Monday, December 19, 2011

In Case You Missed It...

David Frum wants to keep borrowing and spending. So this is what a "progressive" Republican looks like...
"There's lots of time to worry about the deficit. The world is happy to lend the United States money for 10 years at less than 2%. I say keep borrowing as much of that money as you can and use the money to address the immediate trauma of an economy in crisis..."


David Brooks, another "progressive" Republican, thinks Jeb Bush may jump in to the race.


Many Iowa Democrats plan to Caucus for Ron Paul. I'll go out on a limb and predict a sizable victory for Paul in the Iowa Caucus. If that happens, expect more chatter about a late entry in to the race and/or a brokered convention.
...another portion of the group said they planned to register Republican for the caucus to be able to express support for Republican and antiwar candidate Ron Paul.

Iowa City resident Jim Walters said he planned to support Paul for his views on the war in Afghanistan and added that a strong support of Paul in Iowa would send a definite message.

“I just think that this is an opportunity to take it in a different direction,” Walters said. “I think if Ron Paul places first or second in the Iowa caucuses that we can take an antiwar message right up into the streets. I don’t know where you’ll go after you elect a few non-delegates on January 3.”

Here's a little primer on Gov. Romney's "fee" increases to the tune of $501 million in his first year alone.
When Mitt Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay.

The Republican managed to slash spending to eliminate a deficit pegged at $3 billion, but he also proposed or presided over a far-ranging series of fee hikes _ a strategy that allowed him to maintain the no-new-taxes stance he now boasts about as he runs for president.

In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees and increasing 57 others _ enough, he said, to pull in an extra $59 million for the cash-strapped state.

Horseback riding instructors, prisoners, those seeking training to combat domestic violence and used car shoppers were asked to dig a little deeper.

Romney and Democratic lawmakers ended up approving hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines, making it more expensive to use an ice skating rink, register a boat, take the bar exam, get a duplicate driver's license, file a court case, install underground storage tanks, sell cigarettes or alcohol, comply with air quality rules and transport hazardous waste.

A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney's first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million....

1994 video: Romney a fan of campaign finance reform.

Ironically, he was upset about the amount of money Ted Kennedy was raising. He also wanted to do away with PACs.


Machtyn said...

Most of us here already know that Romney raised fees instead of taxes. Instead of spreading the wealth and making non-users subsidize users of a particular benefit, he raised the fee. What were some of theses fees? RWN has given us a few.

This link, from a Democrat funded hit site, lists the many programs Romney raised fees: You may find that these fees actually make sense. Why should I have to pay for someone else's marriage license, driver's license, a gun registration if I'm not going to be doing any of those things?

Yes, Romney is not a fan of the PACs or the McCain-Feingold campaign reform. One of his comments made in 2008 was that McCain was trapped by his own bill, unable to raise the funds needed to effectively run his campaign. Romney didn't have that trouble since he could self-finance quite easily.

Anonymous said...

Wait a second....aren't Frum and Brooks the kind of Republican that some at Right Speak glowingly describe as the type of Republican that we should all look up to and admire? I know that Brooks is such a "great" Republican that he voted for Obama in 2008 and probably will again in 2012. I wouldn't be shocked if Frum joined him. Ladies and gentleman....our new ReFrumlican Party. I am so inspired.


Pablo said...

Frum is right. It's Macroeconomics 101. Jobs now, deficit later. It is not about being "progressive." It is about getting Americans back to work. Then we can tackle the deficit.

ConMan said...

There is nothing wrong with raising fees instead of taxes. Those who believe in limited Government would not be affected by fees unless they wanted a particular service. Those who do not want that particular sevice, are not affected. Why should I pay for a service you want any more than you wanting to pay for a service I want.

Romney was right imposing fees instead of raising taxes on EVERYONE!

Right Wingnut said...

Nonsense. Fees are imposed as a source of revenue, not to offset costs incurred by the government.

Fees are in effect taxes.

Right Wingnut said...

I just think it's a bit disingenuous for Romney to keep repeating that he didn't raise takes, when he jacked up fees $501 in the first year alone.

Right Wingnut said...


I'm not sure what your argument is on Romney's stance(s) on campaign finance. He was clearly disturbed with the role of money in politics to the point of wanting more restrictions. Now, he's the king of taking contributions from special interest groups. Before you try to deny it, go research how much cash he has received from Goldman Sachs employees. That's just for starters. Rick Perry is in the same boat.

Lionhead said...

