Posted on 01/27/2008 4:48:03 PM PST by Tigen
Carla Howell is President of the Center For Small Government and heads the 2008 Massachusetts ballot initiative to END the Income Tax.
Is Mitt Romney the "economic conservative" he claims to be? Especially when it comes to tax and spend policies?
Now that he's running for president, let's compare his words with his deeds.
Taxes
Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even "took" a "no new taxes" pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. "Took" is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn't necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he's a man of his word.
But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes. Government Spending
Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by "$2 billion." Sometimes he claims he cut it "$3 billion." The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even some libertarians assume it must be true.
But these "cuts" were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.
The Romney-Kennedy Alliance
But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney's version of socialized medicine.
By his own admission, he didn't plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.
During Romney's governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax and spend policies, he said.
But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.
Much more there to read!!! Government Spending The Romney-Kennedy Alliance Romney's Words Versus Romney's Deeds
(Excerpt) Read more at centerforsmallgovernment.com ...
Why the hostility man? I’m not shilling for any one candidate. BTW who made you the spokesperson for this board? You’re entitled to your opinion, but respect mine as well, even if I’m a newbie here. Just relax man.
Isn't that what liberals do?
Saundra, I've said it before and I'll say it again: women like you are why the Founders didn't extend the franchise to women. That Romney is so wildly popular among women makes him more of a dubious candidate than ever!
At the very least, Saundra, please STOP using the word "hate" as the descriptor for we women (and men) who reject Romney for good solid rational reasons. Romney supporters attribute "hate" to their opponents an awful lot, and it says an awful lot that's awful about them and their candidate.
Well if I'm entitled (thanks much for your generosity) to my opinion, then why are you labeling as hostility? It's just the facts "man", that you signed up seven days ago and are posting an article to shill for your candidate. And I'm commenting on it. Why don't you chill....
Facts of political life. You got three choices at this point.
Romney
McCain
Or go democrat.
Romney picking Fred Thompson or another conservative as VP could happen too. In fact it would be a sign that he is getting the message to some degree.
Life sucks.
You do the best with what you got sometimes.
Because handing over the white house without a fight to the party that back stabbed our troops on the battlefield is anathema to me as an American. At least with a half ass republican you stand a chance. With a democrat? Fuggetaboutit. And if B. Hussein wins? I fear the nation will get nuked. THAT is more important in my opinion than bickering over RINOs
And the Fairness Doctrine will be fully implemented which will eventually destroy U.S. conservatism. This along with illegal immigrants eventually given the right to vote in all future U.S. elections is why I don’t understand the idea that “conservative Republicans” will successfully make a serious political comeback at anytime after January ‘09 when the Democrats end up controlling everything important politically along with RINO Republicans and “elitist” Republicans-all groups who will allow amnesty for illegal immigrants “to the max” to exist throughout the U.S.!
Well said. It’s this relativism that has gotten us here. The GOP has zero incentive to offer up conservative candidates as long as we keep telling them that we will vote for whatever they give us, no matter what. There is no hope that the GOP will change as long as they can take our votes for granted no matter what they do.
No more relativism for me — I’m off the plantation.
Interesting find. Thank you.
With 30-50 million illegals conveniently floating around in this country, only the serious criminal element will be deported with only time needed before they walk back in.
Occasionally, a good illegal with many years documented of hard work and success, they too will be booted to tear at the hearts of the sheeple.
Why? One has to ask this.
Because those foreigners that hold our IOU's (trillions worth) tell the gov so. Not only that, but soicialism is needed here for the gov to control us and the eonomy and what they think is their money.
I use to believe the protection of our freedoms and liberties mattered to those in government, but that is evident as not to be the case.
What we instead have is nothing but 95% politicians, not one statesman/stateswoman. All seemingly devoid of history and graduated of outcome based civics, history and economic courses at the 'graduate' level. IMHO, the only hope there is now is for a substantially powerful conservative party where the words Democrat and Republican have no meaning to them other than enemies of the state that somehow were 'elected'.
Then again, I believe in The Word of God and what is written that will happen on this earth and believe the groundwork for the end of days has now been laid and His Will will been done.
“**Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government**
And Champion of flip-flops. So many of them that he wins the gold.”
Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain.) This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth.
The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here’s just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk’s recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:
On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.
McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics into someone who sounds like he’s drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts — for example, federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases
— that it’s either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).” Raising taxes does decrease revenue, it certainly can.
But anyway,
“In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland. Six years ago, McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as
‘an agent of intolerance.’
Eighteen months ago, he gave the commencement address at Falwell’s university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.”
Now, this is a guy from the Scripps Howard News Service, Paul Campos, from whose piece I’m reading here.
“These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week. Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.
Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism ...
But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn’t even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.”
When you openly lie to a journalist you’re being honest about your lie, then that’s candor.
“All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormentors has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.”
Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and this appeared in the Scripps Howard News Service on January 22nd.
All these jerks running are getting a government check - EXCEPT ROMNEY!
And these morons have the nerve to lecture me on “fiscal conservatism” while they themselves are on political welfare???
