Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
PROPOSITIONS VOTERS’ GUIDE: Just Say No
Debra Medina from We Texans has released a voter's guide for you to look over to read about all od the proposed amendments and make a knowledgable vote tomorrow!! GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!
With all the focus on the November 2012 Presidential election, many will miss the fact that there is also an election just a few weeks away. On November 8 of this year, Texas voters will decide on ten amendments to the Texas Constitution. View a sample ballot here The Texas Constitution is a large and complex document because it is rare that constitutional amendments fail at the ballot box.
With this in mind it is important to point out that these amendments are often the means of saddling Texans with debt. Texas taxpayers already find ourselves facing cuts to the funding of education and other constitutionally mandated state services and shoulder the burden for more than $35 billion of state debt. Yet elected officials still don’t seem to get the idea that citizens are tired of the runaway spending. We should not be increasing our debt!
Consequently, We Texans urges voters to “just say no.” Yes, that’s right, since nine of the ten propositions call for shifting of or increases in government spending or tax burden, we are recommending that you vote “against” all but one of the propositions on the ballot next month. Proposition 10 is the only exception for which we can support a “for” vote.
Here’s why:
Amendment 1: Provides a property tax homestead exemption for the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran. Read the legislation here (SJR14)
While the property tax is a fundamentally flawed means of funding local government that we are working to completely eliminate, it is the method that is used in Texas today. Though well intended, this proposition adds yet another exemption to the long list of property tax-outs and distorts justice by shifting the cost of local government to the shoulders of others in the community.
Amendment 2: Provides for the issuance of an additional $6 billion in debt in the form of general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board. Read the legislation here (SJR4)
This proposal would create a revolving line of credit to the Texas Water Development Board. This line of credit would be secured by the Texas taxpayer. Government debt should be taken very seriously and approved on an as needed basis by the voters at the time of the need. To establish a revolving line of debt for an appointed state board and saddle Texans in perpetuity with that debt is unjust.
Amendment 3: Provides for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students. Read the legislation here (SJR 50)
This proposal creates another evergreen revolving line of credit authorizing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to issue additional student loans as long as the aggregate amount does not exceed the amounts previously authorized by voters (in other words, the grand total of all bonds approved for this purpose since voters began authorizing them in 1965.) Currently the board is prohibited from issuing more than $125 million in bonds per year and sits on approximately $275 million of unissued debt. This proposal would increase their lending authority from the remaining $275 million to $1.86 billion with responsibility for unpaid student loan obligations falling on the Texas taxpayer. Finally, this proposition would provide an increase in lending authority from $125 million per year to $350 million per year.
Amendment 4: Authorizes counties to use property taxes to fund the issuance of bonds or notes to develop blighted areas. Read the legislation here (SJR 63)
Under current law, cities are authorized to use property tax revenue to secure loans to fund the development of blighted areas. This proposal would extend that authority to counties. This proposition continuing to incentivize local governments with the lure of increased property tax revenue is a recipe for further eminent domain abuse.
Amendment 5: Authorizes cities and counties to enter into contracts that are longer than one year without having to create a tax or (sinking) fund to pay for those future obligations. Read the legislation here (SJR 26)
Currently, cities and counties may not create debt unless a tax is levied that is sufficient to pay the principle and interest on the debt. Cities and counties frequently enter into “interlocal contracts” whose term is less than one year because the costs associated with those agreements are funded from the current budget. To enter into a contract that extends beyond the current year would have the effect of creating a debt that will carry to future tax years. Debt of that type should require voter approval on a case by case basis and not be permitted unilaterally through a constitutional amendment.
Amendment 6: Allows the transfer of funds from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund to provide additional funding for public education. Read the legislation here (HJR 109)
The Permanent School Fund was established for the support of public schools in this state. The Texas Constitution limits the amount of money that may be transferred from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund each year to 6% of the average market value of the Permanent Fund. One virtually needs a degree in finance to understand the complex language of this proposal but it would change the manner of calculating the market value of the Permanent School Fund. This proposition would make a larger amount of money available for transfer to the Available School Fund consequently reducing the amount available for investment growth in the Permanent School Fund.
