The left-wing Tax Policy Center and Obama’s sycophantic media (and Politifraud which rates it “Mostly True”) have joined up to look at the broad outlines and principles of Mitt Romney’s tax plan and decided that Republicans plan to raise taxes on the middle class while cutting them for the wealthy.

The Wall Street journal has an excellent editorial on this “Romneyhood” lie that Obama’s been peddling. The money graph:

So on four separate occasions what TPC says is "mathematically impossible"—cutting tax rates and making the tax system more progressive—actually happened. Hats off to the scholars at TPC: Their study manages to claim that what happens in real life can't happen in theory.

And this is the bane of so-called “static scoring.” The tax and budget math that Washington has been using for decades can’t (or won’t) acknowledge that tax rates affect public behavior. When these wonks raise the top marginal tax rate to 90 percent in theory, they raise billions of dollars for the government. In practice, it never works that way as the wealthy find ways—both legal and illegal—to shelter their money from the taxes. Likewise, when marginal rates are lowered, that is seen as money lost to the government. They cannot (or will not) realize that increased economic activity spurred by the fact that people get to keep more of the money they earn has the effect of increasing overall revenues.

It’s this conundrum which prompts the Tax Policy Center to allege that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Romney’s vowed that the tax reforms would be revenue neutral, the TPC can’t figure out a way to make that work, so instead of suggesting that maybe Romney would tweak his proposal to not cut the wealthiest Americans taxes as much as he said he would, they allege that he would instead make up the shortfall by raising taxes on the middle class.

It’s a solution pulled from the same place as the charges that Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in the past 10 years comes from: Harry Reid’s rectum.

A quick addendum on that Politifraud analysis I noted earlier:

Note how Politifraud with their headline begins by putting the focus on the part of the claim that really isn’t in dispute.

Read their entire analysis, but I want to focus on this part of their ruling:

The study is making the point that Romney’s plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan.

So, the study is filling in blanks in Romney’s plan in Mad Libs fashion with what they want to be true (the lead author of the “unbiased” TPC study is a former member of Obama’s Board of Economic Advisors). There are details missing, so you “should be cautious in calling this Romney’s plan.” So, the charge that Romney’s plan will raise taxes on middle class families is…

We rate the claim Mostly True.

And, once again, Politifraud proves their political bias can overcome their own analysis.