« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

American Thinker Back Daniels, Loses Me

By: BigGator5 (Diary)  |  February 25th, 2011 at 09:40 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was all content to move on. I wanted to get back to Florida Politics. I have these great videos of Daniel Webster (R-FL-08) and Mike McCalister (CAN-R-FL-SEN) in my video cam ready to download to YouTube. I still may do that later today. Keep an eye out on my YouTube Channel. However when I got home, I opened my email and one had a link that cause me great fury.

How much fury? This much:

Gator Smash

The title the American Thinker article, “As The Dust Settles, Mitch Daniels Is Looking Much Stronger” pretty much sets the tone for how laughable that post is overall. Aaron Reber pretty much tells us that Mitch Daniels is completely blameless and we shouldn’t hold him responsible. Here is why:

  • Daniels didn’t kill the Right To Work bill, it died because Democrats skip town.

Yeah, but he didn’t support it at all. When that happen, he signaled to Democrats that they, and not him, were in the drivers seat. That they, not Indiana Legislative Republicans (who won the election and is the majority), control legislative policy. Daniels completely abdicated legislative power to Democrats and rewarded them for their very bad behavior.

  • Daniels can’t send state cops into other states.

That didn’t stop the Wisconsin Senate [from] dispatching state patrol to homes of multiple Democratic senators. ‘Nuff said.

  • “Gov. Daniels is following his plan that he laid out for Indiana. Right To Work wasn’t in that plan this session.”

I DIDN’T KNOW THAT! Oh well, that makes it all better! It clearly wasn’t part of HIS plan! /sarcasm

What about the poor Republicanss who introduce the bill? What about their plans and their campaign promises? Is Daniels that much more important? This thing did not appear out of thin air and land in the middle of the Indiana state legislative floor. Clearly, Indiana has some kind of “Discharge Petition” where rank-and-file members can bring up bills. They fullfilled that petition and brought it to the floor.

Even to me, it is clear as day this was a power play by Democrats of Indiana. They wanted to know they could push Daniels and he blinked.

As of this writing, Democrats are still in Illinois:

Rather, the real fear of fly-by-night Democrats is recently introduced legislation that would establish path-breaking statewide tuition scholarships enabling students from low and middle income families to choose their own school. By running, these politicians are signaling blanket opposition to the education reform proposals of a conservative coalition led by Governor Mitch Daniels.

We may never know when the decision of Indiana Democrats to “just move on” may have been hatched, but surely Mitch Daniels’s January 2011 State of the State Address led them to inquire with Illinois’ resorts about room availability.

KNEW IT! *POUNDS TABLE* KNEW IT! *POUNDS TABLE* KNEW IT! *POUNDS TABLE* KNEW IT!

What have you got to say now, Mr. Reber? I think you and the American Thinker need to take a step back and rethink forgiving Daniels. The governor has completely abdicated power, thus making himself a lame-duck. To forgive him is to put us in danager of Daniels doing the same as President Of The United States.

[Cross-Posted On Practical State.com]

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

PS: I love it how, at the end of the article, Mr. Reber laments Daniels not backing Right To Work once it got to the floor… RIGHT AFTER FORGIVING DANIELS FOR DOING THE SAME THING!!

PPS: I want it noted, that I’m not attacking American Thinker. I just highly disagree with them.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • BigGator5

    I would like it noted, for the record, this will be my last post on the subject, unless new information comes out on what happen in Idiana. I might rail against Daniels if he chooses to run, but as of now, I am done with Mitch Daniels.

    • hoosierteacher

      It is clear who’s won this round.

      Walker, Christi, and Kasich are becoming conservative folk heros, while Daniels is not only losing his conservative base, he’s becoming the laughing stock of democrats and unions.

      The democrats still haven’t come back to Indiana because they know Daniels is a capitulator, and now their pushing him on other issues he had (supposedly) already run on.

      The shine has worn off Daniels, and people are taking another look.

      He was the OMB director under Bush, managing outragous spending increases. While political director for the republicans’ senate election committee, he oversaw the loss of 8 senate seats in 1986. He cut his teeth under Luger and Ruckelshaus, two moderate/liberal republicans.

      Again, I like Mitch and all of the great things he’s done for Indiana, and this single episode won’t push me from Mitch (though he lost my primary vote on his comments attacking socons). But some people just can’t grasp that Daniels is not a conservative on everything, and flat out liberal on others.

