The Candidates
Today’s The Hill is reporting on Romney’s tax record as governor… and suddenly he doesn’t look so conservative. The whole article is pretty long, so here’s the first part:
Anti-tax advocates are scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s (R) record as governor of Massachusetts and focusing on the fact that he increased fees in the state by $500 million and proposed nearly $400 million in business tax increases.
This could erode whatever advantage on tax policy he hopes to have over 2008 presidential rivals such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, published a fiscal-policy report card for 2006 that gave Romney a C grade, ranking him behind 11 other governors, including Democratic White House hopeful Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico.
Cato found that Romney increased annual state fees by $500 million as governor and proposed two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year.
When he took office, Romney faced a budget deficit of $3.2 billion, which he eliminated. He did not hike personal income or sales taxes. He is now highlighting his efforts to cut Massachusetts’s income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent and his successful shepherding of a $250 million capital gains tax refund through the Democrat-dominated state legislature.
But he increased fees for getting married, buying a house, bringing a case to court, and using a public golf course, to name a few reported examples. However, in a move that could prove controversial with social conservatives, Romney decided not to raise fees for convicted sex offenders. He vetoed a $75 fee for offenders required by law to register with the state.
“Romney’s people are trying to spin this by saying he kept his ‘No new taxes’ pledge,” said Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at Cato. “I guess if you consider only personal income taxes and sales taxes, he’s within bounds. If you take a broader view, he is not.
“The spirit of [anti-tax pledges] is to force governors to find more innovative ways of funding government,” he added. “If the spirit is to save money before you increase revenues, I don’t think Romney has held to the spirit of the no-new-tax pledge.”
March 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
You can’t afford to be weak in the area that’s supposed to be your strength.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:52 am
While Romney’s record is certainly less than ideal, he was governing in a less than ideal situation, in a less than ideal state. It is probably comforting for the Left to know that we are eating our candidates alive. At this rate, we’ll never get another Reagan. Why do I say that?
“Unfortunately, Governor Reagan’s efforts to reduce taxes and spending in the Golden State met with less success. When Reagan was inaugurated in 1967, his first priority was to reduce the sizeable deficit that he inherited from Pat Brown. Reagan ordered a hiring freeze, a 1ten percent budget cut from all state agencies, and other expenditure reductions. However, since he was unable to convince assembly Democrats to support further spending reductions, Reagan reluctantly signed a tax increase in 1967.
This tax increase succeeded in reducing the state deficit. However, revenues from this tax hike would later generate more revenue than expected, pushing spending to record levels. Reagan wanted to reduce the flow of revenue coming into the state treasury and proposed tax cuts on a number of subsequent occasions. However, assembly Democrats were not receptive. The best Reagan could do was to increase the size of the property-tax exemption for homeowners and to issue temporary tax-income rebates in 1969 and 1973.”
(source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/new200406100853.asp)
Holy cow. Reagan raised taxes and increased the deficit as governor, so he wasn’t a true conservative. And since Romney raised some fees and balanced the budget, he’s a failure. So let me see: Romney kept taxes the same but raised fees while balancing the budget; Guiliani cut taxes but piled on the debt; McCain voted against the 2003 tax cuts; and Dalton wasn’t in office to prove anything conclusively one way or the other. Since we’re all purists here (as you imply), I guess they’re all trash, including that pretender, Reagan.
Maybe I’ll stay home this election cycle.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Watch out, Billy… get your Jason-gear on!
March 28th, 2007 at 11:00 am
OK, folks, I am officially rooting for Romney as well as Rudy now. For strategic reasons, to split Thompson’s vote and end up helping Rudy. Let’s hear it for a huge Q1 fundraising for Romney! And Rudy!
March 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Edit: Murph… Didn’t we just talk about this last night? Out of friendship, I will count this as only warning number one...-KWN
In any case, Romney raised fees $500 million. Fees are not taxes. First, they are targetted at the people incuring the cost, unlike general taxes which are far more socialistic in their scope. Second, you can avoid the fee by not using the service.
Romney closed corporate tax loopholes for $210 million. The $210 million came as a result of Romney enforcing the law, and cannot be counted as “raising taxes” in the ordinary sense, any more than sending an escaped convict to jail can be considered a sentencing.
