Posted on 08/18/2009 2:04:15 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
NEW Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has been running TV ads that make liberal use of President Obama's mid-July visit to buoy Corzine's faltering re-election bid. But Corzine's support continues to slip, with just 36 percent in the latest polls saying that they'd vote for him.
National pundits and GOP leaders see Corzine's woes as a sign that voters are growing discontented with Obama's policies. But the a real message in the Jersey election isn't about ObamaCare or Obamanomics, but about the larger issue of whether big government can deliver on its promises.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
As if you weren't depressed enough already.
Wowsers. As an NB ex-C of NJ who doesn’t live there anymore, all I can do is cheer from the sidelines. So, you go, Jerz, give Corslime the boot, but good.
Sadly, I think we’re gonna get Chris Christie Whitman with this guy. There’s too much entrenchment here. The best advice is to do what you did—get out while you still can.
Can anyone ever shrink any government? No. Not since women learned to vote.
“Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers. “
From “Women’s suffrage over time” by John R. Lott, Jr.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
I’d like to tell you, I’l thrilled about Christie but I am not. He’s another RHINO. What need to do is harraas the heck out of him to turn him into a conservative. Really put his feet to the fire.
Yup, our state government is the shining example of "let's see how far we can push it." And yes, the Republicans are just as guilty of serving themselves as the Dems are. The phrase "not a dime's worth of difference" definitely applies here.
Very depressing!
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.