Our taxes were never hiked to pay for the outlandish costs of invading a country which never attacked us. Our fighting men and women and thousands of reservists pulled from mainly small town America and middle class homes primarily in the service so they could get an education and a better life, were the only ones called on to sacrifice.
The awful quote by Bush after 9/11 "go shopping" rings in my ear as 4,487 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq.
I read recently when the American Flag was lowered for the last time in Baghdad no Iraq officials bothered to show up instead crowds celebrated with banners decorated with burning American Humvees. So much for Dick Cheney we will be received as hero's.
No wonder when over 100,000 thousand civilians died during the war. There will be no ticker tape parade down Wall Street for these men and women who died in a war of choice. A war of choice in which no Senator's kids or Congressman's kids participated in it. Like Cheney I guess they were too busy at the time.
The war mongering is already starting in the debates for "intervention in Iran" If our leaders in Congress believe that we are prepared to defend Israel with the bodies of our sons and daughters they are deluded. Israel's existence is not essential to us. No American has ever heard a full explanation for why we have a "special relationship" with Israel.
We may begin our next military misadventure long before the tab for this one is fully paid for, if we believe the Republican Party Candidates.
Happy New Year
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Ms. Kardashian's sin
She pays what she owes in state taxes under California law, instead of the much larger amount that some self-appointed advocacy group thinks she ought to be paying.
An organization called Courage Campaign and its website reveals it to be a California mélange of activist groups and labor unions. In a video that presents Ms. Kardashian in some of her more conspicuously consumptive moments, Courage Campaign claims that while Ms. Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, she paid only one percentage point more in taxes (10.3%) than a middle-class Californian (9.3%).
"That's not OK," says Campaign Courage. And in their video, they get right to the point, calling on viewers to "Ask Kim to support the millionaires tax of 2012." The reference is to a proposed California ballot initiative that would raise the top income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3% on income over $1 million—and to 15.3% on income above $2 million.
In the real world, of course, taxes affect behavior all the time. It might be as simple as a mom buying a camera online to avoid paying local sales tax. Or it could be a basketball star such as LeBron James saving more than $12 million a year by signing with the Miami Heat, a team based in a state with no income tax.
The assumption behind the Courage Campaign video is that raising taxes on millionaires wouldn't change Ms. Kardashian's behavior—and the money would fund public services and "critical programs for children."
As a commentator on one blog pointed out, however, if Ms. Kardashian responded to the millionaires tax by relocating, then instead of gaining an additional few hundred thousand in revenue, the state would be out the more than $1 million she's now paying (assuming the $12 million that Courage Campaign lists is all taxable income).
It's tempting to dismiss this campaign as the work of a bunch of California crazies. The problem is that its assumptions about wealth and taxes extend far beyond the Golden State. Indeed, they have calcified into an orthodoxy that defines the Democratic Party. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Two weeks ago, the Nevada Democrat didn't stop at insisting that millionaires turn over more of their money to the federal government. "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns," he said. "They're impossible to find and don't exist."
The point here is that faith in the millionaires tax has moved beyond argument. It matters not that even if the state sucked every last dime from Ms. Kardashian and those who share her tax bracket, it still wouldn't fix California's troubles. Nor will believers be swayed by evidence that our governments have been spending more and more for vital public services and getting less and less in return.
They will not be swayed because they are not being driven by their economics. They are being driven by their conception of immorality: the idea that millionaires have more than they should—and that any wealth they have is not something they have earned but something the state has allowed them to keep. It says much about the progressive Puritanism of our age that what these folks really find most sleazy about Ms. Kardashian is not her sex tape or her marriage, but that she's unembarrassed about making money.
An organization called Courage Campaign and its website reveals it to be a California mélange of activist groups and labor unions. In a video that presents Ms. Kardashian in some of her more conspicuously consumptive moments, Courage Campaign claims that while Ms. Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, she paid only one percentage point more in taxes (10.3%) than a middle-class Californian (9.3%).
"That's not OK," says Campaign Courage. And in their video, they get right to the point, calling on viewers to "Ask Kim to support the millionaires tax of 2012." The reference is to a proposed California ballot initiative that would raise the top income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3% on income over $1 million—and to 15.3% on income above $2 million.
In the real world, of course, taxes affect behavior all the time. It might be as simple as a mom buying a camera online to avoid paying local sales tax. Or it could be a basketball star such as LeBron James saving more than $12 million a year by signing with the Miami Heat, a team based in a state with no income tax.
