Republicans attack tax report because it uses something called "facts" which they claim are biased.

"Facts? We are Republicans, we don't need no stinking facts!"

Courtesy of the Hill:

The Congressional Budget Office is defending a recent report on how U.S. multinational corporations are taxed, after a top Republican criticized the analysis as biased. 

Doug Elmendorf, the CBO chief, told House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that the office believed the report “presents the key issues fairly and objectively and that its findings are well grounded in economic theory and are consistent with empirical studies in this area.” 

The taxation of multinationals has become one of the more prominent sticking points in the broader debate over tax reform. 

Camp and other Republicans prefer a so-called territorial system, which would essentially shield most or all of a corporation’s offshore profits from U.S. taxation. 

Camp had criticized the January CBO report for taking sides in what he said was a controversial discussion. 

“This report purports to provide an even-handed review of different policy issues related to the taxation of foreign source income,” Camp wrote to Elmendorf last month. 

“However, a closer analysis of the report reveals that it is heavily slanted and biased in favor of one specific approach to the taxation of foreign source income – and relies heavily on sources that tend to support that conclusion while ignoring sources that support a different conclusion,” he added.

Sadly in response to this criticism CBO Chairman Doug Elmendorf, has caved to the pressure somewhat and said the following: 

“Because of the complexity of the subject and the diverse views of experts in the field, we agree that it would have been desirable to seek comments from more outside reviewers.” 

That to me is an unnecessary acquiescence in the face of an attack on facts, which as we all know have a liberal bias.

These are the same tactics employed by the disinformation outlets utilized by the Right Wing  to muddy the waters and keep their audiences confused about the issues, and voting the way they want them to vote. In my opinion Doug Elmendorf would have been better served in the long run to stand his ground and let the facts speak for themselves.

Didn't we just talk about the different ways the liberal and conservative brains work just yesterday?