PDA

View Full Version : The BIG spending ways of Mitt Romney, liberal candidate


BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 10:54 AM
Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/howell5.html)
May 31, 2007
By Carla Howell - Co-Founder and President of the Center For Small Government.

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.
Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.
Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a "no new taxes" governor. The media refused to set the record straight.But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn't. He claims he only raised mandatory government "fees." But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney's new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.
He also increased several taxes by "closing loopholes" to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax and by passing legislation that enables local governments to raise business property taxes. This, he claims, is not raising taxes.
I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.
Quacks like a tax increase?
Romney now boasts that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a "taxpayer protection pledge," in which he promised to oppose "any and all efforts" to increase income taxes on people or businesses.
So he'll call his tax increases "government fees" or "closing loopholes" or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

GOVERMENT 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.
In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took "off budget." (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)
The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it's a "tough state" for poor "conservatives" like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he's not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.
Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.
Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.
The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance...RomneyCare-socialized medicine
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.
Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.
When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term "Kennedy country" to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy's "liberal social programs" on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.
Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.
Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney's bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.
Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.
Romney's socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn't have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. There's yet another "off budget" Mitt Romney tax increase.Romney's mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay the equivalent in tax penalties.
The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.Romney's law goes into full effect in 2009. Unless it's repealed before then, the loudest screams of protest from Massachusetts won't be heard until after the 2008 presidential election is over. Romney's time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds...

... Candidate Romney tells us that he is a:"fiscal conservative", "tax cutter", "waste fighter", "opponent of runaway spending", "tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending"...

...Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that make Ted Kennedy proud.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 10:56 AM
Yup, no difference between him and Hillary.

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:00 AM
The thing that kind of seals it was the Time article where he said he changed his mind about abortion some time in 2005, only to later have McCain YouTube up some comments he made in 2006 supporting women's choice.

I haven't seen a bald-faced about-face like this one in a long, long time.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:01 AM
Is Mitt Romney a social conservative?

Let's compare his deeds with his words:

From:
Party Leaping Leftward ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem12.html) (has the sound of a Chinese proverb doesn't it? Be a great campaign line. Lol!)


Some conservatives still doubt that an ideological realignment could take place because social conservatives would never abandon their party, the party that supports the right to life and social conservatism. But the pro-life plank of the GOP’s platform is already a dead letter, and most Republicans of national stature already aggressively support abortion. Presidential contender and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney flanked Ted Kennedy to the left on the abortion issue when Romney sought Kennedy’s seat a decade ago, and used his position as a member of the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America to try to force the scouts to accept homosexual pack leaders. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has similar positions. Other potential leading GOP candidates Rudy Guiliani, Condoleezza Rice, Bill Frist and George Pataki are all militantly pro-abortion. The closest you’ll come to a pro-life position among GOP leaders of national stature is Newt Gingrich, who runs away from any discussion of abortion, and John McCain, who generally has a pro-life voting record but once said "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." And the Republican Party-led Congress and White House have made the United States government the world’s largest purchaser and distributor of condoms.

Social conservatives have lost the Republican Party every bit as much as fiscal conservatives.

There has arguably never been much difference ideologically between the two parties in the modern era, where platforms are determined by candidates elected in primaries. But there has at least been a difference between the Republicans and Democrats since 1936 in the marketing strategy of the two parties. With the Republican Party openly campaigning for total government, a marketing change is not far down the road unless they receive the severe chastisement from the electorate Tuesday that most pollsters expect. Even then, unless Republicans openly reject the Bush White House’s philosophy, the Republican Party will remain the party of Big Government that it has already become.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:02 AM
The thing that kind of seals it was the Time article where he said he changed his mind about abortion some time in 2005, only to later have McCain YouTube up some comments he made in 2006 supporting women's choice.

I haven't seen a bald-faced about-face like this one in a long, long time.
This is patteeu's candidate. :banghead:

the Talking Can
06-19-2007, 11:17 AM
doesn't matter

he's a flip-flopper, and as we learned the last election: Republicans don't vote for flip-floppers...ever...flip-flopping is unforgivable, immediately disqualifying you from consideration

he has no chance in such a principled party...

