Truth to be told, I’d hoped to be sitting here right now, waiting to head out to caucuses, writing about either Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. They, by a razor-thin margin, topped my short list of candidates for the nomination this year. Fred brought the conservative message; Rudy brought the leadership and the executive experience and the passion and, for all of John McCain’s palaver, the real straight talk in this campaign.
But it was not to be. Fred ran a somnambulent campaign, and Rudy miscalculated and put all his eggs in the Florida basket.
And so the race – to all intents and purposes – is down to John McCain and Mitt Romney – two men who finished very close to the top of my short list for very different reasons, but neither of whom was my top choice.
I don’t “endorse” people, because “endorsement” is something that big, influential institutions do. Dennis Prager and the National Review and even Ed Morrissey can get away wtih “endorsing” candidates. Me – a little basement pajamablogger with 2,000 daily readers? No. But I can tell you what I’m going to do and why, and hope that I convince someone – even one of my readers – to some kind of action; to come out to the caucuses for the same reasons, or even at all; to stiffen the spine of one conservative in what might be a dismal year; to drag even one more person out on a winter Tuesday night to devote it to the cause of pushing conservatism (and, of course, to convince as many of you Democrats as possible to show up for your caucuses, which are being held at the Target Center at 7PM tonight).
I’m going to caucus for Mitt Romney. And in keeping with my election-eve “100 Reasons…” tradition (from the ‘04 and ‘06 General Elections), I’m going to make a big list. Maybe not 100 reasons long – that’s more a general election thing – but there are quite a few.
So let’s get started.
- Because Romney has more executive experience – being the person with whom the buck stops, as opposed to the legislative role of being the person that passes the bucks around – than the entire Tic field, with McCain thrown in for good measure. Senators are like nagging passive-aggressive relatives; Governors – the good ones – are the ones that actually makes things happen.
- For all the left’s talk of “inclusion” and “Getting things done”, Mitt is the only presidential candidate who’s actually had to reach “across the aisle” and get things done.
- Mitt has always adapted; he’s become what he’s had to become. I commented yesterday that Romney isn’t really the kind of candidate people can get passionate about. But I think he can make a game stab at it.
- Yes, he’s changed his mind on some things. Like me, he’s changed them in the right direction.
- He has more economic common sense in his left index finger than the entire Tic slate – Madame Putin and O’Kennedy and Silkypony to boot – have in their entire focus-grouped bodies.
- Mitt has an approach to the war that’s straight out of Max Boot and Robert Kaplan and Patrick Nagl. He’d reinforce success – metaphorically and literally (he’d increase the size of the military – a much-needed boost).
- He favors and supports school choice. Putin and Obie are in the pocket of the teachers’ union; every charter school in the country will look like the Branch Davidian compound whey they’re done.
Mitt is far from perfect. And maybe the media’s right; maybe Mac’s got it in the bag.
So I’ll be sending Mac and his people a message tonight; there are a lot of us out there – the ones he’s been badmouthing for most of the past eight years, who will get behind him if he gets the nomination. But tonight, he’s gotta earn it – he’s gotta meet us halfway.
If he picks TPaw as his running mate, maybe the Governor will tell him the story of the ’02 MNGOP convention. It’ll be a good lesson to the Senator.
“”He has more economic common sense in his left index finger””
So then he’ll do the exact opposite of the trashing the Bush admin has done to the economy. I thought Mittens was for making the Gift to the Rich permanent. I must have missed his latest Flipper.
“”(he’d increase the size of the military – a much-needed boost). “”
Last I hear Re-ups were at a Low. My son, Sgt. Tom:
http://centrisity.blogspot.com/2004/11/my-son-marine-i-met-tom-when-he-was-11.html
– will be in town this weekend. He was a pretty staunch Bush supporter for the sole reason “He just gave me a raise” I’ll be curious to see where he is at today, a few years later and a Sgt. to boot. He’ll have my unconditional support no matter where he is at. But being his perspective is on the inside looking out, I will be curious to hear what he has to say. That, and since I haven’t seen him since he turned 21 last year, I will cross that scary threshold of having a beer with my son. Something I haven’t done yet as he is my oldest!
Flash
“Gift to the Rich”? Please whine less. Is the tax code regressive now? No. Do the “Rich” pay a smaller percentage than poorer folk now? No.
