Posted on 11/07/2003 5:12:41 AM PST by Tank-FL
U.S. Rep Katherine Harris -- whose role as Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 presidential election made her a hero to Republicans and a villain to Democrats -- said Thursday she is "seriously" considering running for Florida's open U.S. Senate seat next year.
A lightning rod for controversy, Harris' ruling helped end a recount during the closest election in Florida history and secured a 537-vote victory for George W. Bush. The international notoriety gained from the 36-day battle could instantly propel Harris to the role of Republican front-runner in the bid to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Bob Graham.
"I'm still testing our temperature," Harris said, calling it a tough choice for her and her family. "My husband and I will seriously consider this and give it some thought. Yes, we will. ... My whole family will."
With her name, political and family history in Florida and ability to raise money nationally, Harris could leapfrog any of the Republicans running or considering running for a seat that could help decide which party controls Congress. She would also provide a ready target for Democrats eager to avenge Al Gore's 2000 loss. "She would automatically become the Republican front-runner," said Dario Moreno, political scientist at Florida International University.
"In a general election, she'll be a polarizing figure," Moreno said. "Whether you love her or hate her, she became the symbol for the 2000 election debacle. ... In a way, I think the Democrats would almost love to run against her."
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Is the VA homebuyer program a government giveaway?
Exactly the point of the legislation, KB, to get people off the welfare-for-rent subsidy treadmill, and into become productive, tax-paying, home-owning citizens. What's the hardest part of become a home-owner -- saving for a downpayment while still paying rent. You should know that welfare recipients are normally discouraged from trying to save money, operate businesses, etc.
And it isn't a giveaway. It's a grubstake, fer Freepin' out loud!
As far as I know, the federal government doesn't levy a property tax. What tax is it that the federal government levys that is unique to homeowners, that when increased causes them to lose their home? Again KB, we must use our words selectively.
You seem to have moderated somewhat. You started out talking about minorities.
Would it make you feel better if the gummint only guaranteed their potential as homeowners -- so that they could go from paying rent to paying a mortgage without that first big step, the down payment?
My point has always been to keep your eye on the long term objective, tax-paying homeowners are a benefit to the economic society, more so than subsidized renters.
I admitted being in error as I had previously thought that the bill was tailored specifically towards minorities. While the act happens to be written and has based itself on economic terms, one shouldn't be blind to the everyday reality that its geared towards those of the "correct" skincolor.
"Would it make you feel better if the gummint only guaranteed their potential as homeowners -- so that they could go from paying rent to paying a mortgage without that first big step, the down payment?"
No, for the following reasons: its unconstitutional, its immoral and there would be a greater likelihood of failure rather than success in terms of homeownership.
1st - It being unconstitutional is pretty obvious. One hopes that most readers on FR can figure out why.
2nd - Its immoral because, no matter how worthy a cause or how small a cost, you're still penalizing those who have paid their dues and have worked hard. It isn't right that those who are down on their luck to drug addicts have a "right" to get things by the barrel of a govt gun. Period. Turn to charity for such needs.
3rd - The history of the Great Society as well as all the other past leftwing do-gooder proposals that have been enacted is not one worthy of emulation. This bill will no doubt have an analogous record. In fact the situation might become worse with more householders losing their homes to increased taxation and an increase in housing costs due the bill. For example take Federally insured student loans. As they are issued, the cost of college rises because the schools know Uncle Sam is carrying some of the costs. In Larry Elder's book "10 Things You Can't Say in America" he catalouged that very happenstance.
If we really want to help the poor obtain housing there are pretty simple, constitutional and successful routes to take. The elimination of certain zoning laws to allow greater and cheaper house construction could be enacted. More houses ='s a lower price. Since they're cheap, the less fortuante would have a readmade market. Lower property taxes. People not poor would be able to buy "up" thereby freeing their own houses. And that's just a start.
I would agree, if not for the confiscatory taxation that keeps many poor people poor.
ROFL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
