Earlier today, Mitt Romney released “Future”, an ad that directly went after John McCain on taxes and immigration in an effort to draw blood in New Hampshire. This was an risky move for Romney because it opened him up for attacks on his own less than stellar record taxes and immigration. But even more than that, Romney chose to deliberately misrepresent McCain’s positions in order to score a few cheap shots. The New York Times took a look at Romney’s ad and this is what they concluded:
Specifically, Mr. Romney assails Mr. McCain on both tax policies and immigration. On both topics, the commercial presents facts that could be construed either as selective or worse, misleading.
For instance, Mr. Romney claims Mr. McCain “even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.”
The more complicated reality is that Mr. McCain supported legislation that would allow illegal immigrants who come forward, pay fines, then wait their turn to become citizens the chance to collect Social Security – but only after they are citizens.
On taxes, the ad accurately states that Mr. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. The reason he gave at the time was that he could not justify supporting them without coinciding spending cuts. Mr. McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent.
Mr. Romney also claims that Mr. McCain “opposes” a repeal of the estate tax.
While Mr. McCain was also one of two Republican senators who voted against a measure to permanently repeal the estate tax, also known as the death tax, in 2001, he has long championed dramatically cutting back on the people who would have to pay estate taxes.
After opposing a permanent repeal for fiscal reasons, he later supported an alternative measure that would have narrowed the estate tax to apply only to the extremely wealthy.
The ad also makes claims about Mr. Romney’s own record that are open to question.
For instance, the ad claims “Mitt Romney cut taxes and spending as governor.” Some fiscal conservatives, however, have claimed that Mr. Romney’s raising of state fees by some $500 million when he was governor as simply a tax by another name and have also been critical and his closing corporate tax loopholes, which they argue amounted to tax increases on corporations.
UPDATE: The McCain campaign released an in depth fact sheet on Romney’s misleading ad to Jim Geraghty and FactCheck.org gets in on the action as well.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
You might want to use some of this in your original post:
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html
December 28th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
This is ridiculous. The more complicated reality is still the reality at hand. Bottom line, they’d be able to collect Social Security after breaking the law.
And since when has McCain become a long standing champion of the estate tax? I give you this quote from 2005: “I follow the course of a great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax. I oppose the rich passing on fortunes.”
December 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Now – you have to ask yourself – why are all of these LIBERAL newspapers defending John McCain?? They are biased against Romney because he is the candidate they would least like to write about for the next four years.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Wow. Seems that that quote from #2 is real and horrifying.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2005/09/05/mccain_and_taxes
Read it and weep, fellow economic conservatives. ^
December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
why dont we quote the DNC on Romney since we are quoting that bastion of conservatism- the NYT.
I’m with Ryan. McCain twice opposed the bush tax cuts, offered to reward the law breaking illegal immigrants with citizenship, told them they could keep their ssi the paid, and like huckabee on immigration just recently said maybe I was wrong.
McCain is no conservative. He has made a career in the senate of being a maverick and has verbally abused those that stood in his way.
Could you imagine what would happen in a board meeting if one of us told another member who disagreed with us to “F… you”. Dont think we would be long for that company, but Mccain thinks that makes him the perfect guy to run our nation. What a load of crap.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Now – you have to ask yourself – why are all of these LIBERAL newspapers defending John McCain?? They are biased against Romney because he is the candidate they would least like to write about for the next four years.
This isn’t a McCain-Romney race. They like McCain because McCain is a so-called “maverick” Republican. It’s got nothing to do with hatred for Romney because he’s a ‘conservative.’
Hell, I have no idea what Romney is. Depends on what day you catch him on.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
JamesB,
putt the MSM tin foil hats away. The last thing we need in the White House is another 4 years of media-phobes. The Wall Street Journal is MSM so is Fox News. As Redstate.com pointed out, the media likes McCain, not because of his political positions, but because he is candid and doesn’t reduce himself to defining “saw”.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
OK–as far as Illegals getting Social Security. So after they became citizens they can collect Social Security. My problem is that they who have come here illegally jump ahead of the line and they benefit from that. McCain is just wrong on immigration.
