Not so sneaky attack:
In a move guaranteed to raise the temp at Romney central, a press release has been sent out in the guise of the Cato Institute and it's designed to touch a nerve into all tax-phobic voters here in first-in-the-galaxy primary land. It's all about taxes of course with the cute title of ROMNEY’S TAXACHUSETTS HYPOCRISY with an even better sub head of "Romney Raised Taxes On Out Of State Commuters – Including Those From New Hampshire – Repeatedly."
I've pasted this poison letter (call it "Rudy says I love you with a twist of the knife") below.
Inevitable: maybe, maybe not
I got multiple messages from a few campaigns sending out a link to Scott Lehigh's column in the Boston Globe today saying why Hillary Clinton isn't so inevitable. Really, I didn't know the campaigns needed this boost of artificial media-induced hope (especially one heavy in coventional wisdom of 'don't count your chickens...') but perhaps they are feeling low in the hope department.
Dodd's bark
Chris Dodd took his fellow and mostly passive Dem rivals to task in an OpEd piece in the Union Leader. He's the only Dem besides Dennis Kucinich who is ready to stop funding for the Iraq war. "We all know the result we want—getting out of Iraq—but too many of my opponents seem content to follow rather than lead when it comes to the only way we can get it: by terminating the funding," he wrote. It will be interesting to see if shaking Congressional timidity in D.C. could actually lead to a more explosive Iraq debate in New Hampshire. Dodd certainly hopes so. You can see his complete OpEd below.
Phony Outrage
Much to my surprise, I became tangled up with some Rush Limbaugh defenders after I quoted his "phony soldiers" sneer correctly last week in my Out on a Limb column about a recently returned soldier from Iraq. The blowback was hilarious and illuminating and I will write more about this phony outrage -- and the perils of 21st Century political journalism -- in Sunday's column.
For now, in my daily link Joe Conason columnist for the New York Observer puts this latest bout of lunacy in context. Read here.
Extras 1
Democrats' so-called leaders are not leading on Iraq
Sen. Chris Dodd
In looking over the Democratic candidates for President, some say there are no differences in our policy toward the Iraq war. I disagree.
In the Hanover debate on September 26th, moderator Tim Russert asked, "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" For a Party that is supposedly united in wanting to end this war, the answers were hardly reassuring.
Barack Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."
Hillary Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting."
John Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."
My response: "I will get that done…Yes, I will, sir."
I respect and believe that my opponents want to end the war. I know we all do - it's making us less safe and more vulnerable. But as we have seen these last nine months, getting that result won't just happen on its own.
Senator Clinton says if the President hasn't withdrawn our troops by 2009, she would begin doing that when she takes office.
That's all fine and good, but who knows how many more troops will have died by then. Who knows how much worse America's name will be in the world.
As Democrats in the Congress and candidates for the Presidency, we have an opportunity to lead now - not in 2013. Not when (or if) Democrats take the White House in 2009. Now.
By now, no one is holding their breaths for President Bush to change course on Iraq. With not a single result to point to in Iraq in the last four years, he wants somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000 troops in Iraq through next year.
What's clear is that by saying we might still be there in 2013, we only strengthen George Bush's hand. Saying you want to end the war while taking actions that prolong it do a tremendous disservice to the efforts of those who are doing everything they can to bring the war to a close.
Being in Iraq for another six years is simply unacceptable - and it should be to anyone who believes this war is making us less safe. We all know the result we want—getting out of Iraq—but too many of my opponents seem content to follow rather than lead when it comes to the only way we can get it: by terminating the funding.
I know it isn't easy. But timetables and harshly worded statements won't end this war - standing up to the President and using our Constitutional power of the purse will.
It's not as if this situation is unprecedented, with Congress facing an intransigent President who presses an unpopular, failed foreign policy. In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was insistent on funding the Contra forces in Nicaragua. Some said we couldn't stop him, even as it had become clear the Contras were making the country more violent and less stable. I saw things differently. Leading the opposition, I knew that if we stood up and stood our ground that we could change that policy - not wait until the next President came along, but force a change in the policy. And we did, paving the way to free and fair elections that have since stabilized that country.
No one is guaranteeing Iraq will become some kind of paradise after we leave. There may well be genocide we have to deal with on an international basis sooner or later. But just as before, we can get the results we want if we bring people together and challenge the President. To date, this Democratic Congress hasn't; neither have the so-called "leading" candidates running for President. Because saying we could well be in Iraq by 2013 isn't leading at all. It's following this President and down a rabbit hole we may never dig ourselves out of.
Extra #2
ROMNEY’S TAXACHUSETTS HYPOCRISY
“Mitt Romney has no choice but to hide behind false attacks - one look at his record as Governor shows he increased government spending, proposed millions of dollars in tax increases, and even raised taxes on New Hampshire commuters repeatedly.”