Amendment 7: Authorizes a conservation and reclamation district in El Paso County to issue bonds for parks and recreational facilities. Read the legislation here (SJR 28)
The proposal would create yet another government entity with the power to levy a property tax. Cities and counties already have the ability to fund parks and recreational facilities and to incur debt with the approval of local citizens. Creating special purpose districts such as this one further complicates local government and hampers the ability of citizens to understand their associated tax burdens.
Amendment 8: Creates another exemption with regard to appraised value of property for property tax purposes. Read the legislation here (SJR 16)
The proposal would ultimately require the Parks and Wildlife Department to set standards for determining whether land qualified for appraisal based on water stewardship. This amendment only serves to further complicate the property appraisal and exemptions process currently in place in Texas. The proposal thwarts justice and shifts the burden of the cost of local government to the shoulders of others in the community.
Amendment 9: Allows the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication. Read the legislation here (SJR 9)
The Texas Constitution authorizes the governor to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons following a criminal conviction but does not currently extend that authority to deferred adjudications. The original intent of deferred adjudication was to help the offender avoid having a criminal record. However, orders of nondisclosure are frequently ineffective in preventing the release of arrest and criminal history information in these cases. Consequently, employers and state agencies often treat the deferred adjudication as a conviction for employment and licensing purposes.
Proponents of this amendment rightly recognize that there is an injustice in law – convicted criminals can have their records expunged but those who have not been convicted of any crime can not. But there seems to be little indication that this amendment would solve the problem – it is unclear whether a pardon, even if one could be obtained, would expunge the criminal record. There is clearly a failing in statutory law and remedy should be sought there.
Amendment 10: Changes the length of the unexpired term that causes an automatic resignation of certain elected officials if they become candidates for another office. Read the legislation here (SJR 37)
The “resign-to-run” provision was added to the Texas Constitution in 1958 and was designed to insure officeholders gave their undivided attention to the duties of their office rather than campaigning while in the middle of their term. The provision created an automatic resignation for elected officials who began their campaign for a new office with more than one year remaining in their current term.
Terms for these officials end December 31. Previously, with filing deadlines in January, officials could announce their candidacy for another office on Jan. 1 or 2 and continue to serve the remainder of their current term. In order to insure adequate time to send ballots to military and overseas voters, the filing deadline has been moved from Jan. 2 to the second Monday in December. This provision would extend the provision so that an automatic resignation was not triggered unless the candidate began their campaign more than one year and 30 days before the expiration of their current term.
The Constitution has been amended hundreds of times, and when voters are asked to tack on yet another law, most of the time we say ‘Yes.” This is a good year to just say “No.”
With all the focus on the November 2012 Presidential election, many will miss the fact that there is also an election just a few weeks away. On November 8 of this year, Texas voters will decide on ten amendments to the Texas Constitution. View a sample ballot here The Texas Constitution is a large and complex document because it is rare that constitutional amendments fail at the ballot box.
With this in mind it is important to point out that these amendments are often the means of saddling Texans with debt. Texas taxpayers already find ourselves facing cuts to the funding of education and other constitutionally mandated state services and shoulder the burden for more than $35 billion of state debt. Yet elected officials still don’t seem to get the idea that citizens are tired of the runaway spending. We should not be increasing our debt!
Consequently, We Texans urges voters to “just say no.” Yes, that’s right, since nine of the ten propositions call for shifting of or increases in government spending or tax burden, we are recommending that you vote “against” all but one of the propositions on the ballot next month. Proposition 10 is the only exception for which we can support a “for” vote.
Here’s why:
Amendment 1: Provides a property tax homestead exemption for the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran. Read the legislation here (SJR14)
While the property tax is a fundamentally flawed means of funding local government that we are working to completely eliminate, it is the method that is used in Texas today. Though well intended, this proposition adds yet another exemption to the long list of property tax-outs and distorts justice by shifting the cost of local government to the shoulders of others in the community.
