Tis the season for getting glossy, 4-color political circulars. I've gotten more than my share from all the local candidates and some special interest groups, but the one which caught my eye today came from the Texas GOP, outlining in black and white what they think are the best reasons I should vote for their candidates as a group.
Under the heading "Decide Whose Values Guide Texas" this neat, concise, and clearly presented ad lays out five 'values' issues with definitive boxes which show NO for the Democrats and YES for the Republicans. Then it wraps up with "The Choice is Clear, On Tuesday, Nov. 7th, Vote Republican." It's bold, effective, and to the point. Clearly they hired a good marketing firm to put it together. Too bad the actual content was selected by a committee of blue-haired old ladies and congenital idiots.
Here are the five issues which they think people are going to be excited to hear the GOP supports and the Democrats don't.
Parental Notification for a minor daughter's abortion. First off, plenty of Democrats support parental notification in one form or another. Second, it's an issue so complicated and morally ambiguous that taking a firm stand on it is politically untennable. Why lead off with something about which there are so many questions and so many potential pitfalls?
The Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage between a man and a woman. Presumably chosen because they want to make sure all Republicans are seen as small-minded homophobes who think a religious sacrement like marriage ought to be enshrined in state law in obvious violation of the idea of separation of church and state. President Bush and many prominent Republicans support civil unions with full legal equivalency to marriage for gay couples.
Laci Peterson's Law, which protects pregnant women from violence. First off, no law protects people from violence. This and other laws like it merely make sure violent offenders are suitably punished. Second, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act had widespread support in both parties, including from some Texas Democrats in Congress. It also passed overwhelmingly three years ago and was signed into law by the President. So exactly what are candidates from either party in this election going to have to do with it? It's active law. This horse has already left the gate.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lumpy
If they really think flag burning is what gets voters motivated maybe they think repub voters are as dumb as the left keeps claiming they are.
2 - Dave Nalle
On reflection I almost wonder if this incredibly lame flyer really originated with the Democrats - it would be a brilliant move - but sadly the credit line at the bottom references the Texas GOP, so they just have to take the blame.
I wonder how much donated money they wasted on this crap. Donors should ask for their money back.
Dave
3 - Clavos
Unbelievable how the GOP can shoot itself in the foot.
If this keeps up, TX Dems should just lay low and let the Republicans lose on their own.
DOMA and flag burning!!
Sheesh...
4 - Lumpy
I would think a mailer like this might be okay if it was a targeted mailing. You're not an old baptist granny from Waco are u?
5 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, the dems aren't doing much better since they nominated the giant personality vacuum known as Chris Bell for governor.
But no, I'm not a granny from Waco. More of a middle aged atheist father from Austin.
Dave
6 - JustOneMan
Dave,
Now that you are "out of the closet" and moving to the left...how does it feel? Are you happy that you are free to be who you really are?
An out of the closet left wing loon!
JustOneMan
7 - Dave Nalle
As usual you make absolutely no sense, JoM. But keep up the good work.
Dave
8 - Bliffle
Look on the bright side: you may be the only Texan who's actually read that flyer.
9 - BriMan
"The Texas GOP Leadership is a Pack of Idiots"
So what's news about that?
"Democrats want to do away with tax cuts with an instant hit of over $2000 a year for the average tax payer and some of them are even campaigning on raising taxes."
Really - says who? The RNC again? Campaign rhetoric of the RW. Always a reliable source of information regarding their opponents. When the Dems get control of Congress (that is if Diebold hasnt already insured the outcome) let me know how much your taxes go up.
I have heard of some Dems campaigning on raising taxes but always with a qualification that the RW loves to leave off of their criticisms that is increased taxes for the very rich which is typically defined as income over $500K annually. And of course repealing the inheritance tax which only affects less than 1% of Americans anyway but is a major source of funds for the treasury (not to mention a hedge against the aristocracy that did away with the tax recently).
