Romney Distanced Himself From Reagan-Bush In 1994 Race Vs. Ted Kennedy

If anyone's had a question mark hanging over him about his fealty to Ronald Reagan, it is Mitt Romney, for this from 1994, as recounted here:

Kennedy said discussions about supporting families shouldn’t be used to score "political hits," prompting Romney to fire back that he wasn’t politicizing the issue -- Kennedy was.

   

"I mentioned nothing about politics or your position at all. I talked about what I’d do to help strengthen families, and you talked about Reagan-Bush. Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush," Romney said, in a clear attempt to distance himself from the former president.

The irony being that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were poised at the very same time to take an historic victory and extend the Reagan Revolution by recapturing the House.

So while Mitt Romney was running for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 to the left, Gingrich and company were running right, against both HillaryCare and gays in the military.

So for the first 15 years of the Reagan Revolution Mitt Romney is firmly outside of the movement. It's not until the George W. Bush administration and while governor of Massachusetts that Mitt starts to think he too can become president, and dutifully tracks right.

Republicans didn't believe him in 2007 and 2008 and chose John McCain instead.

South Carolina voters have just said they don't believe him now, either. 

So Gingrich Didn't Treat Ronald Reagan Like a King. Big Deal.

The Washington Post has it correct, here:

According to then-assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, Gingrich consistently voted for Reagan’s policies but was known more for his public criticism of the president. However, Reagan National Security Advisory Bud McFarlane, a Gingrich supporter, said Wednesday the congressman was “very influential” in the adoption of supply-side economics and the economic recovery.

On CSPAN Monday morning, Gingrich told Romney to stay out of fights “about a history he doesn’t understand.”

Obama's Symbol of Tax Injustice (Warren Buffett's Secretary) Must Make $200K To $500K

She can't possibly represent any of the 99 million American workers, 66 percent of the workforce, who make $40,000 per year or less. Fewer than 2.1 million American workers in 2010 made $200K or more.

This woman is no poor secretary. She's in the top 2 percent of wage earners, among the richest people in the country. In point of fact, at her income level and tax rate she pays more in taxes than average workers earn in a year, any of whom would gladly trade places with her.

So Forbes here:

We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffet keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income.  So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.

Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

Even in the most absurd hypothetical situation where the IRS confiscated every last red cent of her $200K salary, Warren Buffett still would be paying nearly 35 times more in taxes than she.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Accuses Newt Gingrich of Deviancy

Here:

How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private, I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit, but he has all the charm of barbed wire.

Newt and Bill are, of course, 1960s-generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl-hopping. It's not as egregious as Bill's, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out. If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more.

I've heard things in private, too, but about the deviant behavior of R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

It's odd that the founder of a magazine lately notable for its libertarianism wants to go there.

Really bad form, old boy.

Warren Buffett's 2010 Tax Bill Was $6.9 Million. Was That 'At Least As Much As His Secretary's'?

The details of Warren Buffett's taxes for 2010 were only partially revealed last August and became the subject of critical examination, as for example here:

Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more. ... [But t]he current tax system already satisfies the Buffett Rule. Americans on average pay 16% of their total income in federal income and payroll taxes, while millionaires pay an average of 20.1%, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The Tax Policy Center is a generally more liberal think tank than The Tax Foundation.

The president's statement in last night's State of the Union deliberately suggests Buffett's secretary paid more in taxes than Buffett did when you know that that is completely disingenuous as well as inconceivable:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

Common nonsense.

Federal Workers Delinquent on 2010 Taxes by $3.4 Billion, 3 Percent More Than 2009

As reported here:

According to records released by the Internal Revenue Service, active and retired federal employees and military personnel combined owed $3,420,168,684 in unpaid taxes for 2010, an increase of more than 3 percent over the previous year.

Michael Steele Gets Something Right

Quoted here:

“I think any conversation about having someone else come into this race at this point is not even feasible, it’s just outright stupid. ... It’s the establishment of Washington again foisting on them someone who didn’t go through the gauntlet, had not come to their kitchens or their businesses, that we’re now told we should support because these other guys aren’t right for the establishment crowd?”

Associated Press Says Obama Is Still Pushing Plans That Already Flopped

Here:

Howie Carr Reminds Us It Takes One To Know One, Unless You're A Boob

For The Boston Herald, here:

To the “Jersey Shore” MTV crowd, Newt would come across as a fat, nasty, pasty old man. They’re not going to realize what a boob Barack is, because they’re boobs, too.


And the media are never going to give a candidate Newt the opportunity to unmask the president.






