………….. is the premise upon which Democrat policy is based, even if you give them credit for good intentions. Today, Sen. Jack Hatch expressed the basis for the Democrat $1 per tax increase in terms very little different than those of a romance novel (hopefully more Danielle Steele than Jim Webb). Let me make this clear, also, Jack. The Real Sporer is an ex-smoker who, in a perfect world, would make the cancer sticks illegal. But, we don’t live in a perfect world and I suspect, Jack, you know that too.
The trouble for Jack is that damned old reality thing coming around again. The American Lung Associations numerical estimates are not methodologically sound-they are essentially the product of junk science. Dems probably won’t answer the question, but how were those numbers produced?
Cigarettes have proven to be the most consistently inelastic of consumer products. It only makes sense, of course. If a product is so addictive that public demand cannot be prohibited by law then the consumer will, essentially, pay almost anything for the product.
Where do young smokers get their smokes, Jack? Maybe from their cousin next door, but not at the convenience store or super market, and they’re already paying a grossly inflated price. Typical market economies don’t always apply in every market and smoking is one where they don't.
Most Iowans live within an hour’s drive of a different state. Even assuming that taxation could push the cost of cigs to the breaking point in Iowa, what would stop the average 20 year old from running down to Moline or Rock Island from the U of I to buy smokes as well as hit the 4:00 a.m. closing time bars?
Then, there is a history of taxation. Remember all of the arguments for increasing the local sales tax? Now the schools continue to complain that they are starved for money, although education receives more of the Iowa tax dollar than everything else combinded. Remember every Democrat argument you’ve ever heard for raising taxes and Jack works them all in, even saving the children. While the Democrats complain about the same problems every day of every year for generations their solutions never seem to become more successful or less expensive, as anyone who followed Iowa Department of Human Service funding would have to admit. How else do you suppose an aging state with 1% of the nation's population has 6% of its public employees?
So in the end, the gift bag of the tax dollar demands constant filling, and the Iowa taxpayer is merely the feed for the Iowa Democrats' big give away. So I hope the smokers in Jack's district remember to ask him for an accounting of their extra taxes in a couple of years.
The trouble for Jack is that damned old reality thing coming around again. The American Lung Associations numerical estimates are not methodologically sound-they are essentially the product of junk science. Dems probably won’t answer the question, but how were those numbers produced?
Cigarettes have proven to be the most consistently inelastic of consumer products. It only makes sense, of course. If a product is so addictive that public demand cannot be prohibited by law then the consumer will, essentially, pay almost anything for the product.
Where do young smokers get their smokes, Jack? Maybe from their cousin next door, but not at the convenience store or super market, and they’re already paying a grossly inflated price. Typical market economies don’t always apply in every market and smoking is one where they don't.
Most Iowans live within an hour’s drive of a different state. Even assuming that taxation could push the cost of cigs to the breaking point in Iowa, what would stop the average 20 year old from running down to Moline or Rock Island from the U of I to buy smokes as well as hit the 4:00 a.m. closing time bars?
Then, there is a history of taxation. Remember all of the arguments for increasing the local sales tax? Now the schools continue to complain that they are starved for money, although education receives more of the Iowa tax dollar than everything else combinded. Remember every Democrat argument you’ve ever heard for raising taxes and Jack works them all in, even saving the children. While the Democrats complain about the same problems every day of every year for generations their solutions never seem to become more successful or less expensive, as anyone who followed Iowa Department of Human Service funding would have to admit. How else do you suppose an aging state with 1% of the nation's population has 6% of its public employees?
So in the end, the gift bag of the tax dollar demands constant filling, and the Iowa taxpayer is merely the feed for the Iowa Democrats' big give away. So I hope the smokers in Jack's district remember to ask him for an accounting of their extra taxes in a couple of years.
34 comments:
Here's the best political commercial I've seen so far. I sure hope our people were behind it. It captures Hillary perfectly.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cWvHbOoG3tI
You're absolutely right, Ted.
