By eliminating two totally useless departments that are nothing more than politically correct ways to "reward" political hacks the state can save nearly $500,000 per year with absolutely NO harm being done to the taxpayers (except for the politically-connected holding the jobs). I'm talking about The Govs' Commission on the Status of Women and the Human Rights Department. I once asked in this blog if ANYONE could come up with anything useful these people have ever done, and of course got NOTHING. By the way, I don't charge the state for this advice.
 

The fox guarding the hen house. What happened to those DC dreams Steve?
 

How many deputy commissioners are there now in state government? Mr. Gold might want to start helping Joint Fiscal by encouraging them to cut the bloat from from upper management, to include deputy commissioners. I'm guessing he probably sees halos around deputy commissioner's heads though.
 

Yeah. How about those talking heads for the governor too?
 

Hmmm, anyone else think he's a bit too fresh out of AHS to be completely without bias on these issues?
 

Couldn't Leahy just think Obama has more potential for leadership of our country? Or is that too idealistic for this bunch?
 

Yeah, it is.
 

Good point, Meg. Thank you.
 

Pat Leahy is probably the most vicious, partisan politician in this country. Anything he does, there must be something in it for Pat, whether a role in a stupid movie, or praise from the anti-American leftists like Michael Moore or George Soros. He sees the handwriting on the wall for the corrupt and venal Clintons and wants to be on the winning side. Except IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, Pat!
 

We'll be watching Mr. Gold. Make sure you earn that $60 an hour.
 

There's as story in the blogosphere about Douglas, the Washington lobbyist and Motorola. Why is this not in the Free Press or any other paper????

Wake up Vermont press! Please.
 

"Pat Leahy is probably the most vicious, partisan politician in this country."

That's a good one, spinderella. Let me guess. Your evidence for that was probably destroyed with those millions of WH e-mails that mysteriously disappeared when Leahy finally put gonzo under oath and subpoenaed them and all the other things they claim to be privileged.

Nice try, ya got bupkis.


"Anything he does, there must be something in it for Pat, whether a role in a stupid movie, or praise from the anti-American leftists like Michael Moore or George Soros."

Evidence? That's what I thought.

"He sees the handwriting on the wall for the corrupt and venal Clintons and wants to be on the winning side. Except IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, Pat!"

Aside from the fact that you can serve up your evidence in support this slop any time now along with your Japan and Germany posed no threat to the US and FDR went to war with them just to get us out of the depression he had us mired in" nonsense, bubble boy, just what are you asserting "ain't gonna happen," little, ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged, bigoted-trash, neo-nazi nitwit fella?

Are you saying that the gops will carry Vermont, unseat Welch and win the White House, spinderella?

Just what is it you're claiming "ain't gonna happen," little fella, and on what basis do you make such a ludicrous contention?

Ya got bupkis, spinderella.
 

What "ain't gonna happen" is Barack Hussein Obama be president, unless it's president of the Chicago-area slumlords association. Fool.
 

"along with your Japan and Germany posed no threat to the US and FDR went to war with them just to get us out of the depression he had us mired in" nonsense"

Along with your "Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot nonsense.
 

"your usual pathetic, ham-handed attempts to change the subject"

No, that's your specialty.
 

JW said..."super-fund site between your ears"

After 3 months, a new phrase! JW congrats. I don't think you have used that before. Has someone been coaching you?

Your whole routine is/has been/will always be a repeative cut and paste schtick.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
 

I guess I hit the jackpot this time. However, jw, you might want to do a little RESEARCH regarding the relationship between your hero Barack Hussein and Tony Rezko.

Please report back to me re: your findings. Thank You.

Have a nice day.

Remember your pills.
 

Anonymous said...

"along with your Japan and Germany posed no threat to the US and FDR went to war with them just to get us out of the depression he had us mired in" nonsense"

""Along with your "Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot nonsense.""

Nice try, little nameless-nitwit fella. Your coalition of the clueless evidence deficit is in the 90-120 day category.

Dismissed.
 

JW said...super-fund site between your ears

"After 3 months, a new phrase! JW congrats. I don't think you have used that before. Has someone been coaching you?"

Nah, I've used it before. It's just been a couple of weeks.

Clearly, no one has been coaching your ignorant ass, little fact-free fella.