      Right now, Chris Christi is a big hero of mine for how he’s handling public unions in his state. But he’s got a terrible stand on many issues, ranging from gay marriage to abortion to guns. That doesn’t detract from my respect and admiration for Christi, it just means I won’t vote for him for president.

      Folks that are infatuated can’t stand that some people realize that Daniels isn’t the messiah, and I’m done with them.

      • aesthete

        Mitch supporters as irrational, Messiah-worshippers, etc isn’t really good form. Believe it or not, our list of prospective candidates for 2012 sucks — not as bad as other years (Bush v McCain, anyone?), but it is still terrible. Seeing as how answers in the other thread ranged from tepid support of Daniels, to having no real clue what’s going on in IN, I have no idea who you’re even targeting with that statement. I have no problem with you supporting someone else, or reserving your support until someone better comes along: I don’t blame you. Comparing Daniels supporters to cultists is ridiculous, though, as they have generally engaged criticism factually and without insult.

        And give it up with the OMB thing. It’s an even more tired shtick than when leftists accuse Milt Friedman of supporting Pinochet’s despotic regime in Chile just because his students advised the guy. OMB does not vote for budgets or have much power at all: it basically recommends a budget within the constraints that it is given by legislators, and the President. If you want to blame anyone, blame the idiots who thought that NCLB, Medicare Pt D, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc were such splendid ideas. But hey, Daniels doesn’t get attacked on here enough, so maybe you can blame him for low-balling the figure for the Iraq War, too.

        • hoosierteacher

          I happen to be a Mitch supporter. I’ve voted for him, and gone door to door for him (no small feat in a union town like mine). So please consider what I’m saying carefuly.

          I support Mitch Daniels, and I’ll continue to do so. But I find it ironic that I’ll be labled as a hater, and here’s why. All I’m doing is saying that Mitch is excellent on dozens of things. Not good, but EXCELLENT. Excellent or perfect on spending, bringing businesses to Indiana, reforming our agencies (BMV is a prime example, but there are more), taxes (mixed, but still good), education, and fighting pulic sector unions. I can go on and on.

          And yet I get labled as being anti-Daniels or a hater because I correctly point out that Mitch isn’t going to be with us on other issues. He’s terrible on judges, terrible on private sector unions (this isn’t his first coddle with private unions), and despite what you hear getting peddled is mixed on social issues.

          When I say messianic, I rightly refer to people who are fans of ANY candidate that think the candidate can do NO wrong. When people have to distort a position to excuse it, they just aren’t being honest with themselves or anyone else. They aren’t lying, they’re blinded by infatuation.

          Recently we had a post by a Romney supporter claiming that Romney can twist his support of individual mandates into an argument against Obamacare. Only someone who worships their candidate (and I’m being figuative, not literal) would buy insto such hogwash, And in the face of overwhelming news reporting, as well as analysis from conservative pundits and experts, two or three people think that Mitch is being strategic instead of surrendering. Ask Indiana Right To Work what they think. Ask our democraticaly elected state reps and senators what they think. The answer is the same everywhere. In fact, ask the columnisits that support liberals, unions, or democrats and you get the same answer.

          Mitch punted or surrendered. And only someone in love with Mitch is going to come up with silly excuses for it. Mitch may not have campaigned on RTW, but a lot of our legislators did. The party was putting the bill together in the last session before the election (the work started in the spring). Mailings to RTW supporters in the state warned that we needed good people in office because our governor might no be with us. They were right.

          When our democrats fled, Daniels should have demanded that they returned. He should have either signed the bill or vetoed it. (At least a veto would be honest). Instead, Daniels is trying to have it both ways by claiming that we should leave the issue alone because the bill doesn’t have the votes. IT DOES have the votes, and that’s clearly why the democrats fled the state!!!!!

          I like Mitch a lot, and he blew it on this one badly. As a supporter, I can admit that. I wish other supporters could to. Mitch isn’t perfect. I’ve quoted many examples of Mitch’s pros and cons because I’m balanced. Haters don’t do that, and worshippers don’t either.

          I won’t be supporting Mitch primarily on his history of handing our judicial appointments to a liberal panel of attorneys (he vetoed his own party on fixing that too, and has given us some of the most extremist judges in the country). I don’t want him to be my president.