I think the poll numbers put out showing Frank Stallone with a commanding lead are the truth and the future.
Frank had a banner weekend drawing thousands to a event he had in Western Iowa. He raised over $350,000 for charity and will be giving the money to help sick little kids.
Romney was PISSED! He demanded to be interviewed and tried to rush the stage where Frank Stallone was reciting one of Ronald Reagan's speeches from memory. (none of this is true of course). Romney was tackled to the ground by a group of Cubans who had been hired in case of security issues.
Romeny demanded an interview and even threatened to pull off Helen Thomas's wig, and rip out her false teeth if he could not have an interview with even just one reporter.
Not even Helen Thomas gave him an interview. Romney then got the bright idea to hijack a school bus full of old women headed to an indian casino and drive it to Des Moines. The old women had absolutely no idea who he was - and after 5 hours of wrong guesses, he let them all go.
Finally, Romney got some sense of fulfillment when he got an interview with Cat Fancy magazine. He then went to a comedy club and told Catholic jokes for over an hour.
Monday, March 19, 2007 6:59 p.m. EDT
Fox News, Black Caucus in Prez Debate Talks
WASHINGTON -- Fox News could be back in the debate business. Just days after Democrats canceled a Nevada debate co-sponsored by the cable news network, Fox is negotiating with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute to broadcast up to two face-offs by presidential candidates...
...The CBC Institute, a nonprofit group whose directors include members of the Congressional Black Caucus, has already sealed an agreement with CNN to broadcast a Democratic presidential primary debate in South Carolina and another Republican debate at a site to be determined.
Online activists, who were instrumental in forcing the cancellation of the Nevada debate, are mobilizing to pressure the Congressional Black Caucus and the institute against entering into an agreement with Fox News.
"Should they go forward, what we will see is largely what we saw happen in Nevada," said James Rucker, head of colorofchange.org, a coalition of black online activists. "They can expect a massive grass-roots backlash."...
...The institute and Fox News teamed up to host a 2004 Democratic debate. And News Corp. has been a longtime supporter of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, another nonprofit group affiliated to the black caucus. The foundation's annual reports since 2002 list News Corp. as one of scores of corporate donors, with contributions ranging from $5,000 to $30,000.
Though the black caucus is regarded as a Democratic organization in Congress, the institute cannot act in a partisan fashion under federal tax laws.
with all the frontloading going on for this cycle of elections, making the personal touch of Iowa politics almost passe, here's some good news about why retail and one on one politics is good for America as it searches for the right leader. Here are excerpts of this nice piece on McCain's experience of having a little "growth" on an issue based on Iowa constituent input.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/us/politics/20immig.html?ex=1332043200&en=730f0c6bce9eeb6f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
March 20, 2007
G.O.P. Candidates Confront Immigration Politics
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
DES MOINES, March 17 —
The topic came up repeatedly in recent campaign swings through Iowa by Mr. McCain and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican who, like Mr. McCain, supports giving some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, a position that puts them at odds with many other conservatives.
“Immigration is probably a more powerful issue here than almost anyplace that I’ve been,” Mr. McCain said after a stop in Cedar Falls.
As he left Iowa, Mr. McCain said he was reconsidering his views on how the immigration law might be changed.
He said he was open to legislation that would require people who came to the United States illegally to return home before applying for citizenship, a measure proposed by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana.
Mr. McCain has previously favored legislation that would allow most illegal immigrants to become citizens without leaving the country.
Beyond whatever influence it has as the state whose caucuses kick off the presidential nominating contest, Iowa has become something of a laboratory for the politics of immigration. Not only is it a place where industries like meatpacking rely heavily on immigrant workers and where a once relatively homogenous population is confronting an influx of Hispanic residents, but the presidential candidates who are criss-crossing the state are also providing forums for Iowans to express their views and influence national policy.