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:30 AM
doesn't matter

he's a flip-flopper, and as we learned the last election: Republicans don't vote for flip-floppers...ever...flip-flopping is unforgivable, immediately disqualifying you from consideration

he has no chance in such a principled party...
Expect the flip-flopping claim to be thoroughly rationalized with expert legal parsing á la Bill Clinton.

I wouldn't say he has no chance, according to a major news mag ( Time or Newsweek) he's leading as the favorite.

Two things I like about him:
I don't believe he's as much a warmonger from an interview I saw on Fox. He looked sincere his tone of voice and eyes and that was on Iran, regarding "hating to have to use that" [option.]

Second is his looks! :drool: LOL!

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:39 AM
Second is his looks! :drool: LOL!
I forget you're a woman from time to time.

Cochise
06-19-2007, 01:11 PM
Romney ranks pretty low on the 'trust' scale for me. I don't see myself giving him any serious consideration.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2012, 03:48 PM
For those who think Romney, a Massachusetts liberal, will be better than Bush.

FishingRod
03-09-2012, 04:27 PM
For those who think Romney, a Massachusetts liberal, will be better than Bush.

The painful truth is it will be him or Obama. The Liberals have bought in that Mitt is some social conservative that is going to take away women’s rights and take advantage of the workin man but, I see precious little to differentiate the two other than I think Mitt would have a more cooperative congress and I don’t automatically see that as a good thing.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2012, 04:28 PM
... I see precious little to differentiate the two other than I think Mitt would have a more cooperative congress and I don’t automatically see that as a good thing.

That there shows that the lesser of the two evils is Obama so long as Republicans can hold Congress.

Maybe by then the Republicans will finally have learned their lesson?

FishingRod
03-09-2012, 04:31 PM
That there shows that the lesser of the two evils is Obama so long as Republicans can hold Congress.

Maybe by then the Republicans will finally have learned their lesson?

I am not saying he is the evil of the two lessers but I am juggling the idea in my head and it is making my eyes bleed.

patteeu
03-09-2012, 05:36 PM
Yup, no difference between him and Hillary.

Or Ronald Reagan for that matter.

patteeu
03-09-2012, 05:38 PM
The thing that kind of seals it was the Time article where he said he changed his mind about abortion some time in 2005, only to later have McCain YouTube up some comments he made in 2006 supporting women's choice.

I haven't seen a bald-faced about-face like this one in a long, long time.

Link?

DementedLogic
03-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Or Ronald Reagan for that matter.

I like how Republicans idolize Reagan like he was some conservative prophet. The Reagan that ran for President, and the Reagan that was president were 2 completely different people.

patteeu
03-09-2012, 06:30 PM
I like how Republicans idolize Reagan like he was some conservative prophet. The Reagan that ran for President, and the Reagan that was president were 2 completely different people.

Good luck with your fringe religion.

DementedLogic
03-09-2012, 06:47 PM
Good luck with your fringe religion.

I almost hope that Romney becomes president, so Republicans can reap what they sow.

patteeu
03-09-2012, 06:51 PM
I almost hope that Romney becomes president, so Republicans can reap what they sow.

Me too! It would be nice not to squander the chance to establish a conservative SCOTUS among other things. I hope Romney will get on board with a more pro-growth version of tax reform too, but you can't have everything.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2014, 02:33 PM
Bump


Someone claiming Romney is vastly superior to Obama in another thread said otherwise in this one.

King_Chief_Fan
08-20-2014, 02:34 PM
Bump


Someone claiming Romney is vastly superior to Obama in another thread said otherwise in this one.

2 1/2 years ago.....we have moved on

BucEyedPea
08-20-2014, 02:43 PM
2 1/2 years ago.....we have moved on

Obviously some haven't. Just look in the other thread right now.

chiefzilla1501
08-22-2014, 07:00 AM
Bump


Someone claiming Romney is vastly superior to Obama in another thread said otherwise in this one.

I think the difference is that Romney might actually care about being President. Obama has been mailing it in ever since he got his second term.

Cochise
08-22-2014, 07:12 AM
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7YvAYIJSSZY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-22-2014, 08:28 AM
Wrong Cochise.

Copyright © 2007 Carla Howell


Reprinted with permission. Carla is Co-Founder and President of the Center For Small Government.


Apparently you were aligned with the article when I first posted it. Now, are there any facts in that article that are false or that you can refute?

Guess not.

Perhaps I should put up the video of Mitt claiming to be a Progressive.