Martha Coakley: Champion of Low Taxes?
“I haven't voted for a tax increase while in elective office.” – Scott Brown, interview with Jim Braude, 10 Dec 2009
“[H]is record in the State Legislature does not match his rhetoric on the campaign trail, as he voted to increase costs for Massachusetts families and businesses by implementing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fees. He also voted for what an anti-tax advocacy group called a ‘gas tax increase.’” – Martha Coakley Press Release, 30 Dec 2009
Martha Coakley, the Democrat running for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, supports the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan for $2.1 trillion in new federal taxes over 5 years. Nevertheless, she is trying to pose as the candidate of low taxes. LMAO.
In a statement titled “Rhetoric vs. Reality”, she disputes her Republican opponent Scott Brown’s claim that he never voted for a tax increase during his years on Beacon Hill. As evidence for Sen. Brown’s alleged deception, Ms. Coakley cited his vote for the House version of the 2004 Massachusetts state budget. Although the budget did not contain new taxes, it did contain fee hikes, along with a provision that eliminated an environmental cleanup fund funded by the state gasoline tax.
The press release is a case study in the politician’s art of saying something untrue without actually saying it. Furthermore it’s a smokescreen for Ms. Coakley’s own sorry position on taxes.
The Coakley statement quotes the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation saying that the fee increases were “linked” to tax increases. It quotes unnamed “anti-tax activists” saying that the gas tax measure had “the effect” of converting a user fee to a tax. But it never actually says that Sen. Brown voted to raise taxes – which he didn’t do. If Ms. Coakley has to resort to these weasel words to make her case, the Brown record on taxes must be pretty darn good.
Nor does the press release ever actually say that Martha Coakley, if she got to Washington, would be better than Scott Brown at protecting wages from federal confiscation. She leaves it up to the reader to fill in the blanks. But it is instructive to compare Brown’s user’s fees with Coakley’s bona fide tax increases. The 2004 budget had fee hikes of as much as $700 million per year. To put that number in perspective, when this budget was passed personal income for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was $259 billion. So on average, Bay State residents paid $27 in fee hikes for every $10,000 in income that they earned. As I mentioned, if Martha Coakley goes to Washington in 2010, she will support $2.1 trillion dollars in new taxes over five years, or an average of $420 billion per year. U.S. personal income for 2010 will be approximately $12.1 trillion so on average, Americans will pay $350 in new taxes for every $10,000 in income.
Final score: Brown $27, Coakley $350.
You work hard for your paycheck. Clearly, of the two candidates, Scott Brown is the one who will take less of it away.
“[H]is record in the State Legislature does not match his rhetoric on the campaign trail, as he voted to increase costs for Massachusetts families and businesses by implementing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fees. He also voted for what an anti-tax advocacy group called a ‘gas tax increase.’” – Martha Coakley Press Release, 30 Dec 2009
Martha Coakley, the Democrat running for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, supports the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan for $2.1 trillion in new federal taxes over 5 years. Nevertheless, she is trying to pose as the candidate of low taxes. LMAO.
In a statement titled “Rhetoric vs. Reality”, she disputes her Republican opponent Scott Brown’s claim that he never voted for a tax increase during his years on Beacon Hill. As evidence for Sen. Brown’s alleged deception, Ms. Coakley cited his vote for the House version of the 2004 Massachusetts state budget. Although the budget did not contain new taxes, it did contain fee hikes, along with a provision that eliminated an environmental cleanup fund funded by the state gasoline tax.
The press release is a case study in the politician’s art of saying something untrue without actually saying it. Furthermore it’s a smokescreen for Ms. Coakley’s own sorry position on taxes.
The Coakley statement quotes the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation saying that the fee increases were “linked” to tax increases. It quotes unnamed “anti-tax activists” saying that the gas tax measure had “the effect” of converting a user fee to a tax. But it never actually says that Sen. Brown voted to raise taxes – which he didn’t do. If Ms. Coakley has to resort to these weasel words to make her case, the Brown record on taxes must be pretty darn good.
Nor does the press release ever actually say that Martha Coakley, if she got to Washington, would be better than Scott Brown at protecting wages from federal confiscation. She leaves it up to the reader to fill in the blanks. But it is instructive to compare Brown’s user’s fees with Coakley’s bona fide tax increases. The 2004 budget had fee hikes of as much as $700 million per year. To put that number in perspective, when this budget was passed personal income for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was $259 billion. So on average, Bay State residents paid $27 in fee hikes for every $10,000 in income that they earned. As I mentioned, if Martha Coakley goes to Washington in 2010, she will support $2.1 trillion dollars in new taxes over five years, or an average of $420 billion per year. U.S. personal income for 2010 will be approximately $12.1 trillion so on average, Americans will pay $350 in new taxes for every $10,000 in income.
Final score: Brown $27, Coakley $350.
You work hard for your paycheck. Clearly, of the two candidates, Scott Brown is the one who will take less of it away.
posted by Michael Isenberg at
7:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home