BTW - my taxes went up under Bush and I make about $100K annually. Not just income tax but sales taxes (because our local gov'ts had to raise them to make up for the rape of the federal treasury), increased rent because of increased property taxes (so schools could meet their budgets since Bush didnt fund No Child's Behind Left), and much much more money in gasoline taxes.
The Bush tax cuts are the biggest misnomer & crock of crap I have ever heard or personally seen and people that believe they netted a gain are either rich, lucky, foolish, or not paying attention.
10 - Dave Nalle
Really - says who? The RNC again? Campaign rhetoric of the RW. Always a reliable source of information regarding their opponents. When the Dems get control of Congress (that is if Diebold hasnt already insured the outcome) let me know how much your taxes go up.
What I'm talking about here is writing a more effective ad flyer. Regardless of whether the democrats plan to raise taxes or not, that's a believable argument to make based on their past performance and statements many of them are still making today.
I have heard of some Dems campaigning on raising taxes but always with a qualification that the RW loves to leave off of their criticisms that is increased taxes for the very rich which is typically defined as income over $500K annually. And of course repealing the inheritance tax which only affects less than 1% of Americans anyway but is a major source of funds for the treasury (not to mention a hedge against the aristocracy that did away with the tax recently).
You forget the estate tax. A lot of people in Texas who have small businesses or family farms are very concerned about what happens with it.
BTW - my taxes went up under Bush and I make about $100K annually. Not just income tax but sales taxes (because our local gov'ts had to raise them to make up for the rape of the federal treasury), increased rent because of increased property taxes (so schools could meet their budgets since Bush didnt fund No Child's Behind Left), and much much more money in gasoline taxes.
No one's federal income tax went up under Bush. Poor people were entirely removed from the tax rolls and the rest of us got at least a 2% cut. As for increases in local taxes, any unfunded mandate has that potential. It didn't happen here in Texas, and since this is an article about TEXAS politicking, that's what matters.
Dave
11 - BriMan
So it doesnt matter what is true only what is believable? That is what is wrong with political dialogue in this country - that is called manipulation. That is unethical and should be illegal especially when there is written representation of what the Dems plan is.
The Estate tax is the Inheritance tax - show me how many people qualify for this...by definition, it does not affect family farms or small businesses - that is simply a falsehood perpetuated by the people it does affect to have it done away with.
Texas doesnt have an income tax - but many states do and had to raise their rates to make up for the shortfall in federal funding. Since I am in one of the states that do - my income taxes went up under Bush. It doesnt do jack to lower federal taxes if all it does is shift the burden which it did and which is my point.
So Texans didnt have to pay more in gas taxes or sales taxes huh? WOW - secede while you can.
12 - Dave Nalle
So it doesnt matter what is true only what is believable? That is what is wrong with political dialogue in this country - that is called manipulation. That is unethical and should be illegal especially when there is written representation of what the Dems plan is.
Briman, you have no grasp of the difference between truth and lies and fantasy and reality as demonstrated by your prior comments, so you're hardly qualified to make judgements on this topic. As far as most rational people are concerned the fact that democrats will raise taxes is obvious. Candidates here in Texas have said it publicly, including the democrat candidate for governor. So it's a fact, whether you like it or not, even if they haven't actually DONE it yet.
I'm sure you'd like to limit free spech and have campaigns run only on the versions of the facts that are approved by the central committee, but the democrats aren't in power yet, so we'll have to wait a little while to rewrite the constitution and get rid of that pesky 1st amendment.
The Estate tax is the Inheritance tax - show me how many people qualify for this...by definition, it does not affect family farms or small businesses - that is simply a falsehood perpetuated by the people it does affect to have it done away with.