I wonder at times like this what result a “tax break for the rich” person really seeks. When you endorse policies that punish success, it seems likely that you will get less success. Encourage failure? More failure. Which do you want?
“Gift to the Rich”
Letting people keep more of the money they worked for is now considered a “gift” from the government?
[traffic-whore]
All-day caucus? Some guy wrote to the Strib crying in his beer because we don’t have an easier time of going to caucus.
http://baddablogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/strib-letter-all-day-caucus.html
[/traffic-whore]
Note to Flash: Bush isn’t running. And if you are referring to the tax cuts, everyone got them. Even you.
Kermit,
Didn’t some folks get tax cuts that ought not to have gotten tax cuts? Essentially I’m asking if any folks got more in cuts than they paid in tax.
So instead, let’s give the one rich guy more, and stick it to the 20 middle class folks who can’t afford it. great system you all want.
It is only punitive if a guy makes $1.00 but hast to pay $1.01 in taxes on it. Last I heard Bill gates was doing just fine. In fact many ‘rewarded’ these gifts have chose to turn them over to organizations fighting to make them permanent. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0408-06.htm)
For all the Right’s talk of nanny stateism and expecting people to take care of themselves, here you are fighting for people who have no problem taking care of themselves, and a large number of them don’t even want the gift they are given. This is just buzz word politics. I doubt many of you have actually looked at how damaging these policies have actually been. Its like the Inheritance Tax argument that effects such a small minuscule number of people but you all make it sound like it would implode our entire system. But it sure looks good on a piece of campaign literature, doesn’t it!
I know I know, you would rather give one guy a $5000 cut instead of 20 guys $250
Last time I checked, Bush’s gift to the rich didn’t quite do the trick and he is now on recession #2. Kind of hard to blame Clinton on this one, but I am sure you will find a way. Come back to me when you’ve balanced the budget and start buying down the debt.
Flash
Kerm spreads a myth:
“”if you are referring to the tax cuts, everyone got them. Even you.””
Not based on his original proposal:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
I was part of a large swath of married filing jointly who received no tax cut under the original Bush Plan. Those with a Taxable Income between $12,000 – $45,000 had their 15% taxable rate remain the same. There was no cut. Where as those making over $300,000 received almost a 7% gift
But thanks for playing.
Flash
No, Flash… we’d rather see “your rich guy” who earned 20 times as much as one of the other 20 guys get his $5000 cut and the other 20 guys get a $250 cut.
If someone earns the money… it is theirs. Period. That is freedom.
flash said:
“I know I know, you would rather give one guy a $5000 cut instead of 20 guys $250”
Are we talking tax policy here, or are we just dividing up some ill-gotten gains?
You know flash, I would look and see if I though this “giving” was fair, and then I would decide. Does that make any sense to you? Or is the government supposed to play “Robin Hood” in your world, constantly robbing from the rich and “giving” to the poor.
Blather on Bush all you want, but I remind you: he’s not running.
And this:
“It is only punitive if a guy makes $1.00 but hast to pay $1.01 in taxes on it.”
is the stupidest thing I have read this year so far.
YES-it is NOT A GIFT. It is their own bleeping money. Just because they happen to make a lot of it doesn’t mean it’s anyone else’s to strew around (in total waste much of the time).
“Or is the government supposed to play “Robin Hood” in your world, constantly robbing from the rich and “giving” to the poor.”
I’d take that over Dooh Nibor
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0601-07.htm
“It is only punitive if a guy makes $1.00 but hast to pay $1.01 in taxes on it.”
is the stupidest thing I have read this year so far.
I completely agree. Then again, the year is young; I’m sure Flash (or Peev, or AC) will conjure something even more stupid by around July or so. I have faith!
“Not based on his original proposal.. who received no tax cut under the original Bush Plan. ”
Not true. You pay only 10% on your first $15,656 (2007 rates), versus 15% under the old plan, so you got a break of about $800. about a 2% reduction in your tax rate. This doesn’t include the increase in child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Flash’s comment reminds me of exactly what’s wrong with liberalism* today. The idea that keeping ones own money is a “gift” from government gets it entirely wrong.
It’s not a gift if I hold you at gunpoint, rob you, but decline to take your spare change. It’s not a gift if government decides to use its coercive force to take less of your money.
