March 29, 2007

Steve Forbes Will "Help Lead" Giuliani's Campaign
— Ace

A little supply-side somethin'-somethin':

Republican ex-mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani won backing for his 2008 presidential bid from billionaire publisher Steve Forbes, who will also help lead his campaign, Giuliani's team said.

...

"Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint," Giuliani said in a statement released by his campaign team.

"As mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline, including tax cuts, lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue," Forbes was quoted as saying in the statement.

"It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results."

Weighing against this is a New York Sun editorial knocking Giuliani for opposing a cut in the "commuter tax" levied on workers who work in, but do not live in, NYC.

John Podhertz notes it wasn't that simple.

And it wasn't. For one thing, Giuliani was mayor of New York City, not mayor of Jersey City or Greenwich, Connecticut. Between cutting taxes on New York City residents or residents of New Jersey, Connectucut, or up the Hudson New York, which do you think he favored?

For another, there's actually some justification for a commuter tax. Taxes are generally levied according to where one lives, rather than where one actually generates the income being taxed. So New York City suburbs could get fat on taxing income actually generated in New York City -- Giuliani (and pretty much every New York City politician) figured they ought to have a cut of that.

Finally, those who don't live in NYC, but are working there, do benefit from a lot of the services the city provides. Not all of them, of course, and not to the extent that a resident does, but it's not obviously unfair that a commuting NYC worker should pay a bit to the city, if only to keep up the surface roads he uses and pay the police and fire departments which protect him.

The tax was eventually repealed.

The result was an instant $200 million hole in the New York City budget. In effect, Albany was challenging Giuliani to raise taxes in New York City — on his own constituents — to make up for the shortfall it had caused to curry favor with voters in Rockland and Dutchess Counties. Giuliani reacted as any politician would react in such a situation. He got really mad, and did what little was in his power to do — which is to say, almost nothing — to get Albany to change its mind.

He concludes:

In short, the Giuliani opposition to the commuter-tax repeal tells you nothing about his view of taxation generally. As mayor, he did what he could to cut some of the most onerous taxes in the nation that had been imposed specifically by the City Council and previous mayors. His City Council wasn't all that high on doing a lot of it, but he muscled some of it through and that was more than anyone who preceded him had done.

It also tells you that given the choice between taxing people whose votes he relied upon and taxing people whose votes he didn't rely upon, he was more in favor of taxing the latter. Which is hardly revealing, now is it?

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

1 All this is fine and good, but didn't Rudy move in with some gay men when his wife threw him out?

Posted by: sparkleworthy at March 29, 2007 10:02 AM (uSomN)

2 If we see Giuliani descend into asserting that a flat tax is the cure to all ills--from economic malaise to the War on Terror, to genital warts--we'll know Forbes is having undue influence. It seemed to be his catch-all when he ran.

Posted by: red speck at March 29, 2007 10:07 AM (Lc9rf)

3 See? A bit of negative on Rudy on taxes and Ace goes out of his way to spin it for Rudy. Not saying he shouldn't or that it isn't true, just wish he would show some of the same courtesy to "others running."  

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 10:11 AM (ZLSG3)

4 See? A bit of negative on Rudy on taxes and Ace goes out of his way to
spin it for Rudy. Not saying he shouldn't or that it isn't true, just
wish he would show some of the same courtesy to "others running." 


Based on what?  The Blog Fairness Doctrine?

Posted by: Slublog at March 29, 2007 10:14 AM (R8+nJ)

5

Just for the record "sparkleworthy," It didn't bother me a bit that he moved in with 2 gay guys. I myself have lived with 2 gay guys when I was doing theatre, so take your sterotype and put it somewhere else.


Him humilating and cheating on his wife while in public office did bother me a bit though.


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 10:18 AM (ZLSG3)

6 Flat taxes DO cure genital warts.

Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 10:20 AM (m6c4H)

7

Taxes are generally levied according to where one lives, rather than where one actually generates the income being taxed.


Uh, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but income tax is levied where the income is EARNED not where the person lives... This is why sports athletes have very complicated returns... They have to pay income tax in the away stadiums that they play in...


