Ed Gillespie has always been willing to lie for his candidates, so this is not a surprise:
WASHINGTON — For the first time publicly, the Mitt Romney campaign was asked Sunday to defend the six studies it routinely cites as supportive of the candidate’s tax plan.
The studies have been called into question for weeks now, as only one or two of them are actually academic. The rest are blog posts and op-eds, some written by the same author, others by conservative sources. One study cited was actually paid for by the campaign itself, though the campaign has since replaced that study with another.
More problematic for Romney is that a number of them reached conclusions that he would find uncomfortable. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, for instance, said that Romney’s tax plan could work mathematically if it eliminated deductions and exemptions for individuals making over $100,000 per year. A Princeton study put that figure at $200,000, though the author told Bloomberg News that the figure may need to be brought down to pay for Romney’s 20 percent across-the-board reduction in tax rates.
Still, the Romney campaign continues to cite those studies, including during the presidential debates. On Sunday, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked top adviser Ed Gillespie whether that was misleading.