Again, utter bullshit. The criteria for the tax is dollar value of real property and assets, not the nature of those assets. Relatively small farms in the Austin area are well over even the higher standards set by the current tax code. Farms are businesses which are asset rich and cash poor. The organic farmer down the road from me farms 200 acres with an assessed value of close to $5 million. It didn't cost anything near that when they bought it, but expanding suburbs have raised property values. Their cash income is enough to cover the hefty real estate taxes, mortgage payments and feed and clothe their family. They don't have $1.8 million lying around to pay estate tax should the farm pass to their kids in the next few years, much less what it would be if democrats had their way. So they'd either have to sell off enough of the land to developers that it wouldn't be a profitable farm anylonger, or get a new mortgage with a huge payment or just give up farming alltogether. Since the kids have been raised as farmers and are going to agricultural schools, you're going to be putting them in a bit of a bind, not to mention destroying their heritage. And it's not good for the country, because pretty soon only large agrobusinesses will be able to afford to continue to operate farms at all.
The same is true for a LOT of small businesses - not that the democrats care. There are certain businesses which are very long on assets and relatively short on cash flow. This includes things like country stores which keep huge amounts of hardware and other goods in stock and sell them very slowly. All of that inventory shows up as assets of the business. One local feed store keeps about $2 million worth of inventory on its rather large lot, which itself is worth about $1 million. Another business that ceases to exist when the owner dies.
Texas doesnt have an income tax
That doesn't mean Texas doesn't have taxes. The money comes from property taxes which are some of the highest in the nation.
- but many states do and had to raise their rates to make up for the shortfall in federal funding. Since I am in one of the states that do - my income taxes went up under Bush. It doesnt do jack to lower federal taxes if all it does is shift the burden which it did and which is my point.
Texas runs a tax revenue surplus fairly regularly because we're growing faster and have a stronger economy than other states, so this isn't an issue so much here. And keep in mind that I've never endorsed unfunded mandates, and I think no child left behind is just as stupid as you do.
Plus, it's not the tax cuts whcih raised your taxes, but the unfunded mandates. Without them the tax cuts would have been even more beneficial. Without the tax cuts the unfunded mandates would probably have been devastating.
So Texans didnt have to pay more in gas taxes or sales taxes huh? WOW - secede while you can.
You think that's just a snide remark. There are plenty of people here who are serious about it.
Dave
13 - Clavos
So Texans didnt have to pay more in gas taxes or sales taxes huh? WOW - secede while you can.
Neither do Floridians, and we don't have an income tax either.
What we DO have is a budget surplus.
Oh, and a Republican state government.
14 - Dave Nalle
And a growing population like Texas, because intelligent people are moving there from the industrial wastelands of the north.
Dave
15 - Nancy
I keep telling you, Dave - just because that jackass Kennedy is for throwing open the borders doesn't mean that Dems in general are for illegals & against immigration controls; it's just that Kennedy gets more hype - and the Republicans play it up more - that the facts that the bulk of Dems don't like hordes of illegals here any more than Republicans do. As for the Texas Dems letting the Republicans shoot themselves, seems to me that's exactly what most of the Dem party HAS been doing for the past couple of years. They certainly haven't been making good use of all the gaffes the GOP has been handing them on silver platters.
16 - BriMan
Dave -
you are so anti-tax that you are willing to erect any strawman that rationalizes your stance. I understand the farmer's situation you speak of because my family did quite well farming sugar cane in southern LA. We were also land-rich and money poor. And when my great-grandfather passed the land on to his kids - THERE WAS NO ESTATE TAX. No land had to be sold. The farm kept going w/o a hitch. In fact, the operation expanded. Did he have to pay other taxes while he was alive - of course. You expect me to feel bad for someone who was lucky enough to have the value of his land shoot up so much that he cant afford to farm it any longer? Wahhh. Pleasant problem. Knee-jerk reaction - blame taxes.
The American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes. (sorry I dont have the link - Go to the NYTimes if you have a subscription.)
Most recently, an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms that exceedingly few family farms and small businesses face the estate tax.
The CBO report found that if the current exemption level of $2.0 million had been in place in 2000, only 123 farm estates and only 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed any estate tax. The number of taxable farm estates drops to 65 nationwide at a $3.5 million exemption level, the level that takes effect in 2009. The number of taxable family-owned business estates falls to just 94 under the $3.5 million exemption.