David Frum is a pure Keynesian. Keynes is the patron saint of all Progressives. You can't finance a progressive gov't without the Keynesian ponzi scheme. BTW, Keynes was never in favor of what we are seeing today. He was in favor of gov't spending in limited circumstances, not for it going on for decades.

Now, let's put Jeb Bush's words into this Keynesian context.

Jeb may find himself 'the one' as the other candidates whittle each other away & loose support thru overexposure.

Anonymous said...

The comparison of fees and taxes is fair. Fees can be looked at as taxes without "technically" falling into the same category. I can see why it upsets the ABR crowd.
However, I personally don't have a problem with fees being raised. Particularly the ones that hadn't been adjusted in 20 plus years. Should particular licences have the exact same charge today that they had in 1980?
Also, at least fees are a tax that represents a direct service/benefit/license from the Government.

As always...this is MY personal take on fees and I understand WHY others are offended by raising them.


Lionhead said...

To show the Progressive Newt / Mitt sides, let's add this to the context.

"Without a framework with which you can see beyond the short term, it’s getting more and more like being a spectator at a tennis match. Look at the equity market recently, or gold and silver, where the prices have fallen as the banking system disintegrates. Markets are all over the place, as more and more holes in the dyke burst open.

The main lessons I learnt from this report are about SOCIALISM and its impact on financial markets. For example:

* How far we’ve departed from the ideal of free-market capitalism and how far the Socialist takeover has advanced;
* How the style of the Socialist takeover has elements of both the extreme left and the extreme right (“national”) on the political spectrum – not only making it harder to categorise, but also harder to see; and
* What I think that this means for asset allocation.

Let’s take the last point and consider some of the key themes:

* Socialism from the Left: government taking a greater share of GDP, lower living standards and debasement of currencies;

Combined with:

* Socialism from the Right: government largesse and corruption with certain large corporate interests which serve the purposes of the state, military adventurism and a much more controlled society.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…"

Source: Paul Mylchreest, author of the Thunder Road Report 12/19/2011

The Progressives have defined the framework. Voters can choose the Red Team or the Blue Team, or Red/Blue candidates on either team, both teams are polarized for their supporters, but the outcome will take us to the Progressive/Socialist/Marxist eventual outcome. Ignore this at your peril.

Terrye said...

Right Wing Nut...if fees are taxes then conservatives are in favor of raising them is not as if there is a no fee pledge.

The lengths you go to dig this stuff up is just absurd.

I am not a big Frum fan...but back when Harriet Miers was nominated for the Supreme Court and so many conservatives went of their rockers, he was one of the guys leading the charge and the same people who complain him today just loved him then.


Terrye said...

BTW, I live in Indiana..we have a Republican Governor, a Republican legislature and by and large conservative local government as well. We have Voter ID laws, strict abortion laws, charter schools, a balanced budget and a surplus. We have no collective bargaining for state employees and in all probability Indiana will be a right to work state by the end of this legislative session...and it costs about 4 times more to get drivers license in this state today than it did 20 years ago...fees of one kind or another go up everywhere. Everyday.

Anonymous said...

Highly doubt jeb "bush" would jump in the race, although whats more possible is him endorsing romney before florida.

Right Wingnut said...

He will NOT endorse in the primaries. He's either going to jump in late (less likely), or he's setting himself up for 2016. Rove is on it.

Anonymous said...

Way too big of a risk for Jeb to jump in late...i'ts only been four years since the last Bush and they wouldn't want to scar Jeb with something so unpredictable. you think Rove is banking on a GOP loss in 2012 or that he'll actively try to make it happen.


Machtyn said...

On the point of David Frum: I read a couple of his articles when they were posted to RealClearPolitics. By the third article, are started to make sure I wasn't clicking on his posts. If he's a Republican, he sure confused me. (I've always thought he was a Democrat.)

In any case, RWN, why would I deny Romney is taking money from corporate donors, particularly Wall Street. I know he is and I'm rather pleased they are donating to him instead of to Obama this time around. Does this mean Romney will play to their interests (or anyone's SIGs) more favorably than normal? He didn't show that kind of inclination when he was governor. So no, I don't think so. This is partly why the establishment went looking for anyone but Romney (starting with Perry - he could be bought).

Romney did state that McCain-Feingold was a problematic campaign finance reform bill and that McCain had limited himself (and others) because of the bill.

Right Wingnut said...

Romney did state that McCain-Feingold was a problematic campaign finance reform bill and that McCain had limited himself (and others) because of the bill.

I'm not denying he said that, but it doesn't square with what he said in '94.

Right Wingnut said... you think Rove is banking on a GOP loss in 2012 or that he'll actively try to make it happen.

If Jeb wants to run, would that surprise you?