The assumption behind the Courage Campaign video is that raising taxes on millionaires wouldn't change Ms. Kardashian's behavior—and the money would fund public services and "critical programs for children."
As a commentator on one blog pointed out, however, if Ms. Kardashian responded to the millionaires tax by relocating, then instead of gaining an additional few hundred thousand in revenue, the state would be out the more than $1 million she's now paying (assuming the $12 million that Courage Campaign lists is all taxable income).
It's tempting to dismiss this campaign as the work of a bunch of California crazies. The problem is that its assumptions about wealth and taxes extend far beyond the Golden State. Indeed, they have calcified into an orthodoxy that defines the Democratic Party. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Two weeks ago, the Nevada Democrat didn't stop at insisting that millionaires turn over more of their money to the federal government. "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns," he said. "They're impossible to find and don't exist."
The point here is that faith in the millionaires tax has moved beyond argument. It matters not that even if the state sucked every last dime from Ms. Kardashian and those who share her tax bracket, it still wouldn't fix California's troubles. Nor will believers be swayed by evidence that our governments have been spending more and more for vital public services and getting less and less in return.
They will not be swayed because they are not being driven by their economics. They are being driven by their conception of immorality: the idea that millionaires have more than they should—and that any wealth they have is not something they have earned but something the state has allowed them to keep. It says much about the progressive Puritanism of our age that what these folks really find most sleazy about Ms. Kardashian is not her sex tape or her marriage, but that she's unembarrassed about making money.
Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector
The solar industry is dimming as makers of panels used to harness the sun continue to fall by the wayside. At the heart of the industry woes are swiftly falling prices for solar panels and their components because there are too many manufacturers.
Can't argue
Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance, who left office with an approval rating in the thirties, and whose signature achievement was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state. Since that's the case, it's fair to ask what a Republican who's not conservative and can't even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters. The answer is always the same; Mitt Romney is supposed to be "the most electable" candidate. This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it's true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?
To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.
2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.
3) He'll run weak in the Southern States: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that Obama will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would certainly be less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate Northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the South and Romney won't be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the South. Mitt didn't win a single primary in a Southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virgina. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.
4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media is firmly in his corner. That's why the other contenders have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.
If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman for last place. So, what happens when if he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.
5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries, where the grassroots tends to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%," Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by putting a lot of poor and middle class Americans out-of-work? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?
“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”
The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
They show pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes.
6) The Mormon Factor: More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.
You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon church.
7) He's a flip-flopper. Is it just me or didn't George Bush beat John Kerry's brains in with the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate?
There are lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him, because you can't fall in love with a weathervane. It also makes hard for independents to take anything he says on faith. Additionally, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will assume Romney will be a right wing deathbeast. Republicans will assume that Romney will screw them over. Independents won't know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors." That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a pasty, grey pile of formless mush.
1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?
To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.
2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.
3) He'll run weak in the Southern States: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that Obama will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would certainly be less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate Northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the South and Romney won't be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the South. Mitt didn't win a single primary in a Southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virgina. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.
4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media is firmly in his corner. That's why the other contenders have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.
If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman for last place. So, what happens when if he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.
5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries, where the grassroots tends to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%," Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by putting a lot of poor and middle class Americans out-of-work? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?
“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”
The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
They show pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes.
6) The Mormon Factor: More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.
You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon church.
7) He's a flip-flopper. Is it just me or didn't George Bush beat John Kerry's brains in with the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate?
There are lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him, because you can't fall in love with a weathervane. It also makes hard for independents to take anything he says on faith. Additionally, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will assume Romney will be a right wing deathbeast. Republicans will assume that Romney will screw them over. Independents won't know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors." That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a pasty, grey pile of formless mush.
What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.
Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them -- instead of answering their arguments.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.
In the 1920s, Congressman Thomas S. Adams referred to "the ease with which the income tax may be legally avoided" but also said some Congressmen "so fervently believe that the rich ought to pay 40 or 50 per cent of their incomes" in taxes that they would rather make this a law, even if the government would get more revenue from a lower tax rate that people actually pay. Some also prefer class warfare politics that brings in votes, if not revenue.
Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them -- instead of answering their arguments.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.