"Your whole routine is/has been/will always be a repeative cut and paste schtick."

And your whole shtick is to level bogus "repeative" charges with no supporting evidence.

In other words, cut and paste bupkis.

At the end of the day, all ya got is unsubstantiated allegations you can neither support or spell.

Then again, at least your ignorant ass managed to not misspell "yue" this trip.

Always a pleasure.
 

bubba said...

"What "ain't gonna happen" is Barack Hussein Obama be president, unless it's president of the Chicago-area slumlords association. Fool."

The only thing that "ain't gonna happen" is the appearance of some evidence to support one of your lunatic fringe claims. That's a lock.

Ya got bupkis, spinderella.
 

Hey moron, get one of your little pals to show you how to use Google - then have them type in "Tony Rezko" for you. I will be glad to hear about what you find!
 

"Unproven allegations ain't evidence, spindy."

1. You wallow in generalities and allegations.

2. So, you sayin Rezko ain't corrupt, little fella?
 

"JWCoop10 said...
Anonymous said...

"along with your Japan and Germany posed no threat to the US and FDR went to war with them just to get us out of the depression he had us mired in" nonsense"

""Along with your "Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot nonsense.""

Nice try, little nameless-nitwit fella. Your coalition of the clueless evidence deficit is in the 90-120 day category."

This is an admission that you can't support your claim that Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot.
 

Wow - VT and RI are the biggest Bush haters! Boy, I'll bet our President can't sleep at night thinking about that! Guess you and your limp-wristed "pals" will have to stamp your petulant little feet and pout for a while longer! Can you lisp "President McCain"?
 

Anonymous said...

"JWCoop10 said...


"along with your Japan and Germany posed no threat to the US and FDR went to war with them just to get us out of the depression he had us mired in" nonsense"

""Along with your "Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot nonsense.""

Nice try, little nameless-nitwit fella. Your coalition of the clueless evidence deficit is in the 90-120 day category."

"This is an admission that you can't support your claim that Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he got shot."

No, it's confirmation that ya still got bupkis, little nameless limp dick-cheney got-bupkis fella.

Still, it's kinda cute the way you limp cheneys stick up for each other in a pathetic, futile, can't get no evidence up kinda way, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

"County"

Ya mean "country," Mr. criticize-people-for-their-typos Jeff Cooper?

And it isn't caitalized, either.
 

"you'll capable"

Ya mean, you'll "be" capable, little fella?
 

capitalized.

I read mine, and correct 'em.
 

"No, it's confirmation that ya still got bupkis, little nameless limp dick-cheney got-bupkis fella."

No. Actually, it's confirmation that you've got no evidence that Kennedy was about to get us out of Vietnam before he was assassinated.

Little fella.
 

"the argument that Kennedy was turning away from the war effort"

That aint evidence that "Kennedy was planning to get us out of Vietnam before he was shot," little fella

Which one of those sources contains the Executive Order to withdraw or reduce the troops? Which one of those contains a quote from Kennedy that he "planned to end the war by . . ."? Which one of those contains a commitment to a timetable for ending the war?

That's what I thought.
 

Just more unproven, revisionist left-wing garbage jw hears from Maher, Franken, Krugman, and the rest of his idols. No names, no evidence, just "someone said", blah blah blah! I wonder why his "plans" were never put into effect, seeing as how MacNamara, Johnson, and the rest of his admin were still around after his assassination. The loons cannot stand to have one of their heros as a strong military defender, so after a number of years, all of a sudden out comes "evidence" that things really weren't what they seemed to be! (Like Bush stealing elections, Clinton taking credit for the welfare reforms, budget balancing of the Republican Contract with America, which he initially and loudly opposed,etc.). Maybe jw can find evidence that Clinton's promise of a middle-income tax cut BEFORE his 1992 election REALLY MEANT the largest tax increase in history for EVERYONE!

And jw, maybe you should just shut up if you can't produce the goods, little fella'.
 

Bubba, I think everyone is frustrated by jw, but please refrain from saying shut up.

Thanks.
 

Gee, like Bubba says the truth.