Posted by: JFH at March 29, 2007 10:26 AM (c+Pwv)

8

just wish he would show some of the same courtesy to "others running."  


Huh?


Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 29, 2007 10:28 AM (pzen5)

9 I really don't buy Giuliani as a supply sider, but it's irrelevant. He'll be buried when Fred Thompson throws his hat in the ring anyway.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 29, 2007 10:33 AM (wmgz8)

10

Look, Sparkle, you know I think the world of you, but this was you:


Rudy prefers two gay guys....heh.


And though it was attempted humor (as was my post,) I'm pretty sure it's not the first time you've brought this up. It's not that I think you care about who he bunked with, it's that I think you believe we as conservatives might be put off by his choice of couches.


That's almost insulting, like the mere mention of gay men might cause stodgy old homophobes like us (okay me) to turn sour on Rudy. I (we'd) like a little credit for being more open-minded then that. I don't think a person would have to be super-nonjudgmental to overlook Rudy's choice of bunkmates.


And I think you have a bad read on Donna Hanover, but given that, his philandering cannot be excused. I think most men would have responded as he did, however.


Posted by: sparkleworthy at March 29, 2007 10:35 AM (uSomN)

11 Hey Red,

Forbes is a one trick pony on the flat tax but it is a hell of a trick. 

That said, there's no way Rudy is running on or near it. My guess is they go way back and this give Rudy a little right wing economic cache that will soon be forgotten.

What were we talking about?


Posted by: Drew at March 29, 2007 10:41 AM (gNyUT)

12

The sheer amout of anti-Gravel bias on this blog is breathtaking.


Oh, well yeah.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 29, 2007 10:51 AM (pzen5)

13

Uh, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but income tax is levied where the income is EARNED not where the person lives... This is why sports athletes have very complicated returns... They have to pay income tax in the away stadiums that they play in...


Generally speaking for States, yes, as most states have state income taxes. For localities it is different, as most localities do not have local income taxes, they have property taxes. (They, - and also states and the feds - also have a variety of special good taxes and special use taxes and regulatio, licensing and permit fees and county stickers and license plates and sales taxes and tolls and a truly awful bit of semi-hidden taxes that would boggle the mind to see qualified in one place....but the major tax levied on everyone at a federal and state level is income, at a local level it is property). The city would still reap a bundle in sales taxes though.


I agree with you though...this is no excuse. It is true that if all those people making millions on Wall Street go home to million dollar mansions in another town or suburb, that sweet sweet million dollar property tax money goes to the suburb not the city. BUT, since they are still doing business in New York, bet your ass that multi-million dollar commerce business is being taxed to high heaven on the business at a higher rate then personal taxes go for, AND the property tax on the multi-million dollar office building is payed for by someone...


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 10:59 AM (m6c4H)

14 The sheer amout of anti-Gravel bias on this blog is breathtaking.

Just because I prefer my roads and driveways paved doesn't make me an anti-Gravelite!

Posted by: Drew at March 29, 2007 11:01 AM (gNyUT)

15 Of course, NYC does have an income tax. The commuter tax was a fraction of the rate levied on residents.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2007 11:02 AM (uSomN)

16

Nobody is getting gipped on due tax money. Just about every single thing you do at all is taxed at least twice if not more.


If you buy a soda pop, you pay sales tax for using your money to buy something with it even though you allready payed income tax when you got it, and your employer paid some taxes on it when he gave it to you, and CocaCola Co payed various different taxes in the making and transporting of it, plus both them and the gas station will pay taxes (as companies) on any profit they get from it, before paying their employees who will then also pay income taxes...


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 11:04 AM (m6c4H)

17 >>>A bit of negative on Rudy on taxes and Ace goes out of his way to spin
it for Rudy. Not saying he shouldn't or that it isn't true, just wish
he would show some of the same courtesy to "others running." 

I'm also fair to Thompson and Romney.



Posted by: ace at March 29, 2007 11:07 AM (+u1X0)

18

Of course, NYC does have an income tax.


That's fucking insane.


