Mother Jones' Kevin Drum reminds us that it was "with millions of people watching" yesterday (on MTP) that Mitt Romney endorsed a prohibition on exclusionary preexisting conditions, and later, "with approximately zero people listening, a spokesman quietly 'clarified' what he meant." Which is to say, none of it.
Personally, I'm OK with that. It's only when Mitt himself attempts to expand on his gibberish that I cringe in befuddled horror, as I did, for instance, during his tax-plan elaboration:
I can tell you that people at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions. Those -- those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise, they'd get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers. I'm bringing down the rate of taxation, but also bringing down deductions and exemptions at the high end so the revenues stay the same, the taxes people pay stay the same.
Then why not leave it all as it is? Why would any president go through all the unspeakable trouble of simultaneously lowering and increasing taxes on a given income bracket if it all works out as a perfect wash?
What's more, Romney not only says that when is all is said and done he'll maintain precisely the same tax "burden" on the wealthy; no, he also maintains that somehow only the first half of his tax plan--the actual-lower-tax-rate half--will register in wealthy minds and thus inspire more hiring, while the second half--the actual-higher-taxes half--will have no effect whatsoever on "job creators"' hiring decisions.
I suppose someone could ask Mitt about this. But why risk tampering with perfect bullshit?