– Katie Levinson, Communications Director
Romney Raised Taxes On Out Of State Commuters – Including Those From New Hampshire – Repeatedly
As Governor, Romney Increased Income Taxes On Individuals Who Did Not Reside In Massachusetts, Including On Their Pensions, Deferred Compensation, And Sick And Vacation Pay. “A nonresident’s income relating to employment in Massachusetts or the nonresident’s trade or business in Massachusetts, including gain from the sale of an interest in the business, separation pay and deferred compensation and nonqualified pension income not prevented from taxation under federal law and income from a covenant not to compete, is subject to Massachusetts personal income tax regardless of the taxpayer’s residence or domicile in the year it is received and regardless of whether the taxpayer has actively engaged in a trade or business or employment in Massachusetts in the year of receipt, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2003.” (Goodwin Proctor Website, “Financial Services Alert -- Developments Of Note,” www.goodwinprocter.com/getfile.aspx?filepath=/Files/FSAS/FSA_3_11_03.pdf, 3/11/03, Accessed 8/29/07; Massachusetts Department Of Revenue, “Annual Report FY2003,” www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/Publ/Annual_Rpt03/AR2003.pdf, 2003, Accessed 8/29/07; “The Governor’s Budget Recommendation House 1A Fiscal Year 2004,” http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2004h1/downloads/house1.pdf, 2003, Accessed 9/12/07)
Romney Expanded State Income Tax To Include Income From Business “Whether Or Not The Nonresident Is Actively Engaged In A Trade Or Business Or Employment In The Commonwealth In The Year In Which The Income Is Received.” “Taxation of Nonresidents: Massachusetts gross income of a nonresident is determined solely with respect to items of gross income from sources within the Commonwealth. M.G.L. c. 62, § 5A(a). In relevant part, the prior law at 5A(a)(1) defined gross income from sources within the Commonwealth as the income ‘derived from or effectively connected with … any trade or business, including any employment carried on by the taxpayer in the Commonwealth.’ Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2003, this act effectively reverses a judicial interpretation of § 5A(a). Newly enacted § 5A(a) defines gross income from sources within the Commonwealth as any income ‘derived from or effectively connected with … any trade or business, including any employment carried on by the taxpayer in the commonwealth, whether or not the nonresident is actively engaged in a trade or business or employment in the commonwealth in the year in which the income is received.’ Thus, unless otherwise exempt, Massachusetts source income of a nonresident, regardless of the year in which it is actually received, will be taxable in the state.” (Massachusetts Department Of Revenue, “Annual Report FY2003,” www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/Publ/Annual_Rpt03/AR2003.pdf, 2003, Accessed 8/29/07)
Under Romney’s Change, Non-Residents Now Have Their Separation, Sick Or Vacation Pay, Deferred Compensation, Nonqualified Pension Income, And Other Income Taxed. “For purposes of M.G.L. c. 62, § 5A, the act further provides that “gross income derived from or effectively connected with any trade or business, including any employment, carried on by the taxpayer in the commonwealth” shall include, but not be limited to, “gain from the sale of a business or of an interest in a business, distributive share income, separation, sick or vacation pay, deferred compensation and nonqualified pension income not prevented from state taxation by the laws of the United States and income from a covenant not to compete.” (Massachusetts Department Of Revenue, “Annual Report FY2003,” www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/Publ/Annual_Rpt03/AR2003.pdf, 2003, Accessed 8/29/07)
Romney Imposed State Income And Sales Taxes On Out-Of-State Residents For Their Share of In-State Partnership’s Real Estate. “A nonresident of the commonwealth who is a member of a partnership that is engaged in the conduct of a trade or business in the commonwealth or that owns or leases real property in the commonwealth, except a nonresident limited partner of a limited partnership engaged exclusively in buying, selling, dealing in or holding securities on its own behalf and not as a broker, shall be subject to the taxes imposed by this chapter on his distributive share of the income received or earned by the partnership from sources taxable under this chapter.” (Massachusetts Department Of Revenue, “Annual Report FY2005, http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/Publ/Annual_Rpt04/AR2004.pdf, 2006; “The Governor’s Budget Recommendation House 1A Fiscal Year 2006,” http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2006h1/06print/06budrec/pbudrec.htm, 2005, Accessed 9/12/07)
Why Is Romney Misleading On Spending And Taxes?
Perhaps Because…
Between 2002 And 2006, Massachusetts State Tax Burden Rose 10.75% (U.S. Department Of Commerce Bureau Of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information Systems, Downloadable Files Available At: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/CA1-3fn.cfm, Accessed 8/14/07; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/02staxrank.html, Accessed 8/15/07; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/03staxrank.html, Accessed 8/15/07; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/04staxrank.html, Accessed 8/15/07; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html, Accessed 8/15/07; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/06staxrank.html, Accessed 8/15/07)
During Giuliani’s Tenure, New Yorker’s Tax Burden Decreased 17% To Lowest Level In Three Decades. (The City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, pp. 8, 11 )
Romney’s Recommended Budgets Increased Real Per Capita Government Spending By 7.77%. (“Governor’s Annual Budget Recommendations, FY2003-FY2007,” http://www.mass.gov/bb/, Accessed 8/20/07; U.S. Census Bureau, "Annual Estimates Of The Population For The United States, Regions, And States And For Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 To July 1, 2006," http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html, Accessed 8/20/07; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers: 1997-2007," http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet, Accessed 8/20/07)
Total Spending In Recommended Budgets Grew 22.2% Under Romney’s Watch, From $29.477 Billion In Fiscal 2003 To $36.021 Billion In Fiscal 2007. (“Governor’s Annual Budget Recommendations, FY2003-FY2007,” http://www.mass.gov/bb/, Accessed 8/14/07)
Cato Institute Rated Romney “C” In 2006 For His Tax Policy. “As Mitt Romney launches his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, his fiscal record as governor should be scrutinized. Romney likes to advance the image of himself as a governor who has fought a liberal Democratic legislature on various fronts … But Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of “loopholes” in the tax code. He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office. In his budget for 2006, he proposed $170 million more in business tax hikes, almost completely neutralizing the proposed income tax cut. 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.” (Stephen Slivinski, “Fiscal Policy Report Card On Amercia’s Governors: 2006, Cato Institute Policy Analysis, pg. 42, 10/24/06)
ADVERTISEMENTS 