The sooner they die and get their last retirement payment, the better...
He's not an isolationist. He is just not for hyper-interventionism, nation building, propping up dictators, etc. But you ARE right when you say he is the only remaining candidate who will cut taxes (in fact he wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax!) keep us free from creeping socialism and big government, and he will restore our liberties that have been chipped away by the Dems and RINOs in Washington.
He is the ONLY true constitutionalist and old right Republican, and the ONLY one who can beat Hillary, because he can bring in the disgruntled Republicans, libertarians, constitution party and other third party independents and crossover Democrats. The RINO's (McHuckabomney) won't bring in those needed people to outnumber the Dems, and if we nominate any of those status-quo RINO's, we will lose.
501(c) welfare recipient...
Romney is the only one of these clowns who do not get a government check.
Not the way I see it. Ron Paul is for such drastic reductions in American presence that isolationism is the only word for it.
Also, Hillary, while I cannot stand her, would make mincemeat of Ron Paul in the election. She would carry more women and most of the middle ground voters. Politically, Paul would be the Republican version of George Mcgovern. He would be smashed so badly that Hillary would have an even easier time implementing her socialist agenda because she would be percieved as having a mandate to do so. -And if he had to run against Obama, they would play up the racist card (whether true or not).
This election is a disaster in the making. Oh for Ronald Reagan!
What we "got" at this point prevents doing "the best" or anything close to it for this nation, our freedom, and our troops; indeed, it guarantees the worst for all concerned no matter who gets the most votes. I'm well aware of the facts of political life as only a Californian can be who regrets participating and endorsing the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, I'd say that the facts of political life are something I am uniquely qualified to assess.
I agree with you that politics is pretty much always about selecting the lesser of two evils, and this election will be no different. Where we disagree is WHICH is the lesser of two evils. As I review the political realities before me, I am willing to gamble that Democrats pose the lesser of long-term evil. It's a calculated risk that I think you are afraid to even acknowledge, as I was once was myself.
When you say I've got three choices at this point, you're mistaken. I have FOUR choices. That the fourth one goes against your grain as much as it did mine Before Schwarzenegger, is yet another fact of poltical life.
Thank you, Ellery. I’m glad to know I’m in good — if unhappy — company.
yeah I got on board with Arnold too, I contributed and did my part. He did try. But the people here didn’t support him. Then he caved totally and betrayed those who put him there.
I do not think that story is over though, my hope is that people will consider someone like McClintock in the future because they have voted for a republican (rino yeah) but may again consider a republican. The political pendulum is always swinging. Though it hangs heavily left in California.
The democrats are so far left and traitorous though, not even a rino comes close for me. Mainly this is apparant in war on terror issues. They stabbed the troops in the back over and over again. I cannot let them prevail if I can help it. Rinos or no rinos.
They would love for conservatives to stay home.
If they wish something, then I am against it.
The fourth choice I cannot allow myself.
For the blood of patriots was spilled for it.
No way. I don't think you've been paying attention. Bill may have been popular, but Hillary is VERY disliked and distrusted, so when you put her against Paul, the difference is like night and day. It is clear, even to many Democrats, that she is a typical, dishonest, hot-air politician and even many Democrats know she is backed by big corporate money and that she is aligned with the CFR.
Paul is the opposite in so many ways, he is not a typical politician, he is honest and has firm principles, and he can't be bought. Unlike Hillary, he is not a NWO globalist and he will protect our freedom and constitution. So, he WILL bring in a wide range of people, including (as I said) the disgruntled Republicans, independents, libertarians and cross-over Democrats. I have no doubt that between him and Hillary, he will win. (unless it's riggged) ;-) I will grant you that if Obama is the nominee, he would be harder to beat than Hillary. BUt I still have faith that if it ever came to that, Paul wins. People are starting to wake up and realize that this election is less about Dem vs Republican, and more about the CFR candidates vs Ron Paul.
None of the status-quo RINOs can bring in the wide range of people needed to beat the Dem candidate. So I think your anaylysis is WAY off.
However, the entire DemocRAT machine would be behind her and she carries extremely well with women in the middle of the spectrum. Polling numbers say she's very hard to beat. Head to head, she skewers Ron Paul in polling data.
Every single poll of Ron Paul shows him far far away from ever being the nominee, let alone even in the running. He's won nothing, despite the almost slavish support by some.
Let's get serious.
Ron Paul wants to dismantel social security and medicare. What will that do to the senior's vote in a state like Florida?
Ron Paul wants to do away with welfare and other government entitlement programs, how will that play out in states that have severe unemployment like Michigan and Ohio?
If he were to get the nomination- which he won't, Ron Paul loses big against either Hillary or Obama. AND, if he were to run against Obama, they will bring up all the money he gets from Neo Nazis and White supremecists as well as his rants on black crime. Geez.
No. In the end, he not only does not get the nomination, but he proves to be a true distraction so that some true electable conservative somewhere cannot succeed. All of this proves how mightily screwed up the conservative movement is and the mess that the Bush family has left it in.
Oh for Ronald Reagan!
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.