On Saturday morning in Des Moines, Mr. Brownback stood for 30 minutes at a breakfast with Republicans as question after question — without exception — was directed at an immigration system that Iowans denounced as failing. “These people are stealing from us,” said Larry Smith, a factory owner from Truro and a member of the central committee of the state Republican Party.
Finally, Mr. Brownback, with a slight smile, inquired, “Any other topics that people want to talk about?”
I did some digging and I found that there was a fact sheet by the Dept of Public Health where many of these facts seem to stem from: http://www.idph.state.ia.us/tobacco/common/pdf/100_tobacco_facts.pdf
There are some interest groups, such as Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, as well as surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 by University of Northern Iowa, that appear to be the primary sources for this document. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids site in turn borrows heavily from the Centers for Disease Control data. It appears, then, that while the revenue data would be fairly straightforward, that the numbers of lives saved, numbers of kids that won't start smoking, etc. may be extrapolations from secondary and tertiary sources that themselves may be surveys rather than objective measures. Because of that, I find all of the back-slapping about quitting or not starting because of the tax hike a little disingenous. How do you measure that somebody would have started smoking but now will not because of the tax hike? Or the dollar amount of health care avoided by a tax hike? You can guess, but by definition, these are unknowable things.
But you can measure how much money Iowa receives in tobacco money (hundreds of millions), how much we took in as part of the Tobacco Settlement ($574M) and how much we spend on smoking cessation (only $5.6M in FY2005). Those numbers don't just talk, they scream, about selling this as saving lives. This is about revenue first and foremost. And don't forget the increase in minimum prices, as well...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070320125451.aspx
Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral
Presidential candidate promotes carbon caps for business, but carbon 'offsets' for himself.
By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
3/20/2007 12:57:22 PM
Call it “Dancing with the Stars”: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month.
The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.” He has recently declared his campaign “carbon neutral.”
Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O’Brien put it: “One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.”
But when it comes to Edwards’ own life, he doesn’t cap his carbon efforts, preferring instead carbon offsets. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way, which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards.
Such offsets have been big news lately as even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.”
When O’Brien asked him about jobs going overseas instead of new jobs being created in the United States, Edwards danced again.
“Well, the reason first of all is the planet has to survive. So we have a pretty simple question to begin with.”
His second point merely asked “How do we deal with this issue in a smart way” and moved into boilerplate about creating jobs.
When O’Brien asked specifically about his house, Edwards turned into a dancing king. Asked about the cost of energy for the home, Edwards tried several answers:
“It’s actually not bad.”
And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was.
“I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.”
Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”
Edwards definately believes in two americas. The one HE lives in and the one he wants US to live in.
If he can't dance the dance, why should we dance with him? He's a great big huge phoney.
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination isn't Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
It's Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
And the Republican candidate who's grown less conservative over his years in Congress? Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Those are among the interesting findings in a recent analysis of votes by all the members of Congress who are running for president.
They cut to the heart of debates going on among activists in both major parties: Can a liberal Democrat win a general election? Which Republican is ideologically pure enough to win support from conservatives?
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16935220.htm
The link didn’t get me to the Edwards article, but a couple of points based on the excerpt copied here.
First of all, carbon offsets are part of a cap & trade system for carbon. They are not mutually exclusive and thus are not part of a “different standard.” On that point, the writer appears to be writing about something he knows very little about.
Still, from energy perspective alone, Edwards’ new mansion should give people some pause and he can rightfully be called hypocritical. One of the most important issues when attempting to build an energy smart home is to minimize its size. The cheapest space to condition – heat or cool – is the space you don’t build. One should build just enough space to serve your needs. I think we all agree Edwards’ new digs could be considered a bit oversized for a family of five.
Obviously his new place undermines his credibility on the poverty issue. Not that rich people can’t stand up for the poor guy.
On the Democratic side, the analysis of "lifetime" voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99.