It's clearly just disgruntled insulting ramblings designed to make himself feel good. Everything he posts are shoot from the hip rants based upon nothing more than preconceived false notions and stereotypes. He's admitted he's both homophobic and a racist. Clearly a weak mind with nothing better to do and a weak mind with a made-up reality. He's hoping that if he says it enough, it will become true.

But, we know better.

I hope he's got plently of blood pressure meds, because even the pundits are forecasting big democrat gains in both the house and senate in 2008.
 

It is not a question of whether Bubba's opinions are valid or not. Nor is it a question of whether jw's are valid or not.

I was just asking him to be civil, just as jw is asked to be civil.
 

Where did I admit to being a homophobe or racist? Did I make up the Republicans passing welfare reform and balancing the budget in the 90's? Did I make up the fact that Bill Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut and then gave all of us the biggest tax increase in history? Did I make up the failure on 10 different occasions by Clinton, Albright, and Berger to take out Bin Laden? Is Barack's middle name Hussein or did I make it up? Did he attend a Madrassa muslim school in his youth, or was Hillary lying? My name is Bubba, not jw.
 

guess who said..."a man who's infinitely more qualified to be President than the illegitimate trash currently squatting in the White House"

If a few years as a State Senator and a couple years in Congress (most of which were on the road campaigning, not legislating) are qualifications from your point of view for the most important job in the world, you don't ask for much. In a lucid moment, you might come to the conclusion lack of experience brought us to where we are today. Why ask for more of the same with Obama? Why not get some one that actually has some credentials?
 

Is Barack's middle name Hussein or did I make it up?

And just what the hell difference does it make what his middle name is, retard? Is there a law against having Hussein as a middle name?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

You foolishly assume that, because I point out your psychotic, vicious, antisocial rantings, I have any use for Bubba's rantings. I don't.

It's just that you're significantly more psychotic, vicious, and anti-social than he is.
 

Herald Tribune, 1/15/93:
"Seeking to explain why he is backtracking on a campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, President-elect Bill Clinton said Thursday that the plan was never a major theme in his race for the White House. Mr. Clinton, speaking at a news conference a day after saying he would have to 'revisit' his tax-cut plan, said America voted for him because of the "BIG THINGS' he wanted to do".
Guess that meant the biggest tax hike in history.
By the way, for all of you pathetic, leftists revisionists, if any of you had a job back then you might have been aware of Slick Willie's tax increase.
 

Bubba,

Lies! made up stuff! GOP slop! This isn't evidence! :)

I suspect this is one JW doesn't have in his archive of press clippings. Nice job.

JW.. does this one leave a mark? Whipped by Bubba.....nice.
 

It doesn't make any difference what Obama's middle name is, except that it is being used to suggest ties he does not have. Why don't we hear John McCain's middle name when he is referred to or Huckabee's?
 

bubba said...
Herald Tribune, 1/15/93:

"Seeking to explain why he is backtracking on a campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, President-elect Bill Clinton said Thursday that the plan was never a major theme in his race for the White House. Mr. Clinton, speaking at a news conference a day after saying he would have to 'revisit' his tax-cut plan, said America voted for him because of the "BIG THINGS' he wanted to do".

""Guess that meant the biggest tax hike in history.""

""By the way, for all of you pathetic, leftists revisionists, if any of you had a job back then you might have been aware of Slick Willie's tax increase.""

Guess again, spinderella.

Ya can toss that ignorant, unsubstantiated toxic trash in the gop-slop holding tanks labeled with the rest of the gop-slop fairy tales and other horsebrit hume.

That's the tax policy passed without a single gop vote that balanced the budget and nuked the first reagan/bush deficit.

-----------------------------------

SPIN AND TAXES: This week will be a time for tributes from those who admire President Reagan and his legacy. But whatever one thinks of the Reagan years, this week could present a chance to learn more about an important part of our recent history. Many scribes have begun to offer their views on aspects of the Reagan presidency. Paul Krugman’s column in this morning’s Times is a good—and useful—example.

“Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts,” Krugman writes. Krugman notes that Reagan “followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.” Here’s the skinny on Reagan Tax Increase number 1:

KRUGMAN: The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.
We’ll return to that highlighted point. For the record, here’s Krugman’s description of Reagan Tax Increase 2:
KRUGMAN: I’m referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

For those who don’t want to do the math, Krugman’s “middle-income families with children” were paying a combined burden of 18.4 percent by 1988, up from 17.7 percent in 1980. For these middle-class families, Reagan—who did reduce taxes overall—had actually raised their tax burden.
For many American consumers of “news,” these facts might come as a surprise. As we’ve told you again and again, our modern press corps is fact-averse, but is very much fable-friendly. We’re fed simple tales about every topic, including Reagan’s effect on taxes. With that in mind, let’s return to that point Krugman made about Reagan’s 1982 tax increase: “[A]s a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.” Presumably, Krugman included that fact today because he’s familiar with our spin-driven cable discourse, in which President Clinton’s 1993 increase is routinely said to have been “the largest tax increase in American history.”

The spinning began almost instantly, driven by the foolish—and largely uncorrected—hyperbole which now defines our discourse. On May 2, 1993, David Rosenbaum quoted a leading Republican in the New York Times:

ROSENBAUM: “This is the largest tax increase in the history of the human race, and it is not appealing to us,” said Representative Bill Archer of Texas, the top Republican on the [House Ways and Means Committee].
The largest in the history of the human race! On May 28, 1993, the Times’ Michael Wines captured more of the clowning:
WINES: “The largest tax increase in the world,” said Representative Deborah Price, an Ohio Republican.
“The largest tax increase in the history of civilization,” anted Representative Philip M. Crane, an Illinois Republican.

Lenin and Mao never taxed so much! For that matter, Pharoah was off the hook too! On radio, of course, Rush Limbaugh was peddling such pap every day. In late May, the Times tried to introduce a few facts in an unsigned “scorecard” feature:
NEW YORK TIMES (5/28/93): The Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper in such matters, estimates that the package will increase taxes by $270 billion over five years. That appears to make it larger than the 1982 tax increase, which raised $215 billion in new taxes over five years under President Ronald Reagan.
But if inflation is factored in, the Clinton package raises taxes less.
Viewed another way, the Clinton package would raise taxes in its fifth year by slightly more than 0.9 percent of gross domestic product. The Reagan tax increase ends up being larger because it increased taxes in its fifth year by 1.3 percent of gross domestic product.

As everyone knows, it’s pointless to compare budget costs across the decades without adjusting for inflation. On August 5, David Rosenbaum also laid out some facts:
ROSENBAUM (8/5/93): When the dollars are adjusted for inflation, this year’s budget bill is neither the biggest deficit reduction measure nor the biggest tax increase in recent years...
As for taxes, the 1982 law enacted under Ronald Reagan raised taxes by $215 billion over five years, which amounts to $286 billion in 1993 dollars, considerably more than this year's figure.

And, of course, as Krugman notes, the Reagan increase was followed by Reagan Tax Increase 2. But so what? Two days before Rosenbaum’s analysis appeared, Bob Dole had responded to an address by Clinton, saying the Man From Hope’s budget plan was “not just the largest tax increase in American history, but the largest tax increase in world history.” And uh-oh! Someone had penned a Times op-ed that same day. His name was Ronald Reagan:
REAGAN (8/3/93): [Clinton] knows Americans have always been kind and generous. In war and peace, they have been willing to make great sacrifices to serve a greater good. Today, the White House is trying to appeal to this great quality by getting us to go along with the largest tax increase in the history of our country.
Needless to say, Reagan was troubled by all the spinning. “Despite the slick presentation, talented spin doctors and White House talking heads all over TV, the simple truth is that this plan is bad for America,” he good-naturedly said.
This is just a tiny part of the recent history of tax-increase-spinning. For the record, we’re pretty sure that we saw Bob Dole, in recent years, acknowledge ruefully that the GOP may have exaggerated the size of Clinton’s tax hike a bit. But we’re darned if we can find the statement today. (Anyone know where he said it? We have an idea, but it won’t be on Nexis.) So why did Krugman mention the fact that Reagan’s 1982 increase was actually somewhat larger than Clinton’s? Most likely, because this silly spinning continues. Clinton’s “biggest tax increase in human history” is a silly staple of pseudo—con spin. Just last month, as a matter of fact, Sean Hannity made a comical adaptation. Here he was on April 16, trashing big-taxing John Kerry:

HANNITY: John Kerry has flipped and flopped on just about every issue...The only issue he is consistent on is voting for taxes. He voted for the two largest tax increases in American history, voted to raise taxes 350 times. And, you know, on every tax issue he’s wrong.
No, we’re not sure what Hannity meant; at the time, the official Bush/Cheney talking-point only said that Kerry had voted for the one biggest increase. Was Hannity comically accusing Kerry of voting for Reagan’s tax increase too? Of course, Kerry didn’t happen to be in the Congress at the time of the Reagan increase, but Hannity didn’t seem to know that. Here was another exchange from this same laughable program:
ELAINE KAMARCK: Well, first of all, you’ve got to start with the fact that John Kerry has been a deficit hawk from the word go. In the 80s—don’t laugh at me. Do you know that he voted with President Reagan? In the 80s, he voted for the famous Gramm-Rudman Act. Not many Democrats did that.
HANNITY: Did he vote for the Reagan tax cuts?

KAMARCK: He voted for—

HANNITY: Did he vote for the Reagan tax cuts? No.

No he didn’t, and neither did you. You weren’t in the Congress then, and neither was Ol’ Flip-Flip, John Kerry.
This week could be a time for tributes—and beyond that, it could be a time for learning. But the press corps rarely lays out facts when clowning clowns make a joke of your discourse. Today, Krugman offers some information. Expect it to end right there.

(Note: None of this has a thing to do with the merits of these different tax increases. But our discourse is rarely about the merits. Our discourse is about pleasing spin.)

VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: In October 2003, conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote a detailed review of Reagan’s tax increases. For the record, he referred to Reagan’s 1982 hike as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.” Incomparably, we quoted Bartlett at length. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/31/03.

Meanwhile, one last point on that Clinton increase. By the time Clinton’s budget plan passed, Americans were deeply misinformed because of all the silly spinning. In our discourse, spin and dissembling almost always overwhelm the press corps’ feeble attempts at clarification. Too see how little the voters knew, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/12/02. As usual, American voters lacked the first clue. Our discourse tends to be like that.
 

"That's the tax policy passed without a single gop vote that balanced the budget and nuked the first reagan/bush deficit."

True.

But that wasn't the point you were making. You called it a middle class tax cut. Now you are saying something different.

Now THAT'S spin.
 

Amazing how jw and the lefties like to bring up Paul Krugman, the leftist fiction writer for the NY Times; hey, he was such a pro-communist whacko that he couldn't even get a job in the Clinton Administration! He has never seen a socialist scheme he didn't like! (Except for that little "embarrassing situation" when he had to admit to taking money from ENRON in 1999 for "sitting on a panel" that did nothing - hush money?)
 

Evidence: in Krugman's own words:
"In early 1999 I was asked to serve on a panel that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues." (For his complete confession, GOOGLE "Enron and Paul Krugman") It sure is fun refuting the revisionist lefties, but jw, you make it so easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, like hitting fungos before the BIG game. Oh yes, that principled attacker of all things big business refused to give the money back!

Have a nice day, little moron.
 

jw's 1:57 posting is incoherent.

How surprising.
 

Anonymous said...

"Ah, another afternoon of reasoned persuasion, civilty, and charm from our good friend jw:"

"Civilty," eh?

'Nuff said.

Well, my work here is done.

Ya know, little too dumb to live fella, if you're gonna keep diggin' your own grave, slittin' your own throat and pullin' the dirt in behind ya, I'm not gonna even bother to put on my uniform and grab a bat. I'll just stay in the clubhouse, play cards and watch TV with the other big leaguers. You and your imaginary little nameless-nitwit friends can see if bush-league bubble boy will spring for pizza on the way home.

Dismissed.
 

"jw's 1:57 posting is incoherent."

Ya mean you're dim, dumb and scum and ya can't understand it.

I'm shocked.

Dismissed.
 

"our ignorant, ill-informed suspicions aren't evidence"

"our"?

Make typos much?

"How does his attendance at a Conference in 1999 alter alter the fact"

"alter alter"?

Make typos much?

"It ya ever stepped on the field"

"It ya"?

Make typos much?

Ignorant hypocritical little fella.
 

Notice how there are fewer postings here than there were before . . .
 

??????????????????????????????
 

That's right. When jw's postings get deleted, the total number of postings actually go down.