I recognize that the exemption levels have been raised under Bush and I have no issue with that - but I do have an issue when you are willing to spew inaccuracies about a tax that you seem to judge piecemeal on a single personally known (to you) case.
So you would axe completely a tax that affects only several dozen (at most) of the entities that you feign concern for because you are a rabid anti-tax zealot. You will cry and scream about farms and businesses when the number affected can hardly be pluralized. Dont you have any issues that affect millions that you can whine about instead - at least I wont feel like you are concerned about all of the people in Alaska dying of falling coconuts.
As for limiting free speech - there are laws against people who go around spreading lies against other people. Is this a limit on free speech too? Manipulating facts or in your case blatantly misunderstanding and massaging the facts to suit your rationalizations isnt illegal but I take issue when you say the truth doesnt matter if what you are saying is believable. That is an incredible statement and one I think that points to an ideological cause at the expense of truth. This has been pointed out to you so many times about so many articles you have written and you finally summed it up for us. Free speech is just another strawman you choose to construct.
As for unfunded mandates - why do think they were unfunded? Let me tell you - TAX CUTS. So dont spew the beneficence of Bush tax cuts w/o acknowledging the large downside (or is that too close to truth and liberalism for you?)
I dont think succession is just a snide remark - I know how serious that is taken in my ex-homeland. But glaringly - you chose not to respond to my point about peripheral taxes. The RW will get theirs somehow - they just wont call it taxes. What a relief....
17 - Dave Nalle
You are so anti-tax that you are willing to erect any strawman that rationalizes your stance.
Hardly. I've written here in support of tax reforms which include increasing some taxes. But there are good taxes and bad taxes. Taxes which take away from individuals based solely on their wealth or income are unfair. Taxes which assess peoples actual consumption of public services and their drain on public funds are a much better idea.
I understand the farmer's situation you speak of because my family did quite well farming sugar cane in southern LA. We were also land-rich and money poor. And when my great-grandfather passed the land on to his kids - THERE WAS NO ESTATE TAX. No land had to be sold. The farm kept going w/o a hitch. In fact, the operation expanded.
You seem to be supporting my point then. It worked back in those days because there wasn't an estate tax. Would it work as well today - or more to the point, after the Democrats cut the estate tax exemption down to $500,000 as has been proposed.
Did he have to pay other taxes while he was alive - of course. You expect me to feel bad for someone who was lucky enough to have the value of his land shoot up so much that he cant afford to farm it any longer? Wahhh. Pleasant problem. Knee-jerk reaction - blame taxes.
Why should someone HAVE to give up a family business for money? This attitude is great for agrobusiness, but where will we be when the small farmers who are already vanishing are totally gone? I'm not just thinking about the traditions or the welfare of the family, but the diversity of our food supply. When all the small farmers are gone where will we get organic produce or unusual vegetables or hormone free beef? Is ADM going to waste time on this? Have a lovely Beefmato.
And note that I say this despite owning stock in ADM. I can see which way the wind is blowing.
The American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes. (sorry I dont have the link - Go to the NYTimes if you have a subscription.)
If you do a simple web search you can find dozens of personal stories about people who've faced exactly that situation - both farms and businesses. Given the track record of the NYT I doubt they tried very hard. They aren't exactly in touch with the heartland or sympathetic to that part of our society.
Most recently, an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms that exceedingly few family farms and small businesses face the estate tax.
If even one of them was oppressed by it then that would be too many. I admit that at the current exemption level the cases would be few, but I'd be troubled if there are any.
The CBO report found that if the current exemption level of $2.0 million had been in place in 2000, only 123 farm estates and only 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed any estate tax. The number of taxable farm estates drops to 65 nationwide at a $3.5 million exemption level, the level that takes effect in 2009. The number of taxable family-owned business estates falls to just 94 under the $3.5 million exemption.