The idea that the government is giving you a gift by not taking more money than you make is the most patently asinine political theory I’ve heard in a long time. Exactly how is that different than a nicer form of Marxism? If it’s only punitive if the government takes all your money plus something else, then does it not follow that the state really owns everything and you only have property rights at the sufferance of the state? Because if that’s true, I’m walking into my Property professor’s office right now and demanding a refund.
Locke had it right: we have an inalienable and innate right to life, liberty and property—and if you take away the latter, it’s quite easy to take the other two.
* Let’s not even call it liberalism. It isn’t. What passes for “liberalism” today is the antithesis of the far older tradition of Locke and Jefferson. It is statism, not liberalism.
If you’re married filing jointly with two children
Pre-bush : 15% of 45K – 1000 = $5750 about 12.7 %
Post bush: 10% of 15,656 + 15% of $29350 – $2000 = $3966 about 8.8 %
I’m not a tax accountant, so correct this if I’m mistaken
Colleen erred: “YES-it is NOT A GIFT. It is their own bleeping money.”
That would be true, if, as at the end of the Clinton years, the government weren’t running a big-ass deficit. Because Bush squandered the surplus, he’ll be using borrowed money to try to gin up the economy so that Republicans don’t get killed at the polls in November.
So how do we pay for government, or do we just have anarchy. Do we just print money and not worry about it. Who received the greatest reward for a stable economy and a secure couuntry.
If 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth should they only be responsible for 10% of the expense to run the government, or 90% or somewhere in between like 50%
There folks. That’s your “reason” for taking more from folks. It is perfectly justified… or you’ll think that way if you’re in Stage Three of syphilis.
Total cost of government divided by the total number of governed.
That’s what I call my fair share. Anything else is redistribution of wealth.
That was to AC… not Flash.
People can always give more to the government… if they freely choose. Even AC ought not be taxed more than necessary.
If 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth should they only be responsible for 10% of the expense to run the government, or 90% or somewhere in between like 50%
From CBO numbers,
In 2005, the top 10% in the income category paid 54.7% of all federal taxes? Fair?
The top 1% paid 27.6% of all federal taxes. Fair?
The bottom *60%* paid only 13.4% of all federal taxes. Fair?
The top 40% paid 85.6% of all federal taxes. Fair?
Half the country is freeloading off 10% of the households in this country.
So, soak the rich? Please. If the “rich” get tax cuts, it’s because they’re the only ones paying taxes.
Here’s another question:
Should you be taxed on your net worth? Income (or production)? Spending?
Listening to Flash, he might want to see a tax that is based on net worth. That’s a guess, though.
flash said:
“So how do we pay for government, or do we just have anarchy.”
The “anarchy” false option? No, government spends very, very, very large sums of money on many, many, many things. The other option is not “anarchy”, it’s spending less money. Even on “popular” government programs.
Asking “who _received_ the greatest reward” for a whatever ignores what they did you get the money: they labored for it. Who deserves the greatest reward for “a stable economy and a secure couuntry”? In my mind it is those who labored for it.
What is fair? Tax rates of 10%, 50%, or 90%? Think about applying to everyone. Then consider what is fair.
So how do we pay for government, or do we just have anarchy. Do we just print money and not worry about it.
I guess we must’ve had anarchy before the the fed income tax began in 1916. “Income tax”. Only progressives would think of taxing people’s wages rather than capital.
Who received the greatest reward for a stable economy and a secure couuntry.
The income tax is paid on income, not capital appreciation.
“Total cost of government divided by the total number of governed.
That’s what I call my fair share. Anything else is redistribution of wealth. ”
So I should have to pay 75% of my income and a Richie Rich .00001%
Just guessing on the %ages, but I bet I’m close. Do we count kids. If you are married but one income, does the one income pay both.
Whose wealth are we redistributing now. The systems is set up, in a way, so that those who reap the greater benefit from out society have a greater role in maintaining said society, for without a robust economy and healthy society no one would have any wealth at all. Bill Gates recognizes this by his opposition to Washington State’s tax cut proposal a while back that it was not in his overall best interest to take a boat load of money in tax cuts if it meant a significant reduction in education and other needed options.