Amendment 2: Provides for the issuance of an additional $6 billion in debt in the form of general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board. Read the legislation here (SJR4)
This proposal would create a revolving line of credit to the Texas Water Development Board. This line of credit would be secured by the Texas taxpayer. Government debt should be taken very seriously and approved on an as needed basis by the voters at the time of the need. To establish a revolving line of debt for an appointed state board and saddle Texans in perpetuity with that debt is unjust.
Amendment 3: Provides for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students. Read the legislation here (SJR 50)
This proposal creates another evergreen revolving line of credit authorizing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to issue additional student loans as long as the aggregate amount does not exceed the amounts previously authorized by voters (in other words, the grand total of all bonds approved for this purpose since voters began authorizing them in 1965.) Currently the board is prohibited from issuing more than $125 million in bonds per year and sits on approximately $275 million of unissued debt. This proposal would increase their lending authority from the remaining $275 million to $1.86 billion with responsibility for unpaid student loan obligations falling on the Texas taxpayer. Finally, this proposition would provide an increase in lending authority from $125 million per year to $350 million per year.
Amendment 4: Authorizes counties to use property taxes to fund the issuance of bonds or notes to develop blighted areas. Read the legislation here (SJR 63)
Under current law, cities are authorized to use property tax revenue to secure loans to fund the development of blighted areas. This proposal would extend that authority to counties. This proposition continuing to incentivize local governments with the lure of increased property tax revenue is a recipe for further eminent domain abuse.
Amendment 5: Authorizes cities and counties to enter into contracts that are longer than one year without having to create a tax or (sinking) fund to pay for those future obligations. Read the legislation here (SJR 26)
Currently, cities and counties may not create debt unless a tax is levied that is sufficient to pay the principle and interest on the debt. Cities and counties frequently enter into “interlocal contracts” whose term is less than one year because the costs associated with those agreements are funded from the current budget. To enter into a contract that extends beyond the current year would have the effect of creating a debt that will carry to future tax years. Debt of that type should require voter approval on a case by case basis and not be permitted unilaterally through a constitutional amendment.
Amendment 6: Allows the transfer of funds from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund to provide additional funding for public education. Read the legislation here (HJR 109)
The Permanent School Fund was established for the support of public schools in this state. The Texas Constitution limits the amount of money that may be transferred from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund each year to 6% of the average market value of the Permanent Fund. One virtually needs a degree in finance to understand the complex language of this proposal but it would change the manner of calculating the market value of the Permanent School Fund. This proposition would make a larger amount of money available for transfer to the Available School Fund consequently reducing the amount available for investment growth in the Permanent School Fund.
Amendment 7: Authorizes a conservation and reclamation district in El Paso County to issue bonds for parks and recreational facilities. Read the legislation here (SJR 28)
The proposal would create yet another government entity with the power to levy a property tax. Cities and counties already have the ability to fund parks and recreational facilities and to incur debt with the approval of local citizens. Creating special purpose districts such as this one further complicates local government and hampers the ability of citizens to understand their associated tax burdens.
Amendment 8: Creates another exemption with regard to appraised value of property for property tax purposes. Read the legislation here (SJR 16)
The proposal would ultimately require the Parks and Wildlife Department to set standards for determining whether land qualified for appraisal based on water stewardship. This amendment only serves to further complicate the property appraisal and exemptions process currently in place in Texas. The proposal thwarts justice and shifts the burden of the cost of local government to the shoulders of others in the community.
Amendment 9: Allows the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication. Read the legislation here (SJR 9)
The Texas Constitution authorizes the governor to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons following a criminal conviction but does not currently extend that authority to deferred adjudications. The original intent of deferred adjudication was to help the offender avoid having a criminal record. However, orders of nondisclosure are frequently ineffective in preventing the release of arrest and criminal history information in these cases. Consequently, employers and state agencies often treat the deferred adjudication as a conviction for employment and licensing purposes.