Bush tax cuts–I can agree with McCain a little on this. The Surplus probably should not have been used to give refunds but to pay down debt–so McCain doesn’t lose any points with me on that.
The death tax–again McCain is just WRONG. I don’t care how rich one is they should not be taxed when they die period–so he loses here with me. Again he was one of two republicans to vote this way. My guess would be Hagel but that is a total shot in the dark.
I’m completely satisied with the answer that Mitt gave on MTP about raising fees. They, according to him, had not been changed for years. His numbers was that revenue from fees went up $280 million i.e. 8% of the budget. Closing loop holes is not a bad thing–I’m a flat taxer. He closed a 3 billion dollar tax gap in year 1–that’s pretty impressive.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
cj, whether the NYT has an overall liberal slant or not has nothing to do with whether their information is correct.
(The bias can become evident in more subtle ways. The NYT recently exonerated Giuliani — hardly a friend of the New York Times! — over the whole brouhaha about using public funds inappropriately…but they buried it far, far away on page F3593 or something.)
December 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
It’s a fact that Romney cut taxes 19 times and wanted to cut a lot more. It’s also a fact that he never raised a tax. The New York Times makes about as much sense here as usual, and, as usual, sticks up for RINO’s and casts aspersions on Republicans.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
carl, Hagel? No way. It was probably Chafee.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
TLG – and people STILL carry on with the brouhaha as if he’d never been exonerated. The damage was done.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
9, EXACTLY. The most flamingly left wing people can speak truth.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
#13 E dogg, they didn’t here, that’s pretty clear.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
chafee was 1b as far as a guess.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
14, That’s your opinion which is why I think you need a tin foil hat.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Why would NYT be fact-checking Mitt’s claims against McCain, but not against others, or for this matter, from any candidate against each others?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Carl, Why do you think the last Republican whip Lott and future whip Kyl endorse McCain for president?
wiki:
In politics, a whip is a member of a political party in a legislature whose task is to ensure that members of the party attend and vote as the party leadership desires. The term originated in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and derives from the “whipper-in” at a fox hunt.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
This is the NY Times, right? That should be enough said. They would try to make the more liberal look better, and the more conservative look worse. However, when you read it, they couldn’t shoot any holes in it at all. What Mitt said was exactly right.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Don’t let emotions against the NYT interfere with thinking about the information it presents.
Imagine sitting down for a chat with the world’s greatest evils:
Let’s go through some platitudes…here’s a good emotional test…
“The sky is blue.” – Adolf Hitler
“Building strong relationships with your family is a great thing to do.” – Osama bin Laden
Are you really going to agree with Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden?!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
This is the NY Times, right? That should be enough said. They would try to make the more liberal look better, and the more conservative look worse. However, when you read it, they couldn’t shoot any holes in it at all. What Mitt said was exactly right.
Tinfoil hat brigade! Read my #20.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
#19 but according to TLG we should accept the NYT and its slant because they exonerated Hizzoner.
The NYT is a step above the DNC itself.
It still comes down to Mitt presenting the votes of MCCain and his positions against moody MCcain calling Mitt names. One attacks the issues one attacks the person, who is the better leader and who would I want representing me?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
E Dogg I don’t get your question?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Illinoisguy is also need of the MSM tin foil. How pompous and closed minded do you need to be to reflexively assume the NYT is wrong just because they’re liberal?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Why would the current and previous whips in the Senate endorse a RINO?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
#21, I did… It’s stupid
December 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
#24, did you even read the article??? I did, and they tried and couldn’t shoot down anything he said, as much as they would have liked to.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Some may call ‘raising fees’ another form of taxation.