That's just dandy, but that's 94 too many for me, and did they provide figures for what happens when the 'soak the rich' wing of the democrat partty gets in there and knocks the exemption down to $500,000 as it was just a few years ago?
So you would axe completely a tax that affects only several dozen (at most) of the entities that you feign concern for because you are a rabid anti-tax zealot. You will cry and scream about farms and businesses when the number affected can hardly be pluralized. Dont you have any issues that affect millions that you can whine about instead - at least I wont feel like you are concerned about all of the people in Alaska dying of falling coconuts.
It's a matter of principle. The destruction of an entire lifestyle and segment of our economy which has been ongoing is what bothers me. This could be the final nail in the coffin of the family farm, not to mention all sorts of small businesses. Bush has tried to prevent that - much to his credit. I think it remains a reasonable argument in a state with many small farmers in it, to raise concerns about what would happen if the democrats had free reign with the estate tax.
As for limiting free speech - there are laws against people who go around spreading lies against other people. Is this a limit on free speech too? Manipulating facts or in your case blatantly misunderstanding and massaging the facts to suit your rationalizations isnt illegal but I take issue when you say the truth doesnt matter if what you are saying is believable. That is an incredible statement and one I think that points to an ideological cause at the expense of truth. This has been pointed out to you so many times about so many articles you have written and you finally summed it up for us. Free speech is just another strawman you choose to construct.
You clearly don't understand the difference between a lie and an interpretation of the truth. Everyone who is trying to present an argument for a cause is going to present THEIR side of it. That's certainly true in a political flyer like the one this article is written about. There may be only one set of facts, but how those facts are interpreted is and will always be subjective. You seem to think that facts are absolute and that there's only one way to interpret them. That's not the case. They have to be taken in context, in light of other factors and there's always room for interpretation.
It is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that Democrats want to raise taxes. They are on record as opposing tax cuts, raised taxes the last time they were in a position to do so, and have individually and as a group endorsed the raising of taxes. Saying that they are for raising taxes as a generalization is entirely accurate.
As for unfunded mandates - why do think they were unfunded? Let me tell you - TAX CUTS. So dont spew the beneficence of Bush tax cuts w/o acknowledging the large downside (or is that too close to truth and liberalism for you?)
Wrong. The unfunded mandates were unfunded because no one voted funding for them. That could have happened regardless of tax cuts. It's a matter of where the congress chose to put their spending emphasis. IMO it should be illegal to pass a federal mandate without funding it. It allows legislators to deceive the public and puts an unnecessary burden on the states. The solution to unfunded mandates is to not pass them if they aren't going to be funded. The law and the funding for it should be part of the same piece of legislation.
I dont think succession is just a snide remark - I know how serious that is taken in my ex-homeland. But glaringly - you chose not to respond to my point about peripheral taxes. The RW will get theirs somehow - they just wont call it taxes. What a relief....
If the money is generated by economic growth spurring increase in revenue - as has been the case since the tax cuts - then how can anyone complain?
Dave
18 - Nancy
Dave, your attitude towards truth sadly reflects the reality of the current Neocon/Republican party when you say the veracity of it doesn't matter, it's whether or not it's believable. A lie is a lie is a lie; there is no such thing as "massaging" the truth, or "interpreting" the truth. The truth stands alone & - among honest people, that is, not politicians - is NOT subject to "interpretation". But then that's the crux of the whole dichotomy between us the regular people & politicians, isn't it: to politicians, everything is relative & subject to "interpretation". That's why they're amoral & corrupt, and perceived as such by the general public.
19 - Clavos
Actually, Nancy, the relativity of truth is a very liberal idea; the whole concept that nothing is absolute, of nothing being black or white but rather shades of grey, has been promulgated (and practiced) by liberals, especially those in academia, for a long time.
20 - Nancy
Clav, ol' buddy, it's been practiced by liberal & conservative POLITICIANS for a long time. Most of the rest of us live within certain set latitudes of moral relativism that are pretty limited by long experience that if you do thus-&-so, it's bad for society or other people, so you don't do it. Only politicians & Obi-Wan Kenobi practice "from a certain point of view" as a routine matter of judgement, and frankly I thought he was a skank for doing it.