          • aesthete

            First off, please realize that most of us are from out of state. I am from AZ, and consider myself well-informed, but obviously don’t know as much as a local would. I was initially disappointed with Daniels’ stance on RTW, but LibertarianHawk’s posts on the subject changed my mind. I would be interested in proof that Daniels has been conciliatory towards private sector unions in any way that is substantive/not rhetorical, as that would change my outlook.

            As I said in another comment, I would be interested in hearing more about Daniels’ judges appointments. The only thing I’ve read about it was an article which was critical (I’m fine with that), but which suffered from enormous problems in its internal logic that undermined the case made by the article (I’m not so keen on that). I’m also mildly interested in hearing about his stance on social issues (not a big deal for me besides abortion, but still a factor), and if you have any info, about his foreign policy leanings.

          • acat

            Not sure he’s as free-trade as you are, Asthete, but .. one of the reasons Indiana is the bright spot in the rust/grain belt is because of deals Daniels put together internationally.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to the fugitive dems with harsh rhetoric towards his own party and trying to justify it with a puny “timing” argument. He is looking in the mirror and is smitten. He is played.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • kestrel

        I appreciate you as a conservative ally, but your personal investment in the RTW issue may be causing you some short-sightedness. About folk heroes and rock stars, after Desert Storm, the first George Bush had approval ratings so high that for many months, no Dem but an unknown from Arkansas would challenge him for the presidency. A lot changed, and we got President Clinton. Like you, I support Walker, Christie, and Kasich, but their current admirable stand is only the beginning of this fight. Nor are their actions the only way to advance the cause.

        Daniels and Palin are the only potential presidential candidates I see for 2012 who are 1. credibly willing to address unsustainable entitlements, and 2. perhaps more importantly for the election, actively trying to expand the GOP electorate in such a way as to capture, for example, the large swath of politically disengaged center-right people who still get their news from the MSM. These voters know that the government is spending the country into oblivion, and they ripe for the GOP harvest, but what is anyone doing about it? (Insert plug from CW here.)

        I think Daniels has a longer-term plan that the other governors will ultimately appreciate. If all goes well, Daniels’ work should dovetail with theirs, and the aggregate will make more conservative action possible for all of them. To each his role. Yes, the timing’s unfortunate, but it can’t be helped.

        If you have some links on Daniels’ vetoing a bill(?) to ditch Indiana’s “Missouri Plan” judiciary, please post them. I am interested in this. Thanks.

        • hoosierteacher

          Here you go. Also note that the vote margins that he vetod over. When you’re done, read Mitch’s comments. It is all here:

          http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/259205/re-garnetts-defense-governor-daniels-carrie-severino

          • aesthete

            but I know that I don’t agree with “democratic input” when it comes to judges. Elected judges have been failures where they’ve been attempted: CA is one example, Roy Moore and his political stuntsmanship is another. I’m not sure that the Missouri Plan is the way to go about it, but I’m even more concerned about politicizing the judiciary even more than it already is. State SCs should be there to evaluate law based on the state constitutions, and I don’t see how having a system with “democratic input” helps with that in the slightest.

          • hoosierteacher

            We agree. In indiana, most judges are elected (at the local level), and at the state level we have the panel issue. A governor should not be constrained by a list made from a group of far left attorneys. The “American way”, at least as demonstarted by our national level, is to have the democraticaly elected executive officer make an appointment. We can quibble if a state senate then gets input or not; I don’t care either way.

            As you can see from the article, Indiana has a very “progressive” way of choosing judges. The alternative is to have a governor appoint the judges. There is no movement that I’m aware of (in Indiana) for some kind of democratic system where people vote on judges.

            Voters CAN vote to remove an individual judge every so many years, but hardly anyone follows the record of state level justices. I have no opinion on that part of our system. But I do disagree with the panel problem we have today.

          • aesthete
          • earlgrey

            if it is worthwhile to support him. why are we spending so much time discussing a candidate that has foot in mouth disease, when maybe there might be better options? Or are there no better options?

          • hoosierteacher

            Daniels is terrible on judges and a sometimes ally on other issues. When he is with us, he gets results. In fact, he gets tremendous results.

            In my own opinion, I want a president who will fight for three areas – Fiscal sanity, a strong military and a tough foreign policy, and someone that will fight for federal judges that have a conservative legal philosphy.

