Category Archives: Election ’08

Mitt vs Mitt, Round 2

Former Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney gave a speech in Detroit Wednesday. In it, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. However, Mitt wasn’t always a supporter of the Bush tax cuts.

After refusing to endorse President Bush’s tax cuts when he was governor, Mitt Romney has now made them a central part of his presidential campaign, stirring accusations that he is changing his position to appeal to GOP primary voters.

In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.

“For a Republican governor, I thought it was interesting,” U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) said. “I don’t prejudge people, so I thought he might have the courage of his convictions, but I guess I was wrong.”

In a key policy speech in Detroit yesterday, Romney said it is “absolutely critical” to renew President Bush’s tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, to help spur economic growth. It is a stance he has repeated in recent days.

So Mitt, in 2003 at least, was willing to raise gasoline taxes and income taxes. Now, in 2007 when he’s running for president, he’s for income tax cuts. Plus, he’s claiming to be a fiscal conservative as well. However, what Mitt claims and the truth are usually not the same.

But Romney’s fiscal policies in Massachusetts have received mixed marks from conservative watchdogs. The tax-averse Cato Institute gave Romney a “C” on its 2006 fiscal report card, saying the former governor acted aggressively to combat overspending, but failed to hold the line on taxes.

“His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees,” noted Cato Institute budget director Stephen Slivinski.

In other words, he’s a typical Northeastern Republican. What’s next I’m guessing is that Mitt is going to convert to evangelical Christianity before the South Carolina primary.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.

Edwards Has Big Ideas; Need Bigs Taxes

Edwards appears to be leading the charge of Democrats on this issue. He’s likely to drag the entire left side of the field over to promising some form of universal coverage. This may be either the rallying cry for our populace to raid each others wallets, or the death knell of Democrat ’08 electoral chances. Either way, he’s at least honest about what it’s going to cost.

Edwards’ health care plan includes taxes

Health care coverage would no longer be optional in the United States under a plan announced Monday by presidential candidate
John Edwards that would require all businesses to provide insurance and all Americans to have it.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee said he would raise taxes to pay for the plan’s cost of up to $120 billion a year.

Edwards said he would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing
President Bush’s tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes.

“Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes,” Edwards said on NBC. “The only way you can pay for a health care plan that costs anywhere from $90 (billion) to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source.”

I don’t, for a second, believe that this and all the other spending programs we need to pay for will be financed by increasing taxes on those making over $200K. They can claim that, but I guarantee every one of us will feel the sting. The Democrats are making noise about how wonderfully “fiscally responsible” they are, and $240B per year* is a LOT of new spending.

The question is whether the government has screwed up our health care system enough that the people will be duped into letting them take the whole thing over.
» Read more

Should Capitalists Be Added to the Endangered Species List?

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”- Ronald Reagan

These days, it seems as though capitalism is under relentless attack. We hear almost daily the demagoguery of such terms as “economic inequality,” “the income gap,” “price gouging,” “obscene profits.” Just yesterday the Senate overwhelmingly passed an increase in “the living wage” for “the working class.” On any given day, politicians use this language to show how much they “care” about us poor working stiffs and lament the rewards for high achievers.

John Edwards likes to give his “Two Americas” speech to illustrate how unfair it is that some Americans, through hard work, investing, perseverance, and making difficult choices, make disproportionately more than those who make poor choices and underachieve. Hillary Clinton wants to take the profits away from “BIG OIL” and “invest” in government programs to find more efficient, cleaner, and less expensive alternative energy sources. Never mind that government has been investing in such programs for decades with very little return.

Capitalism has always had its adversaries but where are its defenders? They are not in the halls of congress and certainly not in the Oval Office. President Bush, ever the “compassionate” conservative chastised business leaders for “overpaying” executives. Meanwhile, only three Republican Senators (no Democrats) voted against raising the minimum wage. With all this angst against profit makers, it’s only a matter of time before these same politicians will want to impose a “maximum wage” with higher “windfall profits” taxes or by some other means.

Where are the Republicans who stand for small government? Where are the disciples of Ronald ReAgan, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand? Is it time to put capitalists on the endangered species list?

Maybe, maybe not.

Wayne Dunn writing for Capitalism Magazine seems to believe that this type of anger towards achievement is as old as time. In Dunn’s article “An Open Letter to Businesspeople” he writes about how its time for the achievers to stop apologizing to the low achievers for being successful.

Throughout history, those of you who actually invent the things the rest of us use, who create the jobs the rest of us need, who produce the goods the rest of us merely purchase, haven’t been awarded even so much as a shred of recognition from traditional moral codes. Instead you are maligned as “materialists,” condemned as “profit-chasers,” reviled as “ruthless,” vilified as “greedy,” disparaged as “worldly.” They who couldn’t create a match stick or run a dog pound sneer at you who create microchips and run factories.

But when the castigators need money, or a labor-saving device, or a bridge built, or a building erected, or a disease cured, to whom do they run? They who renounce “this world” rely on you who do not. They who scorn “mere” human achievement depend on you who achieve. They who repudiate money bank on you who earn it. They who proclaim that the mind is impotent benefit from minds that are not.

It’s high time that we who believe in capitalism stand up and extol its superior values and support those who will do the same if we do not want to see our free market system go the way of the dinosaurs.

Can We Please Elect Someone Else ?

Michael Barone thinks it’s time that America ended it’s obsession with the Clinton and Bush families:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.

To compare our political struggles to the conflicts between rival dynasties may be carrying it too far. But we have become, I think, a nation that is less small-r republican and more royalist than it used to be. Viscerally, this strikes me as a bad thing. But as I’ve thought about it, I’ve decided that something can be said for the increasing royalism of our politics. And whether you like it or not, you can’t deny it’s there. Not when the wife of the 42nd president is a leading candidate to succeed the 43rd president who in turn is the son of the 41st president. The two George Bushes are referred to in their family, we are told, as 41 and 43. If Hillary Clinton wins, will she and her husband call each other 42 and 44?

And, when you think about it, it’s even worse than that. Starting with the 1976 Presidential Election, there has not been a single Presidential election where someone with the last name Bush, Clinton, or Dole was not on the ticket of one party or the other. Now, it looks like that trend will continue into 2008, and quite possibly, 2012 if Hillary manages to win the election. Is that really what we want ? A nation ruled by a handful of families ?

As Barone points out, this is part of a trend that has been developing for years: » Read more

Another big government Republican files for ’08

It’s official, Mike Huckabee is running, well he at least is taking the step of form an exploratory committee.

Here is what Erick over at Red State had to say about Huckabee:

ATTENTION REPUBLICANS.

You too can support a guy who has no problem raising taxes, hiking the minimum wage, spends his time doing rice commercials, called No Child Left Behind the greatest education reform in his lifetime, wants to ban trans fats, thinks the government needs to up the funding of Phys. Ed. classes, and has a host of other nanny-statist ideas.

This “favorite of conservatives,” as the Associated Press calls him, also rated ‘dead last’ second to last among Republican governors in CATO’s 2006 rankings of the nation’s governors (and sixth from the bottom overall).

That’s right. Mike Huckabee is running. Welcome to the mediocrity Governor.

There were only two possible candidates from either major party that I could bring myself to vote for, one being Ron Paul (at this point I’m backing him)…the other is Mark Sanford from South Carolina, who is not running.

God help us.

1 120 121 122 123