To them, I say fees that have not been adjusted for inflation and cost of services are merely another form of government subsidy. Romney was merely closing the gap between the cost of services and the fee amount.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
27, Factcheck.org simultaneously vouched for McCain. I seriously doubt they corroborated on the story. Hell, even David Brody is put off by Mitt’s latest flip-floppings.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
#19 but according to TLG we should accept the NYT and its slant because they exonerated Hizzoner.
Actually, I didn’t say that.
I said that you should accept the NYT here because it’s correct.
#21, I did… It’s stupid
But it’s very important. You can’t dismiss an item’s accuracy because you personally dislike the source. You need to learn to eliminate your biases from your intellectual filter.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Maybe because they be RINOs as well–I don’t know. Kyl is from AZ and that maybe a factor. The Senate is chop full of that species of republicans. I would like to see more budget hawks in the Senate–they are more liberal with the purse strings than the house.
I would like to see DeMint move into some leadership positions in the Senate.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I think Romney’s attack on McCain’s tax record were basically accurate.
The social security for illegals line was MISLEADING – it made it sound like that was the bill.
It was also misleading to say he cut taxes and spending when he raised fees, and I also can’t imagine how spending went down given MA passed a universal health plan but I don’t know the facts for sure on that point.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
28, oh please, I suppose if a governor Mitt signed an executive order renaming income tax to “income fees” you’d argue that Romney eliminated income tax while in office.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
carl, You obviously know more about being a Republican than two of the most powerful Republicans in the United States. Obviously Mitt’s baseless proclamation that he’s the “republican wing of the republican party” has rubbed off on you.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Wow E Dogg that hurt
December 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
28, oh please, I suppose if a governor Mitt signed an executive order renaming income tax to “income fees†you’d argue that Romney eliminated income tax while in office.
Love it!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
sorry carl, I just have little patience for people who say McCain isn’t conservative. It’s baseless.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I do know for a fact at least 2 years in a row that Bush sent his budget to congress and the House (republican) added and then the Senate (republican)added even more. And apparently this was common. Bush is not solely responsible for the out of control spending.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
A fee is not a tax, get it??? if it were, they would call it a tax!! DUHHHH!!!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Tell me E Dogg, since when is going into an operating deficit by keeping fees and services low a conservative policy?
Sure, we’d all love cheaper driver’s license fees and so forth, but if they aren’t paying for themselves, then that doesn’t make good fiscal policy.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I’d like to take this opportunity to coin a word.
FINO (Fee-in-name-only). noun. To sugar-coat taxes by calling them something more politically correct.
Sentence: Mitt raised FINOs in MA by half a billion dollars.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Let me add another sentence to your statement: Mitt reversed 3 Billion dollars of debt in MA.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
E DOGG, u from AZ? If not, then you don’t know jack about McCain. He has been a disappointment.
What conservative issue has he pushed forward??? Kinda easy to vote in support of something, different to actually lead on an issue? Theonly big pieces I know are McCain-Feingold and Failed immigration.
Also, the former and current whips are likely to support their own, esp. when McCain is as vindictive as he is. Do you not remember that McCain lashed out at fellow conservatives who didn’t support his immigration bill. Why no comments about his recent flip?? What assurances do we have that a Prez. McCain would not jump into bed with Kennedy again???/ What executive experience does McCain have?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
The fact is that the tax cuts were intended to stimulate the economy. The thinking was that once the economy was stimulated, the revenues would increase, thus not increasing budget. It worked..the revenues went up very significantly beyond the previous projections. McCain was against it, because he apparently didn’t believe it would be revenue neutral. He was wrong, and today would support extending it. The fact is, the economy very much need a stimulus and he was voting against it.
To me, anybody Republican sitting in the house or Senate in recent years passing humungous spending bills one after another was acting like the democrats we so much love to criticize. John was one of them.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:07 am
E Dogg are you as stupid as a dog to not know the difference between a tax and a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:08 am
If McCain recognizes all of the problems with Republicans in Congress, what has he done to turn the tide, to limit the spending?
