My representative asked me, where should we get the tax dollars so we can protect property taxes from rising too quickly?
I’m extremely disappointed that Steven Johnson from Assaria doesn’t appreciate that the legislature unnecessarily cut taxes a year or so ago, and now the state has a deficit.
Where indeed should the dollars come from? Why, from the silent (ha!) middle class. They always shut up and pay their taxes.
Heck, after screwing them over, we can run on the platform that taxes are too high! They’ll never remember who raised them.
They make me sick.
Or is there a method to his madness?
I believe his apparent revolt against 3 of the main tenets of modern republicanism, delivered on the night Romney gave his acceptance speech, speak to a longer-term goal.
In other words, not rogue at all. My thinking below along with a link to the Politico story where he makes these surprising revelations.
Why would David Koch give an on the record interview, on the night of Romney’s acceptance speech, that goes counter to 3 major Republican talking points?
In a politico interview, in response to the fact that Romney opposes gay marriage, he opined:
“Well, I disagree with that.”
He went on to say that defense spending cuts were necessary, and even then taxes would likely have to be raised to reduce the budget deficit.
“I think it’s essential to be able to achieve spending reductions and maybe it’s going to require some tax increases. We got to come close to balancing the budget; otherwise, we’re in a terrible deep problem.”
Read more in this Politico story.
So, What’s Going On?
I believe he’s leading the effort to focus their resources on 2016. In my mind, if Romney wins now, then they’re either stuck with him in 2016 or face fighting another incumbent, and worse, one from their own party!
Obama’s a known quantity, and even from the Republican perspective he’s done a reasonable job of keeping the country on a steady, even keel.
So, I think their plan is passively allow Obama to win re-election while also trying to make gains in congress. If they do that, then, in 2016, there are no incumbents!
And also, if Romney/Ryan loses, then the tea party loses as well, and I’m sure sane republicans would like to get rid of them.
I dunno, how else to explain his comments?
And note again, he made these comments (or at least the interview was published) on the very same night that Romney gave his acceptance speech.
I’m just a casual political junkie, but that seems like a major diss of Romney.
Oh, and I live in the middle of Kansas, in a purplish town, and I saw 2 Obama stickers on my bike ride today
I’ve been sick with a slight fever all week, so maybe I just don’t understand what’s going on regarding the proposed Health Care Reform bill, but here’s what I see as of this date.
To cut to the chase, I believe the proponents of this bill are, as my British colleagues might say, barking mad!
As I understand it, they propose to FORCE people to BUY insurance and then CLAIM they’ve expanded coverage for millions.
Yes, read that again. The United States Senate is proposing to force people to pay for-profit companies for what are basic services in first world, civilized countries (such as Sweden). When you hear the term mandate, they aren’t talking about wide-stance Republicans, they’re talking about taking money from the pockets of poor people and giving it to insurance companies.
Here’s a fact: most folks that I know that don’t have insurance or adequate health coverage can’t afford it. How can you force poor people to buy something they can’t afford? Rent or groceries will always come ahead of insurance when you run out of money before you run out of month.
Scratch that. How can you force any American to buy a product from a for-profit company? It truly is unthinkable to me.
Sadly, and I’ve said this before, we know the answer. Senators do not vote for the interests of their nominal constituents; they vote for their true constituents, those who help get them elected. Party affiliation has no bearing on this.
Or maybe it’s just that democrats don’t know how to act when they’re in power. They seem to be much more comfortable being in the minority (at least then they have an excuse for not doing anything, and a real reason to ask for money).
And they wonder why they wear the tag of “spineless.”
All this brings to mind the old question Ann Landers used to ask: “are you better off with him or with out him?”
And to that question there’s no doubt in my mind. So I’ll still vote the way I’ve always voted, but the checkbook is closed.
200 years ago, one of America’s best presidents was born in a one-room cabin in Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln was the U.S. president during the American Civil War and is most famous for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, a set of executive orders that served to end slavery in the United States.
Lincoln’s words of wisdom covered much more than the war. He spoke of many topics, ranging from agriculture to the White House, and I’ve chosen one in particular to share today.
This quote has a lot of meaning for me:
Every man is proud of what he does well; and no man is proud of what he does not do well. With the former, his heart is in his work; and he will do twice as much of it with less fatigue. The latter performs a little imperfectly, looks at it in disgust, turns from it, and imagines himself exceedingly tired. The little he has done, comes to nothing, for want of finishing. Abraham Lincoln
Source: September 30, 1859 – Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society
Also on this day, I’d like to pay homage to both Abraham Lincoln and our current president, Barack Obama. Without Abe, the path to an Obama presidency is hard to imagine.
This composite image by artist Ron English works pretty well, don’t you think?
Image courtesy of Ron English and used with permission.
Update: I almost forgot, flickr is hosting a great set of images of Lincoln provided by the Library of Congress: Lincoln LOC flickr photos.
This week, America took the first steps back towards realizing the ideals “for which it stands.” We have once again declared that our policy and practice does not permit torture.
America has historically been known as a country that behaved with honor and dignity. We didn’t “play dirty.” Americans fought and won the hard fights, fairly. We won through superior strength that included a certain bit of moral superiority as well as our powerful military might.
There have been exceptions throughout our history, and I guess we’ve just come through another of those times. For a while, early in the 21st century, we lost our way. We forgot what it meant to be a moral compass, a standard by which the rest of the world judged appropriate behavior, especially in times of conflict.
I grew up in the shadow of WWII. Television shows featured the war, from the desert (Rat Patrol), to the battlefields of Europe (Combat!) and beyond. We played war games, sans computers, when I was of that age. Even as kids, we knew the difference between right and wrong!
One thing has always stood out in our history. Americans, with rare exception, acted with honor. We were better than those who engaged in torture, who killed prisoners — directly or through indifference, and otherwise turned away from the standards of moral behavior.
This week, by once again affirming that America knows the difference between right and wrong, and by declaring that we will no longer torture as a matter of policy, we’ve taken a powerful first step back towards reclaiming our standing as a nation that “does the right thing.” We’ll never be perfect, but we’ll also never stop trying to achieve the greatness that is within our capabilities.
As a result, I’m very proud that my country took the first steps back towards the ideals “for which it stands” and look forward to regaining our place on the world stage as a country to be admired and emulated, not pitied and scorned.