I don’t deny a single one of you the argument that people should keep their money, or that people should only pay their fair share. But what is their fair share. Is it right that a large percentage of the government expense for flying be it FAA and other necessities is bore by people who don’t even fly. Of Course just because you don’t fly doesn’t mean you don’t get an advantage from those that do. Same with many government opportunities specifically infrastructure and assuring the elderly and underprivileged are taken care of.
I would think that if by participating in this process Joe Richie Rich’s would make one extra dollar, but that he would only see 63 cents of it instead of 68 cents, it is still 63 more cents than he would have had before.
You guys are talking not like the money they earn should be theirs to keep, but that they are owed the dollar to begin with. Almost like a reverse entitlement.
At least one of you can stop long enough to think this through and un-bury your head from the Luntz handbook
Troy, quite true. Granted, defense, jntererst, social secuity, medicare/caid, etc. are..what?…..90% or more, but there is fat an unaccountablility in the remaining 10%. For that matter, what about waste in the big things?
Has anyone ever gone through a public university and questioned the return on investment of some of the programs? Example:
Minnesota companies need…accountants, engineers, nurses, etc. Our schools need teachers, administrators. We also need machinists, diesel machanics etc.
If I ran a business, I probably never need to hire a Gay-Lesbian Studies major. Or a Chicano studies major, or any other activist studies types. Why are my tax dollars subsidizing these? What benefit and payback does the state get?
Mitch asked to resume blogging so wrote the following:
Here’s a preview:
“Mike Huckabee once quipped that “people are looking for a president that reminds them of the guy they work with, not the guy that laid them off” a statement which reaffirmed my conviction that not only is Mike Huckabee someone I would never vote for President, but I wouldn’t vote for any ticket that had him in the vice presidential slot either. The fact that career politicians like Huckabee seem to forget is that in voting for the President of the United States, I’m not voting for the guy who is going to be my boss (and any presidential candidate who thinks they’re being asked to run the entire country ought to be suspect), I’m voting for the guy who will be the boss of over a million employees in the executive branch of the federal government. Frankly a candidate who values results over loyalty to the extent that he’s willing to fire people who aren’t getting the job done is precisely what I’m looking for.”
Read the whole thing:
http://entitlementreform.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-mitt-romney-is-my-first-choice-and.html
Flash,
There is a point at which someone, whether it be an investor or a worker, will no longer decide to put up another hour or another buck because of taxes. At some point they become counter-productive and the incentive to work or invest diminishes.
Badda, I agree 100%
Well, shit… now what do we argue about???
“You guys are talking not like the money they earn should be theirs to keep, but that they are owed the dollar to begin with.”
what the hell are you talking about?
“So I should have to pay 75% of my income and a Richie Rich .00001%”
Why is my tax burden determined by my income? Isn’t there a better way to assign tax burden? Shouldn’t it be based on what I consume rather than what I earn?
“At least one of you can stop long enough to think this through and un-bury your head from the Luntz handbook”
Are you always this arrogant?
BTW, were you able to dispute my calculations of the actual tax break you received from Bush’s tax cuts or are you standing by your original assertion?
“There is a point at which someone, whether it be an investor or a worker, will no longer decide to put up another hour or another buck because of taxes.”
Which, of course, has no bearing on the fairness of the tax you pay on your wages. Lincoln went to war against the seceded states in part because no man has a right to earn a living from another man’s labor. Lincoln’s arguments were biblical, not economic.
Terry, it has a little to do with someone making the most out of the opportunity they have… and with more work, production, and investment more folks get employment and opportunities.
It’s a nice side-effect. Actually, it is a great side-effect.
“Lincoln’s arguments were biblical, not economic.”
Goddamn fundamentalist Bible thumper. The Constitution has a strict seperation of church and state. Therefore Abe cannot force his religion on the choice-loving Southern-Americans or any other economic-minorites.
Mr. “Centristy” accuses me of spreading a myth, gets his liberal ass handed to him and then does the Kansas City Shuffle:
So how do we pay for government, or do we just have anarchy.
But thanks for playing. Indeed.
Chuck… he couldn’t, but a Tic could.
😉
MoN, You got me on a technicality, I should have been more specific.
Kerm, let me know the link so I can find where my tax bracket was cut, I have shown you the White House link that shows it didn’t. That is the context the President uses, shame on me for talking his language. I thought you all were fluent in it.