Answer: NOTHING! He is not a leader!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
#46 – Do I hear an Amen? AMEN lol
December 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Here is a leaked video of a McCain ad taped last Spring. He may use it. Romney speeches are the centerpiece.
http://www.slate.com/id/2181005/
December 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
ilfigo,
“E Dogg are you as stupid as a dog to not know the difference between a tax and a fee?”
No need for childish insults.
A tax is a fee taxpayers pay.
A fee is a tax that feepayers pay.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
“A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”
December 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Then is everything a tax MWS…we can just play around with the words!?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:23 am
ilfigo,
“Then is everything a tax MWS”
No. Just money we have to pay to the government.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
So any payment to gov’t is a tax? Really?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:25 am
So a Driver’s License Tax? I like it…
December 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
So a city recreational center membership would also be a tax, nice!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
“So a Driver’s License Tax? I like it…”
Yepper.
How do you split the hairs?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
“So a city recreational center membership would also be a tax, nice!”
Yup again!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am
ifilgo,
I think you’re getting the hang of this….
December 29th, 2007 at 12:30 am
So MWS…what did Mitt do as governor that bothered you??
Kept his promises?
Balanced the budget every year (in a Dem. Legis.)?
Fought for Conservative social values (Illegal Marriage, right to life)?
Fought against Illegal Immigration (per a governor’s limitation)?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Your craziness would generally make you a Ron Paul supporter, but I think I know better!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am
ilfigo,
Before we discuss Romney’s pro-abortion, anti-gun record, you never educated me on why you don’t think a fee is a tax.
All I’ve seen from you on the issue are insults. Enlighten me. What’s the difference?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Well to start with….
a tax is a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand, while a fee is not
Choice plays a part!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Do you know which fees Mitt raised?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
MWS…where is the pro-abortion record? How about you stick to the truth and not to talking points.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Ifilgo,
Say what?
Okay. So would the government collecting money on each stamp purchased be considered a tax or a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
ifilgo,
You say Mitt kept his promises. Did he keep this impassioned promise?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
December 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Tax = a charge imposed on everyone for any or no particular purpose.
Fee = a charge imposed on the user to cover expenses associated with the delivery of a particular good or service.
Pretty simple and straight forward.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:45 am
MWS…in regards to your stamp, it would be a fee (yet I know you will bring back our Founding Fathers)
So is buying land from the government a tax too? Under your definition, it would seem so, no?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:45 am
ifilgo,
“Choice plays a part!”
What part? If I choose not to earn income, then I don’t pay income tax. If I choose not to have a driver’s license I don’t pay my drivers license “fee.” If I choose not to buy cigarettes, I don’t pay a cigarette tax. In that sense, there is “choice” in every tax/fee we pay!
You still have not even begun to explain the difference. Don’t be so vague. Put it out there! You called E Dogg stupid for not knowing the difference, and I’m starting to wonder if you doubt yourself.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:45 am
MWS 66…what is the topic, no time to look up the video.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
ifilgo,
Romney’s impassioned pledge to uphold Massachusett’s pro-choice laws, and his firm commitment to choice.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Irish,
“Tax = a charge imposed on everyone for any or no particular purpose.”
Taxes have a purpose, they pay for what the government does.
So is FICA a tax or a fee, based on your definition?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I think Irish said it well…tax is placed on everyone (income, property, etc.)
While fees are for select users for specific purpose…
I do not disagree that both taxes and fees achieve a similar goal…provide funds for government (which is what you are trying to argue), but there is a difference between a tax and a fee
December 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
“I think Irish said it well…tax is placed on everyone (income, property, etc.)
While fees are for select users for specific purpose…”
So cigarette taxes are really fees?
How about inheritance taxes? Not everyone pays that.
What about a Stamp Tax or Tea Tax?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
With a tax…all people contribute, whether or not they receive the benefit.