21 - Clavos
Nancy, my personal set of moral values was mostly instilled in me by my atheist father, and has nothing to do with religion. However, my values are NOT relative or situational; they are absolute and not subject to modification to fit circumstances -- I don't believe in that.
Most conservatives are not moral relativists, either; in fact relativism is anathema to conservative thinking.
Relativism is fashionable thinking these days, especially in education. Students are taught to be non-judgemental; that everyone's philosophy is valid -- no one is "right" or "wrong".
To me, that's the very definition of relativism.
And it has spread far beyond the political arena.
22 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, you've confused 'truth' with fact. Fact is certainly objective. It is what it is, with the exception that it may be subject to criticism of the methods by which it was determined to be fact.
Truth, on the other hand, is largely subjective and often a matter of belief. In religion you can even have 'revealed truth' which is only true because God is credited with it.
We all start with the same facts, but the significance of those facts is open to interpretation, and more than one interpretation of those same basic facts can be 'true' at the same time.
After an auto accident you can say "what a tragedy for the people involved", and that's true. I can say "well, at least that drunk driver can't kill anyone else" and that's also true. The facts are the same, but the truths we derive and the perspective we have on the event are radically different.
Or to give a political example, we now have 4.4% unemployment. I can say that this is a remarkably low number compared to other historical periods. That's demonstrably true. You can say, that means there are almost 8 million people out of work. How horrible. Both statements are true and their perspectives are entirely contradictory.
Actually, Nancy, the relativity of truth is a very liberal idea; the whole concept that nothing is absolute, of nothing being black or white but rather shades of grey, has been promulgated (and practiced) by liberals, especially those in academia, for a long time.
And I accept that principle because it is both obviously 'true' and because I'm a liberal. Nancy is most decidedly NOT a liberal in any true sense of the word. She's a moral absolutist who just happens not to be politically conservative.
Dave
23 - Joan Hunt
In California, we regularly see proposition after proposition asking us to approve the prop we voted for in the last election. "Yes, I want the money I voted to go to schools in the last three elections to still go to the schools and not the administration. Yes, we still want all our schools retro-fitted for earthquakes and repaired to minimum health and safety standards. Poll us again in two months and we'll still be saying the same thing.
It never ends, does it?
24 - Dave Nalle
They do that here too, Joan. The voters of the City of Austin voted down commuter rail 5 times in five slightly different forms, but they kept putting it on the ballot until one of the proposals got approved, and once their foot was in the door suddenly the whole plan was on despite having been voted down repeatedly.
Dave
25 - Jayson Harsin
Such trenchant criticisms of the TExas GOP. But your challenging interrogation of their platform/talking points is, as usual, curiously asserted.
"In particular, what happened to:
Controlling our borders and stopping illegal immigration. This is an obvious winner for the GOP. They just passed the border fence bill."
Wasn't that an empty, un-funded, like so many others? No money promised? Of course, it was approved by many as a symbolic act, just like the cynical No Child Left Behind, and just as many lily-livered Democrats voted for the War in Iraq because the PR machine had swayed public opinion in its favor. Not prudent to vote against it if you fear an opponent could seize upon it and turn you into a traitor.
How much is it estimated to be? How much is this war costing? Tax and Spend. Funding? This from a guy who doesn't believe in income taxes? [I've yet to see you make a serious argument that even attempts to engage the strongest arguments of your opponents--and don't even play the game that they have nothing to throw against your "airtight" invincible reasoning]
(BTW, another hot button distraction from the opinion poll dives their party leader infects them with like a virus, along with flag burning, etc. etc.). There are, as usual, so many things to disagree with here, but the refusal to actually engage your readers (not to mention other major public arguments/positions on the issues you repeat on an endless loop) has shown me it's a waste of time.