The lifetime liberal scores for the other Democrats:
-Kucinich, 79.4
-Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 79.2
-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 78.8
-Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 76.8
The rankings differ if you look only at their 2006 scores. That year Kucinich edged Obama by one point as the most liberal, and Clinton was the least liberal, as she sought re-election and prepared to launch her presidential campaign.
Their ideological purity also varies by issue areas.
Obama, for example, is more liberal on economic and foreign policy issues and slightly less liberal on social policies.
Clinton and Dodd are most liberal on social policy questions, less so on economic and foreign policy votes.
Biden is most liberal on economics, much less so on foreign policy.
The most conservative member of Congress seeking the Republican nomination - based on lifetime voting records is:
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, with a score of 82.5. The most conservative score possible was 99.
Lifetime scores for the other Republicans:
-Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, 81
-Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 75.9
-Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 71.8
-Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, 71.5
-Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 51.7
The year-to-year scores can reveal consistency or change. McCain, for example, grew increasingly less conservative in recent years.
He started with annual conservative scores consistently in the 80s when he first went to the Senate in 1987,
..dipped to the 70s during the mid-1990s,
..into the 60s in the late 1990s
..and into the 50s starting in 2004.
The GOP candidates' votes also reveal big differences issue to issue.
Brownback, for example, got a score of 53 on social issues for his 2006 votes and a 92 for votes on economic issues.
Hagel, too, got lower conservative marks for social issues and higher conservative scores for economic and foreign policy votes.
McCain got a 46 for social issues - left of center - and more conservative grades for economic and foreign policy issues.
For more on the National Journal scorecard, http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
For comments or questions: www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/election2008/qa_forum.htm
Steven Thomma is chief political correspondent for the McClatchy Washington bureau. Write to him at: McClatchy Newspapers, 700 12th St. N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005-3994, or e-mail sthomma@mcclatchydc.com.
I wonder who gets to decide what stands are liberal and which ones are conservative? Especially in foreign policy I would be very interested to find out how those definitions are applied. But even in other areas, things aren’t always clear cut. For example, is it conservative to vote for a tax cut that will send the budget into deficit, even if the vote is cast with the hope that the economic boost from the tax cut will erase the deficit in 10+ years?
Vandals upset over the Iraq war defaced U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers' office overnight, a spokesman said Tuesday.
The unknown individuals splattered red paint on the Lansing, Mich. building and put up a sign saying the Republican has "blood" on his hands. They also spray painted the sidewalk with the words "no more deaths," glued shut the front door of the building and destroyed security cameras, said Andy Keiser, Rogers' chief of staff.
it's conservative to vote for a tax cut that allows individuals to decide how to spend their own hard earned money.
Conservative means - conservative use of the government. Liberal means - liberal use of the government.
Conservatives would REDUCE government spending to achieve a balanced budget.
Liberals would INCREASE taxes to achieve a balanced budget.
Having the government in charge is NOT conservative by definition. Having the government in charge is liberal by definition.
The reality of our current situation is that the Bush Tax Cuts have reduced our deficit. Reducing or eliminating the deficit is something that democrats NEVER did in 40 years of being in charge of Both houses of Congress.
It was only under NEWT's leadership that Clinton signed the Republican majority in both houses passed the budget that actually finally for the first time in over 40 years balanced.
Democrats have NEVER reduced a deficit by lower spending, or for that matter, when they increased taxes also.
NEVER! They suffer from every form of guilt possible and feel better about themselves if they send taxpayer dollars.
The club for growth - fiscal conservatives - don't like Huckabee or McCain.
---
Huckabee Still Trying to Defend Tax Hikes
Ever since we published our report on Mike Huckabee's record as Arkansas' Governor, he can't seem to shed his image as a tax-raising politician. Reporters continue to hound the presidential hopeful with questions about the Club for Growth's assessment of his tax-and-spend record.
This week, the Associated Press' Andrew DeMillo wrote a story entitled "Conservatives a Challenge for Huckabee" and New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph followed up the next day with a similar story, entitled "Huckabee Defends his Record on Taxes." Defend away Mr. Huckabee, but the facts speak for themselves!