Proponents of this amendment rightly recognize that there is an injustice in law – convicted criminals can have their records expunged but those who have not been convicted of any crime can not. But there seems to be little indication that this amendment would solve the problem – it is unclear whether a pardon, even if one could be obtained, would expunge the criminal record. There is clearly a failing in statutory law and remedy should be sought there.
Amendment 10: Changes the length of the unexpired term that causes an automatic resignation of certain elected officials if they become candidates for another office. Read the legislation here (SJR 37)
The “resign-to-run” provision was added to the Texas Constitution in 1958 and was designed to insure officeholders gave their undivided attention to the duties of their office rather than campaigning while in the middle of their term. The provision created an automatic resignation for elected officials who began their campaign for a new office with more than one year remaining in their current term.
Terms for these officials end December 31. Previously, with filing deadlines in January, officials could announce their candidacy for another office on Jan. 1 or 2 and continue to serve the remainder of their current term. In order to insure adequate time to send ballots to military and overseas voters, the filing deadline has been moved from Jan. 2 to the second Monday in December. This provision would extend the provision so that an automatic resignation was not triggered unless the candidate began their campaign more than one year and 30 days before the expiration of their current term.
The Constitution has been amended hundreds of times, and when voters are asked to tack on yet another law, most of the time we say ‘Yes.” This is a good year to just say “No.”
Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
 |
| Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (L) is understood to be calling for military action against Iran http://www.news.sky.com/ |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.
The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move, which could trigger a wave of regional retaliation.
The debate over possible Israeli military action has reached fever pitch in recent days with newspaper leader columns discussing the benefits and dangers of hitting Iran.
Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."
But he said Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.
The reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to report on the state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities on November 8, and that assessment is likely to influence Israel’s decision.
Western intelligence officials estimate that Iran is still at least two to three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Israel has long made it clear that it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear capability that could threaten the Jewish State.
Publicly it is pushing for a diplomatic offensive against Iran - including the imposition of sanctions - rather than a military strike.
But prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that all options are on the table.
Israel's former defence minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Haraatez newspaper that he feared a "horror scenario" if Israel attacked Iran.
Washington is also strongly opposed to Israel taking unilateral action.
Any strike on Iran could trigger retaliation from Iran and across the region.
Syria, a close ally of Tehran, could also launch attacks, along with the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in Lebanon.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Obama’s Reelection Odds Getting Rather Slim
 |
| http://www.care2.com/ |
By KARL ROVE
With the Iowa caucuses 62 days away and Election Day 2012 only a year off, President Obama's prospects look perilous. Yet the GOP contest remains volatile. What can we deduce about the race to come—other than that Herman Cain has had a bad week that's far from over?
Since NBC began asking the question in 1989, no president has won re-election with as many Americans—74%—saying a year before the election that the country is "on the wrong track." Nor has any president been re-elected with so few Americans—13%—telling Gallup that they are "satisfied" with how things are going in the country. And no president has been re-elected a year after having a job-approval rating as low as Mr. Obama's is today—43%—since Gallup began asking the question in 1945.
Since 1952, consumer-confidence numbers have been higher at this point even for presidents who failed to win re-election than they are for Mr. Obama today. He is presiding over an economy that registered a 60.9 rating in last month's University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment report.
It's unlikely that positive economic news will alter these numbers dramatically before next November. Through 2012, the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve and even the White House Office of Management and Budget all forecast unemployment around the current level of 9.1% and anemic growth of between 2% and 2.7%.
Still, Mr. Obama cannot be counted out. It is folly to believe that any Republican can beat him. The president and his team lack the ability to run on a positive record but they can run a negative campaign designed to disqualify the GOP nominee. Such a strategy will be ugly, but it could also be successful.
