Thats different than pushing for a tax cut.
■The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. Its true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers but he was rebuffed every time by the states Democratic Legislature.
■The ad claims Romney left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt. Its true that long-term bond debt used for capital improvements rose under Romney, as it had in the years before he took office. But Romney wasnt piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is, because Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
■The ad claims that when Romney was governor, Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average. Thats close to true, but the state lost a greater number of manufacturing jobs in the four years before Romney took office, and more in the four years after he left. In fact, the rate of job loss in manufacturing slowed during Romneys time as governor.
■The ad claims Romney outsourced call center jobs to India. Not exactly. What he did was veto a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India. Democrats who controlled the Legislature could have overridden the veto, but didnt. The veto was supported by leading newspapers as a savings to taxpayers