This week, the Club for Growth issued a press release denouncing the Senate Budget Committee's 2008 budget proposal that seeks to raise taxes by $2.1 trillion dollars between 2008 and 2017 and increase spending by $500 billion over the next five years.
Club for Growth President Pat Toomey was on CNBC's Kudlow and Co. and CNBC's On the Money Thursday night criticizing the budget plan that would drastically stifle economic growth in this country.
The proposal is so bad, On the Money couldn't even find a Democrat to come on and defend it!
if CNN is questioning edwards on this carbon credit scam thing that no one can explain, will edwards now boycott CNN for interviews? Is he now afraid of them? After all, they weren't very fair.
wah wah wah
On the tax issue, sounds like someone is confusing partisanship with differences in liberal & conservative ideology.
If true principled fiscal conservatives were dismayed with D’s fiscal discipline, they have been disgusted by the R’s in power for the last 6 years. Anyone who reads any political commentary knows this is true. Record deficits, record growth in the size of the government. Real conservative? Only a partisan hack can defend such a record with a straight face.
Now the challenge for D’s is that they are in charge in Congress. They have to deliver on their fiscal responsibility promises. Lucky for D’s, R’s set the bar very low. If D’s can’t clear a bar that low, they deserve to pay for it in coming elections.
How come the White House people can never testify under oath? What’s the big deal if there is nothing to hide? I thought these folks brought integrity to the White House.
I would like to see how the Club for Growth intends to pay off our national debt with the baby boomers retiring and getting older. Something has got to give. It’s likely to stifle our economy, that’s for sure. This is an area where we need real leadership and bipartisanship. Both D’s and R’s need to get real, be willing to compromise and sacrifice. Sadly, we’ll likely leave it for our kids to deal with.
Congratulations Ted on your historic 4th consecutive wim as polk county chair.
rf - what is the democrat solution?
Perhaps privatization of social security like we really honestly already have with 401ks and all other private retirement savings programs because no one believes social security will be able to pay for anything but postage on the bills we must pay.
rf - democrats don't care about the national debt. red herring. try something else.
rf - why do the democrats constanty want to criminalize policy differences rather than discuss it?
Because they know that's all they have.
we've always left it to the kids. nothing new there.
I have to thank my feisty anonymous friend for engaging in discussion with the enemy. Not much discussion going on across party lines these days. Of course, I’m eagerly waiting for my feisty friend to acknowledge at least one issue where the R party and its leadership may actually be on the wrong track.
I doubt there is one D plan for addressing the looming financial crunch with the boomers. Personally, I find some sort of partial privatization of the system somewhat attractive. My main objection to W’s privatization plan was his unwillingness to pay for the inevitable transition costs. A familiar theme. One must also realize that many experts have floated ways to fix the SS system even without privatization. No matter which way we go, we should address the problem.
It seems to me that the SS fix would be much easier to do than the health care expense bomb that is going to hit us. I don’t think there are any easy answers there. Sooner or later both sides will have to face the realities and act accordingly.
In general, I have to criticize my fellow D’s for their instinctive defensive reaction to any out-of-the-box thinking or R proposals to address these issues. My biggest problem with R’s is the now prevalent “spoiled brat conservatism.” There is nothing easier for a politician than to vote for a tax cut without enacting matching spending cuts. These brats have no willingness to sacrifice anything no matter how important the cause.
“Democrats don't care about the national debt.” – Evidently they care more than R’s. At least they have greatly curtailed earmarks and came up with new pay-as-you-go budget rules. Steps in the right direction.
I like to discuss policy issues. That’s why I’m here. I thought that was one of the main R complaints about D’s. We love to discuss things. And what is there to criminalize if one is telling the truth? You are still not answering my question why this White House never wants their people to testify under oath. One straight talking administration.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Post a Comment