The GOP nomination fight is very much up for grabs. In Tuesday's RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, Herman Cain led with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney with 24.3%, Rick Perry at 10.5%, Newt Gingrich at 9.3%, and Ron Paul at 8.5%. Mr. Cain was at 29% and 30% in two mid-October polls but his numbers plateaued there.
A note of caution: Four years ago today, Rudy Giuliani was in front with 29% support, followed by Fred Thompson with 17%, John McCain with 14.7%, Mitt Romney with 11.2% and Mike Huckabee with 6.7%. But in every cycle, the polls really worth paying attention to are those in early primary and caucus states.
This year's GOP race has a new wrinkle: Some candidates—including Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Cain—are pursuing a novel strategy that exploits the explosion of televised debates with relatively large audiences. The Sept. 22 debate, cosponsored by Fox, Google and the Florida GOP, attracted 6.1 million viewers. As many as 60,000 Iowans, 26,000 Granite Staters, and 91,000 South Carolinians could have tuned in. It would take a candidate a long time to reach that many people through a retail campaign.
So while some candidates are spending almost all their time in states with early contests, others are ranging more broadly around the country or stumping less frenetically, counting on their debate appearances to substitute for retail campaigning and traditional organization. This strategy may work, though my gut tells me that voters in early states feel keenly about their role as vetters and will insist on seeing candidates up close, not just on their televisions.
The GOP contest may go on longer than expected, even if one candidate begins consistently winning. More delegates will be awarded proportionally rather than winner-take-all. This encourages candidates to compete well after it's clear they can't win the nomination. As long as they're getting votes, they're getting more delegates—and with them more prestige, leverage and visibility.
It's also now taken as received wisdom that Republicans are unenthusiastic about their candidates, but evidence suggests otherwise. In the Aug. 18-22 Associated Press poll, 64% of Republicans said they were "satisfied" with the GOP field, up from 52% in June. The Sept. 25-27 Fox News poll found 63% of Republicans "impressed" with their choices, up from 44% in April. By comparison, in a mid-October 1991 CBS/New York Times poll, only 18% of Democrats were "satisfied" with their field and 64% wanted someone else to enter the race. And we know how the 1992 contest turned out.
Bad economic news and GOP enthusiasm mean increasingly that the president's re-election hopes depend on an exceptionally weak Republican running an unusually bad campaign. The warning to Mr. Obama is this: It's always better not to depend on your opponent making big mistakes.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
30 Percent of Employers Look to Drop Coverage Once Obamacare Kicks IN
GOP Wastes Obamacare Opportunity
Michael Tanner
A new poll released last week shows that support for Obamacare has reached an all-time low. According to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has traditionally found more support for the health-care law than other groups, just 34 percent of Americans now support the law. In fact, barely half of Democrats support the signature achievement of a Democratic president.
It’s not hard to see why. Among the revelations in recent weeks:
Insurance Premiums are rising. President Obama once promised that the health-care bill would save each of us as much as $2,500 annually on our premiums. But a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums increasing by a whopping 9 percent this year, three times more than the previous year’s increase. The average family policy now costs more than $15,000 per year. Not only has Obamacare failed to slow premium growth, but at least two percentage points of that increase is directly attributable to the health-care law’s provisions.
Consumers have fewer choices. Obamacare is driving insurance companies out of the market, meaning there will be less competition and fewer choices. Just last month, two health-insurance companies announced that they were leaving Florida’s individual-insurance market because of provisions in the law, most notably the medical-loss-ratio requirement that insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care or give customers rebates. And in Iowa, Des Moines–based American Enterprise Group announced last week that it will also pull out of the individual major-medical-insurance market, making it the 13th company to pull out of some portion of Iowa’s health-insurance business since June 2010.
More debt, fewer taxpayers. A new study from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the subsidies in the bill will add $1.36 trillion to the national debt over the first seven years after the bill is fully implemented. And at a time when 47 percent of Americans already pay no income tax, the bill’s tax credits will remove as many as 8.1 million more Americans from the tax rolls.
