Posted on 02/13/2007 5:20:12 AM PST by RWR8189
Dear New Hampshire Republican Primary Voter:
It’s early yet, but I, for one, am pleased that your dominant role in the presidential primary process remains intact. The no-nonsense vetting, for which you are rightly recognized, of the people who wish to be our party’s nominee is needed more than ever before.
Why, you ask. Well, neighbor to neighbor, Republican to Republican, I feel compelled to confide in you: The newest official entrant into the 2008 race is a fiscal phony.
I covered Mitt Romney’s governorship for four years, from the singular vantage point of a former Republican operative turned journalist. You see, I was chief of staff to both of Romney’s Republican predecessors and no one was more thrilled than I when this businessman-turned-politician decided to run for governor. His election ensured that the Republican winning streak in this decidedly liberal state would continue for the foreseeable future. And his election ensured that the solid no-new-taxes policies of his predecessors would continue to shape the state’s fiscal debates.
So no one was more disappointed than I when Mitt Romney failed to live up to his billing. After an unremarkable four-year term, we have seen what happens when a Republican governor refuses to take a no-new-taxes pledge, and then, not surprisingly, raises taxes (and morphs into a social conservative and runs full time for president instead of governing.) A Democrat wins. Now in Massachusetts, we are in the pitiable position of being one of a handful of states whose governor won’t even issue a proclamation honoring former President Ronald Reagan’s birthday. To which we GOP’ers in the Bay State say: Thank you, Mitt!
Plenty has been written about Romney’s conservative conversion on social issues, but you in the New Hampshire GOP have historically been more concerned with how a candidate’s record affects your wallet than your bedroom. And on that score, Romney’s candidacy should give you pause.
Consider:
Your own governor, Democrat John Lynch scored better (receiving a B) on the annual fiscal report card issued by the libertarian Cato Institute than Romney (who got a C). The 2006 Cato report described Romney’s message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge as “mostly a myth.”
“Rather than forcing the Legislature to close the budget gap through spending cuts alone, Romney raised some $500 million in fees.
“Romney raised corporate taxes by an estimated $210 million and only backed down under pressure from pushing for even higher taxes on business.
“Romney watered down a voter-approved immediate rollback of the income tax, by proposing to spread the final phase of the cut over two years.
“Romney flip-flopped on rebating capital gains taxes to taxpayers that had been collected unconstitutionally. ‘I’d far rather see tax cuts in the future than tax cuts applied in the past,’ he said as the state’s highest court wrestled with the issue.
“Until his presidential run, Romney had refused to back President Bush’s call to make federal tax cuts permanent.”
The Cato report on Romney concludes with this thought: “If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.”
So New Hampshire, it’s up to you. Do you really want Mitt Romney to do for the country what he did for Massachusetts?
Sincerely, Ginny.
Mitt did rock the boat. He backed 100+ Republican legislative candidates. We got our hats handed to us by a favorite son running for president. The lunatic Mihos used this as an example of Mitt not trying to work with the legislature.
The Romney-bot once tried to win Teddy's senate seat, must have had a programming glitch.
Thanks for the reminder, I knew the name was familiar. Did he leave Massport on less than amicable terms with Mitt?
He's a she.
I need to spell it out?
The best thing that can be said about Mitt as governor is that he was better than the alternative. He held back the liberal tide for a while, but now it's too late and the tide is rushing in. Perhaps, after 4 or 8 years of Governor Urkel, some sanity will return to the voters and real conservatism will make a comeback.
I don't see it happening. The intellectual gene pool is getting tighter and tighter. With the exception of financial enclaves, and military and fedgov medical expenditure the future for Mass is Lowell/Lawrence/Holyoke. Mass is a elderly, depopulating state, bringing in tax consuming third world poverty where the largest employer in every town is the town, in every county is the county government. Young, self supporting working class families should, as they are, flee the state, where most of their money goes to support various government pathologies at the expense of their own children.
On the plus side, there are about a dozen of cities in Mass where housing is getting cheaper every year. Kind of like a bunch of mini Detroits. If you are hooked up in the 'revitalizing urban centers' industries there are probably decades of expenditures you can cut off the taxpayers flesh until the whole thing collapses.
Couldn't she get a job with McCain or Rudy?
He's not much of a social conservative, either.
What'll you bet New Hampshire picks it up and votes the same way?
In November 2000, Massachusetts voters elected to roll back the state income tax over three years from 5.75 percent to 5 percent, its traditional rate before the 1989 tax hike. In 2002, the Democrat controlled Legislature overrode that rollback vote and "froze" the rate at 5.3 percent, where it remains. In his proposed state budget, Governor Romney defrosted the rate for 2006, the second half of the coming fiscal year. The House Ways and Means Committee kept the higher rate in its version of the budget. House Republicans tried to amend that document to restore the 5 percent and lost, 135-21. Instead, House Democrats voted to "study" the impact of a potential rate reduction. Interestingly, there were no votes to study the impact of the amendments to spend the money on pork for legislators to assist in their reelection campaigns. There are rarely attempts to study the long-term impact of other spending programs, either.
89% Democrats in legislature. Enough said.
And do really think the folks who voted for that 89% 'Rat legistlature would then do a complete 180 and vote for a true conservative for gov? In bluer-than -blue MA? Jen's Mom, you just made my point for me...
Governor's don't have the power of issuing executive orders that a president has. He couldn't do it without the approval of the legislature. Don't be like a liberal and make it up as you go along.
Now, all together, let's blame the Republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.