In the 1920s, Congressman Thomas S. Adams referred to "the ease with which the income tax may be legally avoided" but also said some Congressmen "so fervently believe that the rich ought to pay 40 or 50 per cent of their incomes" in taxes that they would rather make this a law, even if the government would get more revenue from a lower tax rate that people actually pay. Some also prefer class warfare politics that brings in votes, if not revenue.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
House Overreach Fails
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/us/politics/senate-republican-leader-suggests-a-payroll-tax-deal.html?hp
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
OLD SCHOOL REPUBLICANS WEEPING
Somewhere in America there are some old-school republicans who weep at what their party has become. But we can't hear them.
Newt having judges arrested if you don't like their rulings, suggesting the military should be under the command of it's Generals rather than the President.
Doesn't the Tea party know what "WE the people mean"
They are like of bunch of badgers tearing at each other in these final days. Newt like a man walking around with a live granade holding the pin saying " Watch this".
It's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling John Wayne Gacy a sicko! I LOVE IT!!!
Newt having judges arrested if you don't like their rulings, suggesting the military should be under the command of it's Generals rather than the President.
Doesn't the Tea party know what "WE the people mean"
They are like of bunch of badgers tearing at each other in these final days. Newt like a man walking around with a live granade holding the pin saying " Watch this".
It's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling John Wayne Gacy a sicko! I LOVE IT!!!
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Mitt
WASHINGTON: South Carolina state's Indian American governor Nikki Haley's endorsement of front runner Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is threatening her own support at home.
Former Massachusetts governor Romney's campaign is using Haley's endorsement to build his acceptance among the tea-party base that's never been comfortable with his candidacy, especially in a state where former House speaker Newt Gingrich has been running even stronger than elsewhere, the influential Washington newspaper Politico said.
But the people in that base who propelled Haley to the governor's mansion last year see the endorsement of the more moderate Romney as abandoning them - and giving them another reason to turn away from a governor whose approval rating has dropped to 34.6 percent, the daily focusing on politics said.
Former Massachusetts governor Romney's campaign is using Haley's endorsement to build his acceptance among the tea-party base that's never been comfortable with his candidacy, especially in a state where former House speaker Newt Gingrich has been running even stronger than elsewhere, the influential Washington newspaper Politico said.
But the people in that base who propelled Haley to the governor's mansion last year see the endorsement of the more moderate Romney as abandoning them - and giving them another reason to turn away from a governor whose approval rating has dropped to 34.6 percent, the daily focusing on politics said.
Mitt
The news shook the political world: perennial Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell made her pick in the 2012 presidential race last night. And, that pick was former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney....Ok, not really.
At first glance, the O’Donnell endorsement seems like an obvious “pariah endorsement” slot. Yes, she was the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware in 2010 but she lost that race badly and, in so doing, proved herself to be something short of a serious candidate — though, of course, not a witch.
O’Donnell seemed to be pushing for the “pariah endorsement” in announcing her support of Romney Wednesday on CNN, telling that network that Romney’s flip-flopping was “one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.” Um....
But, it’s impossible for us to categorize O’Donnell as a full-fledged “pariah endorsement” for one simple reason: the Romney campaign touted it.
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” Romney said in a release put out by his campaign. “Christine recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”
Why would Romney tout the endorsement? In theory, O’Donnell’s still retains credibility among some tea party activists. And her donor list — she raised $7.3 million in 2010 — is worth something to Romney.
At first glance, the O’Donnell endorsement seems like an obvious “pariah endorsement” slot. Yes, she was the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware in 2010 but she lost that race badly and, in so doing, proved herself to be something short of a serious candidate — though, of course, not a witch.
O’Donnell seemed to be pushing for the “pariah endorsement” in announcing her support of Romney Wednesday on CNN, telling that network that Romney’s flip-flopping was “one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.” Um....
But, it’s impossible for us to categorize O’Donnell as a full-fledged “pariah endorsement” for one simple reason: the Romney campaign touted it.
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” Romney said in a release put out by his campaign. “Christine recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”
Why would Romney tout the endorsement? In theory, O’Donnell’s still retains credibility among some tea party activists. And her donor list — she raised $7.3 million in 2010 — is worth something to Romney.
Mitt
The Des Moines Register, Iowa's biggest and most influential newspaper, announced that it would endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president.
Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.
Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.
Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.
Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.