            Mitch is a good man and a great governor, despite dropping the ball on RTW. But I can’t support him for president. If he could run again for governor I could consider it supporting him then, but I expect to be voting for Mike Pence.

          • Spiral

            I like Tim Pawlenty, but don’t know everything about his record. He seems to be conservative on most issues. He has backed away from hinting at support for cap and trade, saying he was only making the case for John McCain’s support for cap and trade and that this did not reflect his own position.

            I can’t support Romney due to Romneycare and Romney’s willingness to be all things to all people. I can’t support Huckabee and his willingness to release criminals from jail just because some criminals say that they have accepted Christ as their lord and savior, this before they go on to kill police officers in Washington State.

            I don’t think Sarah Palin has what it takes to stand up to the Left, since she quit being Governor of Alaska once the media and the Left started attacking her.

            I can’t support Daniels due to his willingness to consider a national value added tax.

            Ditto for Hermain Cain. Cain also supports a national sales tax. Cain says that this “Fair Tax” would replace, not supplement, the current tax code. However, I do not believe that this is what will happen in the long term. In the long term, Cain’s well meaning quest for reform will end up giving the United States both the current tax rates plus a national sales tax. Basically this means that the United States will be more Socialist than Belgium. Also, Cain has no experience in actually serving in public office. I think he has many great ideas. But I will not support anyone who supports the “Fair Tax.”

            I don’t want Newt Gingrich to be the nominee because he seems to have an ability to hand talking points to the Democrats. Like when during the 1995-1996 government shutdown, Gingrich made it seem like the reason the government had shutdown was because Gingrich was mad at Clinton for making Gingrich ride in the back of Air Force One. The GOP of 1995-1996 never recovered and Clinton got reelected.

          • powertothepeople

            I lived in a state for many years where all judges were appointed, from the lowest of magistrate judges and bond issuing judges all the way up to criminal court judges. Years of abuses at every level, judicial activism, and plain out corruption drove the residents of the state to place a vote on the ballot as to whether or now judges would be elected, with the exception of appeal judges. The resolution passed and judges have been elected by the people. Now, in the liberal strongholds, you get loser judges that carry on the traditions of the past judges when it comes to activism, abuse, and corruption. But overall, it has been a good thing for the state. In the many years since the elections there have been no more cases of inexperienced judges being appointed to bond seats and or magistrate seats, the same judges have had no more cases of corruption such as placing absurd bonds on low level criminals than getting cuts from the paid bond, higher up judges have had few cases of corruption and abuse such as the judge who was being paid by plaintiffs to swing the case to them, and so on. And when judges have used their seats to push their own agenda that is contrary to the areas beliefs or state beliefs, they have been removed via election. Overall it has benefited the state to put the power back in the peoples hands.

            Not saying it would work everywhere, but I think CA is a bad example to use. The state is so liberal overall, there would be little difference in the quality of judge if the people put them in power or the gov did. And since judges dictate so much in life and affect so many of us personally, I think we should have a hand in deciding who gets sat on the bench and when they should be fired. Lifetime appointments, even on the SC, and long term appointments by politicians have done more to discredit the judicial system and have done more to harm this country that anything a voter could do. And that is because votes eventually can be corrected with hard work, appointments can not.

          • kestrel

            Here’s a source that explains the variety of state systems and how the left is attempting to politicize state courts more than ever under the claim of de-politicizing them. If you have links on the problems in CA and elsewhere, I’d be interested. More often than not, making state judges/justices accountable to the electorate is beneficial.

          • kestrel

            “…the House voted 88-3 on the bill aimed at St. Joseph County’s judicial selection, and the Senate voted 35-15 to pass an amended version adding the appellate court component.” (Source of quote is below.) A simple majority would have overrode the veto, so with those numbers, why didn’t they override Daniels’ veto?

            Could it be that, like Daniels, the House did not like the amendment added by the Senate which would have created a brand new court of appeals at a cost of $2 million?

            In explaining the veto, Daniels cites the cost of this amendment, plus the fact that the two proposals should not be linked: ” …if I were to sign a bill linking these two proposals, it could contribute to public cynicism by creating the appearance that my acquiescence was purchased with more appointments. Whatever the merits of expanding the Court of Appeals may be, they should be considered alone.”

            Sounds reasonable to me. You will have to provide more information if you want to make a case that Daniels favors a Missouri Plan judiciary, or that he would not nominate conservative Supreme Court justices.