(source)

John Kass Joins The Elite Opposition To Newt Gingrich And Defends His Own

John Kass for The Chicago Tribune here doesn't want a bully in the bully pulpit:

The reporter asked the right question, but blinked and gulped anyway, clear signals that he didn't want any more. This inflamed the bully in Newt, and he bore down on his victim as a frog to a fly, the tongue a deadly bludgeon on national television.

The prospect of four years of Newt crucifying the press on a daily basis is just too much for some people to take.

Gov. Mitch Daniels is Out of His Mind

"[Obama] did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight."

Republicans who intend to win don't talk like that.

For the rest, go here.

Over 2500 Americans in 2010-11 Ditch Citizenship Over Taxes

They've found their back-up countries.

Story here.

50 Million Children Have Paid The Price For Women's Equality

Kelly Boggs, here:

[P]ro-choicers are more than happy for preborn children to pay the price for a woman's so-called "liberation" and "equality."

The day the Supreme Court granted a person the "liberty" to take the life of a preborn baby for any reason, or for no reason, was a dark day in the history of the United States. As a result, over the last 39 years more than 50 million preborn babies have had their lives sacrificed on the altar of "liberation."

I will observe the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this year as a day of infamy on par with other dark dates on the calendar of history. Pearl Harbor, Sept. 11, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide are horrific events in which millions of innocent people lost their lives. But the number of babies aborted since Jan. 22, 1973 is many more times the combined number of those who died in those atrocities.

Consistency: Looks Pretty Much The Same Everyday

Romney's Unfavorables Now As Bad As Newt's!

So National Journal, here:

Just 31 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Romney, the poll shows. Almost half, 49 percent, have an unfavorable opinion, and 21 percent said they have no opinion. Romney now holds virtually the same favorable and unfavorable ratings as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose numbers have also dropped over the past month -- suggesting that the ugly, protracted fight for the Republican presidential nomination is dragging down its two most prominent participants.

US Senate's Biggest Prick Gets What He Deserves

A puck to the face:

Story here.

'Compassionate' Elites Plunder The Middle Class To Help The Poor

They don't call them levelers for nothing.

Seen here, in which a single parent of three making $3,625 can end up with more disposable income than a similar person making $30,000, or one making $14,500 ends up with more than one making $60,000:

Ann Coulter Furious Over Newt Attacking Media. It Must Be Working.

Doing her best for her man, Romney, here.

If The Republicans Were Smart, They'd Follow The Rahm Emanuel Strategy

Rahm's strategy was to make the big tent Democrat party open to so-called fiscal and social conservatives in competitive states. It was a feint to the right.

They were liars, mostly. Some were dupes. And their public face was the "Blue Dogs" who helped the Democrats take over the House in 2006. It bled votes from the Republicans and brought them into the party, while their elected representatives dutifully voted for almost everything the Democrat left under Pelosi and Reid and Obama put forward after 2008, although not without occasional difficulty, especially in the case of ObamaCare.

That's why this analysis from one "Ben Shapiro" here is totally wrong (a troll?) and rather sad to see this late in the game because it misses the Emanuel strategy entirely:

John Kerry was a flip-flopper, a wishy-washy liberal who made liberals squeamish. So they responded by moving to the left, bringing in Nancy Pelosi to run the House and the anti-Kerry, Howard Dean, to run the Democratic National Committee. The result was a Democratic victory in 2006 in the House, and the victory of the most far-left candidate in American history, Barack Obama, in 2008.

The Emanuel strategy recognized what polls tell us even today, nearly a decade on: the American people are not Democrat or Republican predominantly, but conservative in their self-understanding, however ill-defined that may be. Liberalism as a category still comes in last, as Politico reports here:

Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one, according to a new poll Thursday.

The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010.

These simple facts explain why Newt Gingrich is doing so well on chewing gum and chicken wire against one of the richest Republicans to run for office in decades.

Republicans, if they want to win, should embrace this. People like Tim Pawlenty, Bill Bennett, and Ann Coulter should get with the program and stop supporting an unelectable guy whom Republicans rightly discarded in 2008 for JOHN S. McCAIN, of all people.

Gingrich's chief appeal is his ability to go mano a mano with the media, which are an unpaid arm of the Obama campaign, C-student shills who deserve a real education for once.

Gingrich will give it to them.

We might not get real conservatism, but no one can say with a straight face that we'll get that from Mitt Romney. We're trying to fill the Bully Pulpit here. It's the most important lectureship without tenure in the history of mankind. Newt never got tenure in academe, and I can't think of a better person to fill this chair at this time than Newt.

Feint right, Republicans. You've done it before, you can do it again.

We know you don't mean it. 

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

-- Ronald Reagan, August 1962