Posted on 08/01/2012 6:36:08 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
NEW YORK, New York — Hot on the heels of his eight-vote Iowa-caucus landslide, Willard Mitt Romney is crisscrossing New Hampshire before Tuesday’s key primary. Romney is masquerading as a limited-government, free-market executive from next-door Massachusetts. From the Golden Gate to the Granite State, voters should greet Romney’s impersonation with a quarry full of skepticism.
In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as “loophole closures,” totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase.
“Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney,” Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in January 6, 2008’s Boston Herald. Also, from 5.3 to 9.8 percent, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts — an 85 percent hike. “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations,” the Council on State Taxation’s Joseph Crosby complained.
Romney also created or increased fees by $432 million. He was not dragooned into this by greedy Democratic lawmakers; Romney himself proposed these items. In 2003 alone, Romney concocted or boosted 88 fees. Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness. Romney also billed blind people $15 each for discount-travel ID cards.
While Romney can take credit for a $275 million capital-gains tax rebate, property-tax relief for seniors, and a two-day, tax-free shopping holiday, he also must take responsibility for signing $740.5 million in higher taxes, plus that $85 million in business taxes that he requested and legislators rejected.
“Romney did not even fight higher Death Tax rates,” notes former State Assembly Minority Whip Steve Baldwin (R – California), a Romney critic. “When the legislature considered this issue, Romney’s official position was ‘no position.’ This echoed Barack Obama’s ‘present’ votes in the Illinois State Senate.”
As Romney drained his constituents’ pockets, the Public Policy Institute of New York’s Cost of Doing Business Index rated Massachusetts in 2006 as America’s fourth costliest state in which to practice free enterprise. The Tax Foundation dropped Massachusetts from America’s 29th most business-friendly state to No. 36. The Tax Foundation also calculated that, under Romney, Massachusetts’ per-capita tax burden increased from 9.3 to 9.9 percent. In real dollars, the Romney-era per capita tax burden grew $1,175.71.
As if impoverishing his own taxpayers were not bad enough, Romney’s March 5, 2003 signature raised taxes on non-residents retroactive to that January 1. Perpetrating taxation without representation, Romney’s law declared that, “gross income derived from… any trade or business, including any employment,” would be taxable, “regardless of the taxpayer’s residence or domicile in the year it is received.” Consequently, according to data furnished by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, between 2002 and 2006, New Hampshire residents who work or do business in the Bay State shipped Massachusetts $95 million above what they paid when Romney arrived. The average tax paid by New Hampshirities into Massachusetts grew $458 — from $2,392 in 2002 to $2,850 in 2006 — up 19.1 percent.
Notwithstanding the higher taxes and fees that Romney himself advocated, he claims that he was a powerless victim of a Left-wing legislature. Nonsense. The profusion of Democrats on Beacon Hill did not prevent Romney’s GOP predecessors from dramatically cutting taxes. Former Republican governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci signed more than 40 tax-cut bills while Democrats ran the state house.
Romney seems stuck at 25 percent support among Republicans. That’s because 75 percent of GOP voters simply don’t trust him. There are at least 740.5 million reasons not to trust Romney on taxes, either.
Does this mean he has your vote, along with your fellow amish, there DERoy?
/johnny
Exactly.
Though I have to say, Palin as VP would be a huge step in the right direction.
Best hope he does beat O.
My sentiments exactly. It’s time to label all the Mitt bashers as ‘pro-OBumble’. I’m sick of it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223437/reagans-darkest-hour/paul-kengor
Reagan increased taxes liberalized Californias abortion laws. STATIST!!! ABORTIONIST!!!
ABO.
/johnny
I don’t consider myself to be a GOP person per se. I am most definitely NOT a liberal in either the political or social realm.
I happen to think this is going to be a very tight election and that voting fraud is going to be a factor. If we want to get rid of Obama...we must fight united.
I also think we need to focus a great deal more on the House and Senate races.
You’re right.
This election is NOT about the economy, tax rates, etc. IT IS ONLY ABOUT OUR ONLY CHANCE TO NEGATE THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR PHYSICAL BEINGS! That is it! Period.
If we can not maintain the house, win the senate and then win the presidency, then all freedoms are lost.
At this moment in history, we are not a free people. We may pretend, but in reality the government owns us. If we want to re-establish our liberty, then we must win. We have used the soapbox and we lost. We then tried the Jury box (supreme court) and we lost. We must be successful in November and win the ballot box. If we don’t, that only leaves us with the cartridge box.
I don’t care about Romney’s history on polcy x, tax y, etc. What we know is that Obama will veto a repeal of Obamacere, so with him in office we are garunteed to remain slaves in our physical being. If we can get Romney in office, then he will sign the repeal. That is the only issue that this election is about!
Period...
(sorry for ranting at you, I picked your post at random to post my rant.)
So...how will you *effectively* be voting against Obama?
/johnny
>Reagan isn’t running. Romney is.
Weak.
/johnny
Enjoy the next 4 years, dude.
The GOP-e screwed up when they pushed this liberal with their dirty tricks and cheating, and badmouthing conservatives.
No sale.
/johnny
Obama has cut my taxes....and I no longer have any money to worry about
I already know the truth about Romney and don’t need retread articles or post of events from Janurary to remind me. I didn’t support or vote for Romney, I supported and voted for Newt who had a better voting record than Santorum on Social matters and a much better record on fiscal matters. In real life , the truth, our choices are obama and Romney, I choose Romney.
The ONLY reason Romeny gets my vote is he fills in the “Anybody But Obama” criteria. Other than that he is about as flip flopping as a John F’ing Kerry and just as liberal in nature.
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.