Mitt
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cast himself as a tea party-friendly candidate–and took a swipe at opponent Newt Gingrich–in a campaign swing through South Carolina on Saturday. “I line up pretty darn well with tea partiers,” the GOP presidential hopeful said in a press conference Saturday.
Polls show that Mr. Gingrich is viewed more favorably by tea-party supporters than is Mr. Romney, but Ms. Haley made a push for tea-party support on Mr. Romney’s behalf. “I think the tea party will take their time and analyze him appropriately,” she said. “I know that his answers will make them feel good at the end.”
The most important priorities for tea-party supporters, she said, are keeping Washington out of their hair and putting tax dollars back in their pockets.
Mr. Romney detailed his plan to cut government spending while increasing investment in military operations.
Mr. Romney faces a tough slog in South Carolina, where he has spent little time campaigning until now. Mr. Gingrich has held a large lead in polls of the state, which Mr. Romney acknowledged Saturday.
Polls show that Mr. Gingrich is viewed more favorably by tea-party supporters than is Mr. Romney, but Ms. Haley made a push for tea-party support on Mr. Romney’s behalf. “I think the tea party will take their time and analyze him appropriately,” she said. “I know that his answers will make them feel good at the end.”
The most important priorities for tea-party supporters, she said, are keeping Washington out of their hair and putting tax dollars back in their pockets.
Mr. Romney detailed his plan to cut government spending while increasing investment in military operations.
Mr. Romney faces a tough slog in South Carolina, where he has spent little time campaigning until now. Mr. Gingrich has held a large lead in polls of the state, which Mr. Romney acknowledged Saturday.
Greece, Illinois, California...the USA won't be far behind spending money we do not have.
"At every town-hall meeting I hear, 'Can't we separate from Chicago?'" says Mr. Mitchell.
Chicago pols control almost all seats of power in Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White are all Democrats from Chicago. So was former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who this month was sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, including trying to sell President Obama's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. Consequently, as Mr. Wooters says, a lot "of the money that we have down here goes up there to bail out Chicago."
The state's bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse. Lawmakers have borrowed $10 billion just to fund the state's pension system, which is running a $210 billion unfunded liability. In fact, all of the $7 billion raised by this year's income and corporate tax hikes is going toward funding pensions.
Meanwhile, Republicans, who occupy about 40% of legislative seats, aren't exactly holding the Democrats' feet to the fire. As Speaker Madigan's spokesman Steve Brown told me, "95% of things that get done in Illinois are a result of compromise." "Republicans who held power in the 1980s and '90s were not ideological. They supported tax increases," says John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute. More recently, most Republicans supported the Democrats' crony-capitalist tax credits for Chicago businesses, rather than insisting that the legislature roll back the corporate and income tax hikes. AND WHY COMPROMISE ON THE CANCER OF EXCESS SPENDING CAN'T BE COMPROMISED.
But is booting Chicago from the state a feasible answer? A few years ago it seemed unlikely that Republicans could seize control of legislatures and governorships in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, all heavily unionized states. But it's happened in all three. That's the difference that budgetary chaos, a strong party organization and the right message can make.
Chicago pols control almost all seats of power in Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White are all Democrats from Chicago. So was former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who this month was sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, including trying to sell President Obama's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. Consequently, as Mr. Wooters says, a lot "of the money that we have down here goes up there to bail out Chicago."
The state's bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse. Lawmakers have borrowed $10 billion just to fund the state's pension system, which is running a $210 billion unfunded liability. In fact, all of the $7 billion raised by this year's income and corporate tax hikes is going toward funding pensions.
Meanwhile, Republicans, who occupy about 40% of legislative seats, aren't exactly holding the Democrats' feet to the fire. As Speaker Madigan's spokesman Steve Brown told me, "95% of things that get done in Illinois are a result of compromise." "Republicans who held power in the 1980s and '90s were not ideological. They supported tax increases," says John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute. More recently, most Republicans supported the Democrats' crony-capitalist tax credits for Chicago businesses, rather than insisting that the legislature roll back the corporate and income tax hikes. AND WHY COMPROMISE ON THE CANCER OF EXCESS SPENDING CAN'T BE COMPROMISED.
But is booting Chicago from the state a feasible answer? A few years ago it seemed unlikely that Republicans could seize control of legislatures and governorships in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, all heavily unionized states. But it's happened in all three. That's the difference that budgetary chaos, a strong party organization and the right message can make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)