A fee is charged only to those that recieve the benefit.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:51 am
“A fee is charged only to those that recieve the benefit.”
So FICA is really a fee, and not a tax?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:51 am
It toook you awhile to bring up the Founding Fathers…I even guided you to it!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Good question on FICA…do all paying into it recieve the benefits?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Not is unlikely that all paying FICA will recieve the benefits, therefore it is more of a tax.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:55 am
No?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am
I receive the “benefits” of smoking a pack of cigarettes. I “voluntarily” pay the government for this “benefit.” Have I paid a tax or a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:58 am
FICA is designed so that those who pay in get the benefits. If they die too soon, their survivors get the benefits.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
It should be a fee…but since the government and media calls it a tax…you must be right?
Especially since the government or media has never been incorrect, no?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
A colonial goes to the local magistrate to get a government stamp on his marriage license. Has he paid a tax or a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
A fee is charged only to those that recieve the benefit.
Last time i checked taxes went to these benefits:
roads
cops
national defense
education
So maybe the moral here is that there is no such thing as taxes. There are only fees.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
MWS…you never answered…if I buy property from government is it too a tax?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:01 am
ilfigo,
“It should be a fee…but since the government and media calls it a tax…you must be right?”
Henceforth, to protect the honor of Romney and to help educate the unwashed masses, I expect you to only refer to “Social Security fees.”
December 29th, 2007 at 1:02 am
E Dogg…who pays for the roads? Only those that drive?? What about with cops and your others…???
Those are taxes…try to keep up!
People pay taxes for education even if they have no children…(AZ tried to get rid of this tax and make it a fee_
Yet you are not from AZ, reason you have rose-colored glasses on in regards to McCain!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:04 am
ifilgo,
“MWS…you never answered…if I buy property from government is it too a tax?”
I missed that question.
The answer is no, because the government is acting in the same capacity as any private party could. It is the same in essence and substance as a private transaction. It cannot be imposed by the government, the government cannot force anyone to buy it.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:06 am
But your definition was any money paid to government? Was I wrong?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Also…are you asserting that tax = fee??
If so, then some of your arguments (What about cigarette tax, stamp tax, etc.) are moot in that they could be called Cigarette Fee, etc.? No?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
MWS…?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Is it true that Romney wanted to *fee* people for legal guns they already own?
What would be the benefit of that to the gun owner? I suppose the privilege of a liberal like Romney letting him keep the gun?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Well your question goes more towards all government funds??? Why tax on property already owned?
Also…not studied up on the specific fees…
but focusing on the 8% conribution of fees rather than the 3 billion deficit he erased is a bit misleading. If he used all fees, I might question it just as you!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“But your definition was any money paid to government? Was I wrong?”
Boy, you Romney boys are good at parsing words. Let me make a more expansive definition that takes into accounts for contingencies.
Money paid to the government that is not part of a transaction that could freely be entered into by any private party, but rather relies on the government’s ability to act unilaterally and with sovereignty.
In other words, when the Government is acting AS THE GOVERNMENT and not as (for instance) any other landowner, then it is a tax. When the government uses the force of law and not a free transaction, it is a tax.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:14 am
MWS do not get upset that you must now defend yourself…as you just made me (well done by the way)
December 29th, 2007 at 1:14 am
So as an attorney am I taxing the people for my services? or is a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:15 am
So the government could issue stamps and charge a fee since it too is acting like any third party that may charge a fee for a service, no?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Ifilgo,
I’m not getting upset, I’m thinking that your “gotcha’” is absurd.
As an attorney you charge people a fee for your service. Only governments can tax.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:16 am
So are funds to pay for police force a fee or tax, I think private companies can be hired to do a similar act, no?
Are there not private fire services as well??
December 29th, 2007 at 1:17 am
But for you tax and fee can be used interchangeably, no?? The what is your distinguish between the two?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:19 am
where did I say gotcha?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:20 am
ifilgo,
“So the government could issue stamps and charge a fee since it too is acting like any third party that may charge a fee for a service, no?”