Last year my Federal Taxes went up, this year they will go up again. Thank God for Bush’s Tax Cut. It is good to know the extra money they are taking from me will be gifted to some poor struggling Richie Rich making well over 6 times what I am. I hope they don’t gamble it away in the stock market . . . again!
“”“So I should have to pay 75% of my income and a Richie Rich .00001%”
Why is my tax burden determined by my income? Isn’t there a better way to assign tax burden? Shouldn’t it be based on what I consume rather than what I earn?”””
How do we get the thousands of dollars from the homeless guy with two bits in his pocket to pay his share for being one of the governed. *giving you time to recognize your statement was premature* That is why I compared it to income, it is a base we can relate too, not necessarily the metric for how much we should pay.
Hukabee won West Virginia, now we are one step closer to the Fair Tax and ALL of our taxes will skyrocket with the exception of the top 3-5% who will see their burden plummet. But that is what you all want anyway, to put double, triple, quadruple more because it is fair to subside the rich so they can be more rich
“”Are you always this arrogant?””
No, actually I am a pretty decent guy, I just like to get you folks all riled up on-ine, it is purely for entertainment value.
Kerm, let me know the link so I can find where my tax bracket was cut, I have shown you the White House link that shows it didn’t.
Sorry Flash, I thought you had previously reported you have children.
Last year my Federal Taxes went up, this year they will go up again.
As a percentage? You need to get a new accountant.
And I thought I was the only one who had to put up with Flash….LOL
OK Mitch back on topic reply to your reason.
1. Executive Experience… Well that worked well for this country with Clinton and Carter eh. and While I supported Bush (and still do) he has fallen short of executive leadership in many areas and just recently found his veto pen.
2. Working across the aisle…some would say sell out but the Health Care debacle in Mass. is an example and something we want to stay well clear of…Mondo problems will result from that bone headed “solution” but he did worked well with the Dems on that one.
3. Are you talking Legacy or is that a segue into # 4 ?
4. Reminds me of another Sailor from Mass. Stick your finger in the air?
5. I think McCain’s got him on spending, pork, ear marks ,fiscally conservative..You wont find one with a better track record. You do not succeed in Mass without spending $. Or were you talking about the ability to manage hedge funds in a manipulated market or about investing SS accounts into the stock market?
6. Again McCain…when it was out of step to talk surge he did not waiver. Are you sure Romney wasn’t for it after he was against it. (stick the finger up in the air)
7. School choice is good…we just differ on where tax dollars should go.
Don’t get me wrong Mitt would be far superior than any Dem Candidate I just prefer McCain and think he would do better job, has a better chance of winning and will be our Republican candidate….as I said two years ago at the garage down your street when you treated me in a De minimus way and blew me off like a birthday cake….
Flash sez: “I was part of a large swath of married filing jointly who received no tax cut under the original Bush Plan. ”
Master of None shows how flash’s tax rate went from 12.7% to 8.8% (over a 30% reduction) because of Bush’s tax cuts.
Flash sez: “You got me on a technicality,”
Right
My perception of flash is that he is a pretty decent guy, and that he likes to argue. A lot. 🙂
But then again, I like angryclown too… 😉
MoN Still waiting for that link I knew I shouldn;t have shown you mine first
Troy gets it!
Flash
What link are you waiting for from me?
You said this:
“”If you’re married filing jointly with two children
Pre-bush : 15% of 45K – 1000 = $5750 about 12.7 %
Post bush: 10% of 15,656 + 15% of $29350 – $2000 = $3966 about 8.8 %
I’m not a tax accountant, so correct this if I’m mistaken “”
I asked Kermit by mistake for the link you got this information from. Having Met him at Tracy’s I apologize for the confusion *laughing*
Flash
I got it from the IRS tax guide for 2007.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html
“$15,650 to $63,700 $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650”
and for the child tax credit
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf
$1000 per child.
I don’t know how many kids you have that qualify for the credit so that’s why I asked for you to make any corrections to my assumptions.
Is there anything wrong in my numbers?
I got it from the IRS tax guide for 2007.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html
“$15,650 to $63,700 $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650”
I don’t know how many kids you have that qualify for the credit so that’s why I asked for you to make any corrections to my assumptions.
Is there anything wrong in my numbers?
and this for the child tax credit
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf
Kermit’s original statement
““”if you are referring to the tax cuts, everyone got them. Even you.””
seems to be true. Doesn’t it?