Posted on 02/13/2007 5:20:12 AM PST by RWR8189
Dear New Hampshire Republican Primary Voter:
It’s early yet, but I, for one, am pleased that your dominant role in the presidential primary process remains intact. The no-nonsense vetting, for which you are rightly recognized, of the people who wish to be our party’s nominee is needed more than ever before.
Why, you ask. Well, neighbor to neighbor, Republican to Republican, I feel compelled to confide in you: The newest official entrant into the 2008 race is a fiscal phony.
I covered Mitt Romney’s governorship for four years, from the singular vantage point of a former Republican operative turned journalist. You see, I was chief of staff to both of Romney’s Republican predecessors and no one was more thrilled than I when this businessman-turned-politician decided to run for governor. His election ensured that the Republican winning streak in this decidedly liberal state would continue for the foreseeable future. And his election ensured that the solid no-new-taxes policies of his predecessors would continue to shape the state’s fiscal debates.
So no one was more disappointed than I when Mitt Romney failed to live up to his billing. After an unremarkable four-year term, we have seen what happens when a Republican governor refuses to take a no-new-taxes pledge, and then, not surprisingly, raises taxes (and morphs into a social conservative and runs full time for president instead of governing.) A Democrat wins. Now in Massachusetts, we are in the pitiable position of being one of a handful of states whose governor won’t even issue a proclamation honoring former President Ronald Reagan’s birthday. To which we GOP’ers in the Bay State say: Thank you, Mitt!
Plenty has been written about Romney’s conservative conversion on social issues, but you in the New Hampshire GOP have historically been more concerned with how a candidate’s record affects your wallet than your bedroom. And on that score, Romney’s candidacy should give you pause.
Consider:
Your own governor, Democrat John Lynch scored better (receiving a B) on the annual fiscal report card issued by the libertarian Cato Institute than Romney (who got a C). The 2006 Cato report described Romney’s message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge as “mostly a myth.”
“Rather than forcing the Legislature to close the budget gap through spending cuts alone, Romney raised some $500 million in fees.
“Romney raised corporate taxes by an estimated $210 million and only backed down under pressure from pushing for even higher taxes on business.
“Romney watered down a voter-approved immediate rollback of the income tax, by proposing to spread the final phase of the cut over two years.
“Romney flip-flopped on rebating capital gains taxes to taxpayers that had been collected unconstitutionally. ‘I’d far rather see tax cuts in the future than tax cuts applied in the past,’ he said as the state’s highest court wrestled with the issue.
“Until his presidential run, Romney had refused to back President Bush’s call to make federal tax cuts permanent.”
The Cato report on Romney concludes with this thought: “If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.”
So New Hampshire, it’s up to you. Do you really want Mitt Romney to do for the country what he did for Massachusetts?
Sincerely, Ginny.
State revenues up $317 million; Romney calls for tax rollback
''It's pretty clear that Massachusetts is back and firing on all cylinders," Romney said at a State House press conference. ''The numbers we're looking at from a revenue standpoint are just mind-numbing. . . . It's time to return to the taxpayers the tax rate they asked for and voted for." Leaders in the State House and Senate said they were cautiously optimistic about the revenue figures, but rejected Romney's argument that Massachusetts is hale enough financially to pass a tax cut that would drain $600 million a year in revenue. They cited the fiscal uncertainty of rising oil and natural gas prices and healthcare costs and the threat of steep cuts in federal Medicaid money. Boston Globe
All this does is prove my point.
Romney is a RINO with no spine.
"Tax and spend" conscious voters are not going to be pleased.
I will check back in and see how many vitriolic posts this thread collects.
What passes for political discussion on FR these days is pretty patheric. And YES, I am addressing YOU, HEY4QDEMS.
You'd have to find me one first.
YEAH!
He's a compelling man. The fact that a state with 89% dem representation would vote for him doesn't say he's a dem.
Voters look for leaders in the executive office. They really don't give a damn about who's in the legislature. They think they're all the same anyway.
Lookin at the National Republican Party and how it has acted with control of two houses, it would appear that those voters were right. There is no difference!
Sanctimonious talk doesn't swing it with me. Walk the walk if you talk the talk.
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.