            The quotes are from here, which is an article linked by yours.

          • hoosierteacher

            I hope to address them to your satisfaction.

            In the article I quoted to you, Daniels said that the system we have in Indiana has worked for years, and there is no need to make any changes to it.

            He only raised the court of appeals question (and the spending that goes with it) as a defense when his party threw up their hands (we’ve seen that recently to, huh?) but his core reasoning soley on the merit of judges is found in the quote I’ve referenced.

            Also, had the bill passed the resulting conference would not have included the court of appeals because the house had the conferees to shut it down. That can be debated, but Daniels own words on the matter can’t be.

            In Daniels own words, had the items been considered “on their own”, Daniels would have vetoed it anyway.

          • kestrel

            You appear to be taking Daniels’ comment on the Missouri Plan question out of context, without supplying a source to support your statement that he “only raised the court of appeals question… as a defense when his party threw up their hands”. Please link a source supporting this statement. And please explain why the legislature did not enact the legislation without Daniels’ help when they clearly had the votes to do so. They could have overrode a veto easily. Why didn’t they?

          • hoosierteacher

            “The current method of selecting judges for the St. Joseph Superior Court has prevailed successfully for 35 years. It is a model to be emulated, not discarded. It is not broken; it requires no repair.”

            It is the third paragraph down, and is the only paragraph in the entire article in block quotes, indented from both sides to make it stand out.

            I feel like you are asking me to research that you could do yourself. I’ve already answered all of your questions, and done the work looking up the information. I appreciate your interest, but I’m starting to feel like you are either going to keep asking for “one more thing” or you are more interested in defending Daniels than in considering any of the material I’ve gathered for you.

            You even missed the money quote from Daniels in the article I found for you.

            My point is that Daniels is not with us on judges, and I’ve given you the quote on how he feel’s about the issue of selecting judges. Stop moving the goalposts.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            principle the idea that people naturally rise one level above their competence?

            I think Christy needs to stay Governor and I think Daniels did a good job and is not played out.

            He lost me with the truce. I think he is falling in love with himself.

          • hoosierteacher

            Get in touch.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            your email? mine is

            mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com

          • hoosierteacher

            You received my phone number a couple of days ago.

            : )

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            re-send and put hoosierteacher on subject line?

          • hoosierteacher

            You might even call Friday morning or Saturday night. I wished you a good day in court, and you just e-mailed me yesterday.

            I try to keep RS seperate from anything I do by by e-mail. Its a habit I developed in law enforcement to compartmentalize, since I use my personal computer at home for some of my work as well.

            I’ll stop thread jacking. I’ll send you my nichols worth by e-mail if I don’t hear from you by tomorrow night.

            lol

          • fedsocdan

            He has stated that he would only push a FairTax bill that contained a provision that eliminated the income tax immediately upon the bill’s implementation.

            Also, we need to accept the idea that past public service means nothing. What is vital is that a candidate embrace the Constitution. How could previous governing experience have any influence on whether or not someone would choose to adhere to the Constitution? It’s an ilogical argument to make.

          • Spiral

            He has stated that he would only push a FairTax bill that contained a provision that eliminated the income tax immediately upon the bill?s implementation.

            I am still opposed to a national sales tax or a value added tax. If we accept a national sales tax in exchange for the elimination of the income tax, we will eventually end up with both. Both a national sales tax and an income tax.

            Conservatives and libertarians should be opposed to any mention of a national sales tax or value added tax, even if it is being promised as a trade, as is the case with Cain.

            Also, we need to accept the idea that past public service means nothing. What is vital is that a candidate embrace the Constitution. How could previous governing experience have any influence on whether or not someone would choose to adhere to the Constitution? It?s an ilogical argument to make.

            It is not illogical at all to ask for some experience in elective office before giving someone the job of President of the United States.

            Anyone can blather nice sounding rhetoric about supporting the US Constitution. The tough part of being an elected official is not the theory, but the practice.

            It’s the difference between talking about how one can throw a football down the field and have it land in the chest of a wide receiver and actually being able to step out on a football field, dodge the pass rush of the opposing defensive line, avoid throwing interceptions and complete passes.

            If Cain wants to check back with us after he has served at least one term as Governor, US Senator or in the US House of Representatives, he can consider running for president. Sound too harsh? Well, consider that in recent years, only Eisenhower was neither a Governor, US Senator or Vice President prior to becoming President of the United States. I’m sure Cain is a good man. But he’s not an Eisenhower.