No, because the government has two things which you as a practicing attorney lack:
1. A monopoly over anything it what’s a monopoly of.
2. The power to coerce.
SO, the government can say “If you want to ride on this road, you must pay a toll of $1 every 3 miles. The government has a monopoly on the road, and the power to charge whatever it wants.
YOU, on the other hand, cannot say, “Anyone in this county who gets a divorce must pay me $300.”
See the difference?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:25 am
ilfigo,
“But for you tax and fee can be used interchangeably, no?? ”
In regard to the government, yes. As noted above, fees in the private sector are fundamentally different than “fees” (taxes) from the government. If we are to be more accurate, all revenue paid to the government (in accordance with the caveat in #95) is tax, as I said before. It would clarify things if “fees” were left to the private sector. But then Romney wouldn’t have as much cover for raising taxes (just as attorney raises his fee, right?).
December 29th, 2007 at 1:25 am
I agree…that is what makes something a tax…coercion (lack of choice)
NO….I do not because an owner of a toll road does say if you want to travel, you have to pay a fee…he does have a monopoly.
Does that make it a tax? Your gov’t example is not a tax anyway.
Government coerces people to pay for roads and other services, whether or not that individual uses it!! That is a tax.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Well funny how you can define tax as any funds recieved by the gov’t with your simple caveat, yet you do not allow a distinction between government fees (which although rarer than taxes, do exist [driver's license, no])??
So if the State decides to increase my anual fees to practice law, that too is a tax and no longer a fee?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Why do current government recognize a difference between government taxes and government fees if it does not exist?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Why are you focusing on only 8% of Mitt’s 3 Billion success story??? Shouldn’t he be praised for such success, esp since other than Rudy (I believe), he is the only person to ACTUALLY DO what needs to be done in DC?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:36 am
“So if the State decides to increase my anual fees to practice law, that too is a tax and no longer a fee?”
Yes. That is a tax. You are the one insisting on calling some levies from the government “fees,” not me. So your questions regarding parallels between fees privately transacted and “fees” imposed by government fiat is premised upon YOUR use of the word “fee” in regard to the government, an arbitrary nomenclature which I do not accept.
Private parties can charge fees. The government taxes. It is that simple.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:37 am
“Why do current government recognize a difference between government taxes and government fees if it does not exist?”
So that when the politicians who enacted them run for higher office, they can claim to not have raised taxes.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:38 am
“Why are you focusing on only 8% of Mitt’s 3 Billion success story??? ”
I’m focused on the fact that Romney is lying about his record of raising hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.
I have to go to bed. Good night. You can have the last word.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Can you give me anything other than your own personal definition that governments do not establish fees??
You too are focusing on your own…I have never heard one MSM state that the government is unable to create fees, in that they are all taxes.
Also…explain why focus on only 8%
December 29th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Night!
December 29th, 2007 at 3:21 am
this is BORING!!!…well said ilfigo, g’night…
December 29th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Romney has every right to bring out the McCain record.
McCain supports the illegal immigration by giving them incouragement that they can stay.
How realistic is it to expect that they will pay fines when they have no money.
McCain’s approach just won’t work. Immigration laws need to be enforced.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Look you Romney Bots are so wrong. Mitt Flip Flopper Romney is running the most negative campaign and is distorting the truth. He will lie and say anything and will buy your vote. Why won’t you see the truth when it is so obvious.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
“Closing tax loopholes” is one major euphemism for raising taxes unless accompanied by broader tax reform. “Raising fees” is also much like taxation in situations where the government inserts itself into transactions between two parties by requiring licenses, permits, or other forms of bureaucratic approval.
I think Mitt’s health insurance “fix” — the mandate — will impose greater future taxes on MA citizens over the medium term. That program leaves no possibility for any individual to make healthy choices and opt out of the system.