Romney Raised Taxes to Boost MA Bond Rating

I am not going to use a GOVERNOR raising taxes as a litmus test--to vote against him. That's ridiculous.

He also explained his health care mandate with perfect clarity last night--and YES the states should decide what health care options are--and not the Federal Government. He believes in the 10th amendment of the US constitution--(state sovernity) and that's what I want in a candidate. I am sick and tired of an incompetent Federal Government assuming state roles.

Romney has a lot of BUSINESS experience--and that's what this country is desperately LACKING.

So you're another of those that believes as state can force citizens to do something but the federal government can't.
Is the seatbelt law a federal law? just asking.
Actually, withholding of federal highway trust fund dollars have been used as ransom to force states to pass seat belt laws, lower BAC levels, speed limits, etcetera.
 
Whilst governor of Massachusetts, President Romney pitched to S&P that they should raise their rating on his state in part because he raised taxes.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney boasted this week that when he led Massachusetts, he presided over an increase in the state’s bond rating, a contrast to President Barack Obama, who saw Standard & Poor’s downgrade U.S. debt.

But Mr. Romney had an advantage that Mr. Obama sorely wanted but could not get from Congress: tax increases and the closing of tax “loopholes.”

Documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal Wednesday through the Freedom of Information Act show the Romney administration’s pitch to S&P in late 2004 included the boast that “The Commonwealth acted decisively to address the fiscal crisis” that ensued after the terrorist attacks of 2001. Bulleted PowerPoint slides laid out the actions taken, including legislation in July 2002 to increase tax revenue by $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion in fiscal 2003 and $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion in fiscal 2004; tax “loophole” legislation that added $269 million in “additional recurring revenue,” and tax amnesty legislation that added $174 million. The final bullet: “FY04 budget increased fees to raise $271 million yearly.”

The efforts contradict the position that Mr. Romney took during the federal government’s crisis over raising the statutory limit on federal borrowing, in which he said the debt ceiling should only be increased if federal spending was first cut, then capped, and a balanced budget amendment was passed by Congress. The Republican presidential front-runner ruled out tax increases, as Mr. Obama pressed for “loophole closures” of his own.

The presentation also laid out other steps that restrained spending increases, although spending was projected to rise above fiscal 2004 levels by 5.8% in fiscal 2005, according to the presentation.

Romney’s Pitch to S&P Boasted of Revenue Raisers - Washington Wire - WSJ

Wall St Journal too. Fox newspaper. they wouldn't lie. :)
 
Aside from advocating for his states credit rating, he also managed to balance the budget and decrease unemployment in his state. :thup:




The Boston Globe - Deficits studies say crisis is worst since WWII - Dec 5, 2002




It continued to get worst. By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5]

Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] nearly $1 billion in 2005 [9a],[9b],[9c] and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes. [10] By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office.[12]


The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping. [13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was in the top ten in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

Mitt Romney - Economic Record as Governor
 
Last edited:
The country as a whole is an entirely different situation.
he had to raise taxes because revenues from Washington declined

Sounds like the exact same situation.

No- major difference-

When the funds from Washington run out, he had the choice to either cut spending or raise taxes locally. He did both.

On the Federal Level, they are ALREADY taking too much from the taxpayer, so that just isn't an option. At least not until they get spending under control, first.
 
It doesn't matter, yet. Romney is not running for president, he is running for the Republican nomination, and I do not think he will get it. If he does this will matter, and I am sure he will point out why you bringing it up is stupid.

We shouldn't scrutinize what he says because at some point he might not be running for President anymore? Sorry, where does not holding him accountable for what he says during his campaign come in?

If, and I stress the if, he ends up running for president, I will scrutinize everything he says, point out all of his contradictions, and point out all the reasons he should not be running. Since I am not a Republican, I really do not care at this moment about anything he has ever said or done.

Why do you?
 
The country as a whole is an entirely different situation.
he had to raise taxes because revenues from Washington declined

Sounds like the exact same situation.

No- major difference-

When the funds from Washington run out, he had the choice to either cut spending or raise taxes locally. He did both.

On the Federal Level, they are ALREADY taking too much from the taxpayer, so that just isn't an option. At least not until they get spending under control, first.
HUGE difference.....States have no power to have money just printed up out of thin air.
 
The country as a whole is an entirely different situation.
he had to raise taxes because revenues from Washington declined

Sounds like the exact same situation.

No- major difference-

When the funds from Washington run out, he had the choice to either cut spending or raise taxes locally. He did both.

On the Federal Level, they are ALREADY taking too much from the taxpayer, so that just isn't an option. At least not until they get spending under control, first.

They don't call it "Taxachusetts" for nothing.

Whether or not the federal government takes too much in taxes, both the ratings agencies and Massachusetts - a high tax state - demonstrate that raising taxes can contribute to the reduction of the deficit.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter, yet. Romney is not running for president, he is running for the Republican nomination, and I do not think he will get it. If he does this will matter, and I am sure he will point out why you bringing it up is stupid.

We shouldn't scrutinize what he says because at some point he might not be running for President anymore? Sorry, where does not holding him accountable for what he says during his campaign come in?

If, and I stress the if, he ends up running for president, I will scrutinize everything he says, point out all of his contradictions, and point out all the reasons he should not be running. Since I am not a Republican, I really do not care at this moment about anything he has ever said or done.

Why do you?

Why Quantum, meet the me of two pages ago. He enjoys following current events, being a fully informed voter and long walks on the beach.

Woyzeck said:
If I don't bother to think about what they say when they're campaigning, how am I supposed to decide what candidate to vote for? What if I wanna vote in the Republican primaries in my state? Should I not regard what the candidates say because their not really "running" for president seriously yet?
 
So you also agree that states can force people to do things that the fed cannot? Not so much that they can, they do, but that it's constitutional?

How is this not obvious?? That is how the government works..
Really? So Washington State can force you to be a Muslim?
So nice of you to simply ignore what has already been posted just to put an asinine argument on another:
That's the long established precedent (so long as they don't violate constitutional rights). That is, unless and until Obamacare establishes a new, groundbreaking precedent.

CLEARLY, trying to force people to be Muslims (besides being impossible) is a direct violation of your constitutional rights. For those of us that are slow though, here is the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, the federal government has specific powers and those things that lie outside of those powers lie to the states and to the people. It cannot get clearer than that. There are powers that the states have that the federal government does not, PERIOD. There are also powers that the federal government has that the states do not. There is a reason that we have federal, state and local levels of law as they all serve different purposes and have differing responsibilities. I know that the liberals here would love to see an all-powerful federal government that can do whatever it wants but that just is not in the cards. The constitution clearly states otherwise.
 
So in your opinion, there is no constitutional violation in forcing people to wear seatbelts? Because it is the state doing the forcing and not the fed?
 
I would agree with the above though I do not agree with the legislation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing within the constitution that makes seatbelt laws un-constitutional. You, of course, should have guessed what the answer to that question was going to be so why don’t you cut to the chase and let us know where you are going with this…
 

Forum List

Back
Top