CLASS Act dies (sort of). And how can we forget that the administration itself had to announce it was pulling the plug on the CLASS Act, the bill’s Ponzi-like long-term-care program? At the same time, however, the administration came out against any effort to actually repeal the program that they believe is actuarially unsound.
Yet Republicans have seemed strangely quiet about the issue of late. So much so, in fact, that the Washington Times was led to wonder if Republicans have “given up” on repeal. There certainly does not appear to be much evidence that Republicans are still making repeal a top priority. The House hasn’t taken a vote on Obamacare since trying to change the bill’s graduate-medical-education funding back in May. There isn’t even an all-out effort to get behind a repeal of the CLASS Act, despite Democratic defections on the issue.
And the Republican presidential candidates have relatively little to say as well. This seems especially odd, given that any Republican not named Mitt Romney should be hammering on the issue almost daily. But lately there seems to be more attention paid to the nationality of Romney’s gardener than to his continued defense of Romneycare.
As for Romney himself, if he hopes to persuade Republican voters that there is a difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts health plan — and, more important, that he can be trusted to repeal Obamacare — he should be saying so very frequently and very loudly.
This is one of those times when good policy makes good politics. But Republicans seem content to blow this golden opportunity.
— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
Michael Tanner
 |
| http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamacare.jpg |
A new poll released last week shows that support for Obamacare has reached an all-time low. According to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has traditionally found more support for the health-care law than other groups, just 34 percent of Americans now support the law. In fact, barely half of Democrats support the signature achievement of a Democratic president.
It’s not hard to see why. Among the revelations in recent weeks:
Insurance Premiums are rising. President Obama once promised that the health-care bill would save each of us as much as $2,500 annually on our premiums. But a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums increasing by a whopping 9 percent this year, three times more than the previous year’s increase. The average family policy now costs more than $15,000 per year. Not only has Obamacare failed to slow premium growth, but at least two percentage points of that increase is directly attributable to the health-care law’s provisions.
Consumers have fewer choices. Obamacare is driving insurance companies out of the market, meaning there will be less competition and fewer choices. Just last month, two health-insurance companies announced that they were leaving Florida’s individual-insurance market because of provisions in the law, most notably the medical-loss-ratio requirement that insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care or give customers rebates. And in Iowa, Des Moines–based American Enterprise Group announced last week that it will also pull out of the individual major-medical-insurance market, making it the 13th company to pull out of some portion of Iowa’s health-insurance business since June 2010.
More debt, fewer taxpayers. A new study from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the subsidies in the bill will add $1.36 trillion to the national debt over the first seven years after the bill is fully implemented. And at a time when 47 percent of Americans already pay no income tax, the bill’s tax credits will remove as many as 8.1 million more Americans from the tax rolls.
CLASS Act dies (sort of). And how can we forget that the administration itself had to announce it was pulling the plug on the CLASS Act, the bill’s Ponzi-like long-term-care program? At the same time, however, the administration came out against any effort to actually repeal the program that they believe is actuarially unsound.
Yet Republicans have seemed strangely quiet about the issue of late. So much so, in fact, that the Washington Times was led to wonder if Republicans have “given up” on repeal. There certainly does not appear to be much evidence that Republicans are still making repeal a top priority. The House hasn’t taken a vote on Obamacare since trying to change the bill’s graduate-medical-education funding back in May. There isn’t even an all-out effort to get behind a repeal of the CLASS Act, despite Democratic defections on the issue.
And the Republican presidential candidates have relatively little to say as well. This seems especially odd, given that any Republican not named Mitt Romney should be hammering on the issue almost daily. But lately there seems to be more attention paid to the nationality of Romney’s gardener than to his continued defense of Romneycare.
As for Romney himself, if he hopes to persuade Republican voters that there is a difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts health plan — and, more important, that he can be trusted to repeal Obamacare — he should be saying so very frequently and very loudly.
This is one of those times when good policy makes good politics. But Republicans seem content to blow this golden opportunity.
— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