Now if you want to talk about “holding to the spirit of the no-new-tax pledge” which Romney did not sign as Governor, that’s fine. Please include some information about the tax cuts Romney pushed through. In addition to successfully refunding the $250 million retroactive capital gains tax (which was initially passed over his veto), Romney made the investment tax credit permanent, passed sales tax holidays, gave tax breaks to medical manufacturing companies, gave real estate tax breaks to seniors, and in each of the last three years, Romney submitted a budget that cut the income tax from 5.3% to 5.0%.
I’ll take a politician who raises service fees (which I can avoid) and cuts taxes (which I can’t avoid) any day of the week. Also, any fool can cut taxes by borrowing from the state’s future. It takes fiscal discipline to deliver a balanced budget, and Romney the only one of the Big 3 who has a clean record in that regard.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:16 am
My intent in posting this article was to create some positive discussion on what or what not constitutes conservative economic policy.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Billy,
Sorry, you’re a nice guy and all, but I don’t believe you. If your intention was to create “positive discussion on what or what not constitutes conservative economic policy”, you may have thought to ask that very question.
No doubt there are countless posts Jason could do on Brownback’s positions on raising the national debt limit, being soft on immigration, or opposing the surge in Iraq…but I wouldn’t call those a “positive discussion”. They would be vetting questions, carry negative implications for Brownback, and I would be quite in favor of them so long as we were all on a level playing field.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Kavon,
Thanks for the lenient eye, and please consider that I didn’t see your #5 until after my #7.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Billy, you probably shouldn’t support Brownback, since he isn’t a perfect economic conservative. That is, assuming you were genuine in your stated intent of discussing what does not constitute conservative economic policy:
“Unfortunately, Senator Brownback’s record on taxes is not matched by his record on spending. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, he has voted for a large majority of the appropriations bills on the Senate floor, including many that overspent. Although he has opposed several appropriations bills, he has too often voted for pork projects and boasted on his website of the pork he has brought home to Kansas. In addition, he has failed to oppose even some outrageous pork projects, voting, for instance, against Senator Tom Coburn’s amendment to transfer $223 million for Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” to rebuild a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Roll Call #262, 10/20/05) and against Senator Coburn’s amendment to eliminate $950,000 to build a parking lot for the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha, Nebraska (Roll Call #260, 10/20/05).”
(source: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/02/a_report_on_sam_brownbacks_rec.php)
March 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I should add that pork is probably only second to Iraq in reasons for the GOP losing the majority in the Congress. Thanks, Senator Brownback.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
No problem Murph
March 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
KWN - I submitted a comment that wasn’t posted. What happened? I tried to repost it and it said I had already done so, but where is it?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
KT,
I take that as a compliment.
David B,
Glad to have you aboard.
Murphy,
In my local school district there was a referendum which was t raise property taxes by an average of $400 a year to pay for extra curricular activities in junior high and elementary level. If the referendum didn’t pass than the schools were going to institute a pay as you play policy. To me, the second choice seemed the correct one for a fiscal conservative to vote for and I did. Never did the thought cross my mind that pay as you play was actually a tax raise in sheep’s clothing.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
JF, Club for Growth just awarded Brownback a score of 98 out of 100 and gave him a Defender of Economic Freedom Award. Nice try though.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Billy, I quote facts and you quote arbitrary scores (unless you know their methodology). I find the former more credible than the latter when deciding who is the best conservative, perhaps you disagree. And this is just on the economics front. We aren’t even talking about Brownback’s stunning weakness on immigration or the war on terror.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“In any case, Romney raised fees $500 million. Fees are not taxes. First, they are targetted at the people incuring the cost, unlike general taxes which are far more socialistic in their scope. Second, you can avoid the fee by not using the service.”
Hah! Thats pretty funny. Maybe we should call sales taxes, sales fees! Dont want to pay them, just dont buy anything.
“Romney closed corporate tax loopholes for $210 million. The $210 million came as a result of Romney enforcing the law, and cannot be counted as “raising taxes”"
Hah! Glad to hear that one. I guess closing corporate tax loopholes is only a tax increase when Democrats propose it.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Billy,
Nice try maligning Romney’s fiscal chops, but it’s just more grasping at straws. I’ve looked at the report card at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html and found Romney to be in good company. Tim Pawlenty and Jeb Bush both sit comfortably next to him in rankings, yet they didn’t have to deal with high majority Democrat legislatures.
I’ve analyzed the fee increases and found them to be inline with national, inflationary and local averages. How fiscally sound is it to subsidize services below the true market value?