          • kestrel

            say things like “Daniels is terrible on judges” which a direct statement you make twice upthread, you need to support it with evidence, which you haven’t.

          • hoosierteacher

            Heck, I had another commenter kick me because all of my quotes and sources are “an appeal to authority”, and now you think I haven’t done anything. This is the nature of the Daniels supporters, and at least it is on display for everyone to see.

            You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you aren’t going to read Daniels’ own quotes, and you aren’t going to read any of the sources I’ve offered to you or others (I count 12 source links I’ve given out so far under this post and others in the past few days) then you aren’t going to agree to anything.

            Good day.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • BigGator5

            I completely agree.

            I’ve always said: “What better time than now?”

          • Scope

            with Daniels. It seems that he gave up one of the most important issues in the country, burning up the blogsphere today, in order to save something he was sure would solidify his legacy in IN, school reform. It seems from what I’m reading, he gave up the bigger issue, and lost his legacy issue at the same time. His position has walked back the gains made by other Republican Governors who are tackling the bigger issues, and, be danged with my signature issue legislation. He has made so may faux paus, this one he can’t walk back. I’m sure the Mitchies will disagree.

  • fedsocdan

    Cain would likely disagree with 90% of the decisions Ike made in office. Don’t get me wrong, he deserves the accolades due to his military service, but his policies were an enormous benefit to his fellow statists who preceded him and those who followed.

    Also, if Reagan could take down the Soviet Union, I’m sure Cain could at least replace a system that taxes productivity with one that taxes consumption.

    I used to support a flat tax before I started really studying the subject. I just find the idea of a 0% corporate tax rate and illegals being forced to pay taxes quite appealing. Oh, and the fact that my hero Mark Levin let it slip a few months ago that he’s a FairTaxer too. I mean, gosh, how could ever be against it now.

    • Spiral

      I will not support any candidate for federal office who supports a national sales tax or a value added tax, at least not in the GOP primary.

      Sure, Cain is promising that the national sales tax will be a replacement for, not a supplement to, the federal income tax.

      But about 10 minutes after the ink is dry on the repeal of the federal income tax, there will be a move by the Left to make “the rich” pay their “fair share”. This will be the rhetorical opening for the reintroduction of the federal income tax. The Left would promise that this new income tax would only tax the top 2 percent of income earners. This would be a foot in the door. Just as it was in the early 20th century.

      And this will be in addition to Cain’s national sales tax. Cain, if he were president, could veto this income tax. But once he’s gone from office, Cain’s national sales tax remains on the books and the Left’s appetite for “taxing the rich” will remain too.

      So, now conservatives will have been on record for taxing the be-jesus about of they middle class guy with a national sales tax yet is unwilling to ask the rich to pay a small percentage of their gigantic income to pay for needed public services.

      You know the Left will peddle that line forever.

      That’s why we conservatives need to reject all candidates who support a national sales tax. Instead, we should support candidates who promise to reduce or eliminate some of the existing federal taxes without introducting a new tax system on a new tax base.

      Huckabee supports a national sales tax too. That’s enough to discredit the idea all by itself.

      • jimmyneutron

        do not like the idea of a national sales tax. I know that those who implement it will set it up so that we don’t have both an income and a sales tax, but based on how I have seen history unfold I have to believe that progressive leaders, being the devious and unprincipled individuals that they are, will find a way to add on an income tax down the road a ways. I would rather bar that door, nail it shut and build a wall in front of it.
        I would love to see a flat tax, implemented of course after real discussion and debate (unlike health care). I am all for greatly reducing the size and scope of the IRS and removing congresses ability to use the tax code as simply a way to reward friends, punish enemies and funnel money to people and groups who will then channel it right back to them as either campaign contributions or ‘business’ for their friends, relatives or front businesses.

  • fedsocdan

    a FairTax bill could contain provisions that insure everything you’re predicting never comes to pass. Now, as for what specifically the left will say, I’m no psychic like you, but it’s obvious they’ll always spew their Marxist class warfare crap. Be strong, don’t let them deter you from supporting taxation of illegals and the elimination of the corporate tax rate.

    Also, I’m curious as to what are your thoughts might be on a massive downsizing of government including the termination every federal department except say State, Treasury, and Defense?