Finally, regarding the veto in sexual offender registration fee I include paragraphs Billy selectively omitted:
“Debbie Savoia, co-founder of Community VOICES, a group that supports stricter laws for sex offenders, defended Romney, saying that although she opposed the veto, the governor eliminated the backlog of unprocessed offenders.
Romney also championed a tougher policy requiring the most dangerous sexual predators to post their whereabouts on the Internet.”
March 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Indeed, BarkTwiggs. Romney is the number 1 blue state Republican governor, and he was in charge of the blueest state in America. I think his fiscal record is exemplary given those set of circumstances.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Romney has done what every almost every other governor does to balance their budgets. Raises fees so you can’t call them a tax. Instead of looking at the spending side of the ledger they want to make things more costly. Be it a fee to register a boat or a fee to start your business. They will tack a new fee on to with no problem.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
JL,
Cute. How exactly does $500 million in fees turn a $3.2 budget shortfall into a $700 million budget surplus?
March 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
JL, rather than fabricating lies, why not try the truth on for size?
Have a look at this report from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center on Romney’s budget for FY2007:
(http://www.massbudget.org/FY07GovBudgetMonitor.pdf)
“The budget proposal filed by the Governor last week increases funding for local aid, education, and higher education yet it leaves total funding in those areas, after adjusting for inflation, hundreds of millions of dollars below what it was before the fiscal crisis. Other areas of government, particularly safety net programs designed to protect low income
people, fare even worse, with new cuts to affordable housing, income supports, and programs designed to foster healthy
child development. While local communities are still suffering from the effects of state tax and budget cuts, this budget proposes that the state use current strong revenue growth, not primarily to help local communities, but rather to pay for a new state tax cut. As a result, communities will likely be unable to restore funding for quality schools, public safety, and other basic services. Using revenue growth to pay for a state tax cut rather than to restore funding for basic services will likely mean that local property taxes will be forced to continue to cover the costs of the
local aid cuts that the state has yet to reverse. Finally, a new round of tax cuts would make it very difficult to reverse the cuts of over 20 percent that have been imposed on other basic public services, like higher education and public health. Indeed, over the long run, the largest new cost proposed in the Governor’s budget is a cut in the personal income tax rate from its present level of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent, a change that would ultimately reduce tax
revenue by $610 million per year. The Governor’s budget proposal phases the tax cut in over two calendar years, which includes parts of three fiscal years. In FY 2007, the proposed tax cut would reduce revenue by $132 million, but the effect would climb to $488 million in FY 2008. Paying for that cost in the FY 2008 budget would likely mean that
progress in restoring funding for education, local aid, and other essential services would come to an abrupt halt. It could also lead to new and painful budget cuts.”
In case that was beyond you, this means that Romney instituted _draconian_ cuts in expenditures. You might even argue he cut too much, but only an unthinking individual would say that Romney only addressed the revenue side of the equation.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Hint: Ask a Mass Business owner what they think of Romney’s record on fees.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
My deepest concerned is not Romney’s record on taxes it is his mandatory health care bill requiring employers to cover their employees (Is this the same as Hiliary Care?) , the most anti-free market piece of legislation there is going and thus far it has gone no where.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
JL,
Romney vetoed that portion of the health care bill which fines employers who don’t cover their employees. It was the 85% Dem legislature which overturned his veto on that point.
Furthermore, it’s not remotely the same as Hillary Care. It’s a free market system, involves no new government employees, no new taxes, and has so far reduced basic premiums from $400 to $175 monthly. It has the potential to clean out the emergency rooms of MA of all the free-riding uninsured patients with nosebleeds, and get them paying into their own healthcare.
Honest question. Did you try to learn about Romney’s health care plan before you came here and slammed it?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Except now, Deval Patrick will go in and change it for sure it will become socialist healtcare..It will become an anti-free market bill, he should have done alot more work for it, should have been sooner. Case in point Romney knew that his Lt. Governor Healy could not win, and thus Deval is Governor and will be able to gain the support to change. Romney should have thought twice about leaving this in Patrick’s hands.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
JL,
So you’re criticizing Romney not based on what HE did in office, but what his successor MIGHT do in office? And all because Romney apparently KNEW from the beginning of his term that his successor would not win re-election? Are you for real?
By the way, that health care bill cost Romney 3 years of his term, which he spent consulting with the legislature and that bastion of liberality The Heritage Foundation. You don’t appreciate the amount of work involved.