Chicago doesn't even have an income tax.


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 11:12 AM (m6c4H)

19 Why the hell would anyone want to live in the city?

Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 11:12 AM (m6c4H)

20

He also didn't mention that Ron Paul guy.


Nor did he specify which Thompson he spoke of, because my man Tommy is getting shafted here.


He's been in it (I think) for weeks or maybe even months now and I still don't even know who the hell he is. Has Ace been telling me who Tommy Thompson is, in case I might turn out to like this mysterious stranger? No. No he has not.


The wool has been removed from my eyes, I will tell you that sir! Now I see why we need Nancy to pass that fairness doctrine.


Is Tommy Thompson in favor of the fairness doctrine? I don't know! See? See the problem here?


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 11:18 AM (m6c4H)

21

Federal tax, State tax, City Tax, Commuter tax. That's why all those businesses move their headquarters to NYC. 


You mean they don't? Nevermind.


Posted by: roc ingersol at March 29, 2007 11:24 AM (m2CN7)

22

New York is not alone with the tax on the income. Of course San Francisco and Philly tax income too. I'm sure Seattle has an income tax, since the place is crawling with Sloughbags. Many more.


At least NYC is the fucking Capital of the World, so we have that going for us.


Posted by: spongeworthy at March 29, 2007 11:28 AM (uSomN)

23 Guilliani should use this as his campaign commercial. "You're welcome, bitches!"

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at March 29, 2007 11:39 AM (JefgB)

24 Tommy Thompson!

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 29, 2007 11:42 AM (w4Bx4)

25

Look, Sparkle, you know I think the world of you, but this was you:


Rudy prefers two gay guys....heh.


And though it was attempted humor (as was my post,) I'm pretty sure it's not the first time you've brought this up. It's not that I think you care about who he bunked with, it's that I think you believe we as conservatives might be put off by his choice of couches.


That's almost insulting, like the mere mention of gay men might cause stodgy old homophobes like us (okay me) to turn sour on Rudy. I (we'd) like a little credit for being more open-minded then that. I don't think a person would have to be super-nonjudgmental to overlook Rudy's choice of bunkmates.


And I think you have a bad read on Donna Hanover, but given that, his philandering cannot be excused. I think most men would have responded as he did, however.


Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong again. First of all it was a joke since the post was about 2 hot lesbians. Someone had asked something about Rudy in that regard (I can't remember what) It never even occurred to me that it was somehow a way to show conservatives that they should be put off by Rudy.


You are telling me that MOST men would have gone on national TV to announce his divorce before he told his wife? I don't think so. I don't know much about Hanover and I am sure I wouldn't like her if I did know her, but no woman deserves that. 


 


 


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 12:25 PM (ZLSG3)

26 Oops, Forgot to put the quotes in. Sorry.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 12:26 PM (ZLSG3)

27

Also, it WAS the first time I ever brought up Rudy living with two gay guys.


 


Thanks for the backup Beth...LOVE YOU!


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 12:28 PM (ZLSG3)

28

No Beth, I am not for Newt. It just makes me ill that the whole time we watch this circus that was Clinton and Monica, he was cheating on his wife.


Ugh.


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 12:53 PM (ZLSG3)

29

I would love a Newt candidacy.


I don't really care if he sodomizes Vaclav Klaus in the bathroom of the UN on his anniversary. That man knows what he's doing policy-wise.


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 01:08 PM (Uh5fR)

30

Newt's not going to win. I'm under no delusions. I said I'd love a Newt candidacy but I harbor no illusions of it actually happening. I don't think he could win a general. Which is a damn shame.


But as to why put up damaged goods.....damaged goods are all we have! Fred Thompson, Guiliani and Gingrich have all been divorced. Guiliani and Gingrich twice and both cheated.


Romney has some waffle issues in the past, same as virtually all of em except Gingrich...and he's got like 3% so that's just not gonna happen either. I'd take Romney as my second choicec but it's not gonna happen.


And then there's McCain. With republicans like this, who need democrats?


Posted by: Entropy at March 29, 2007 01:22 PM (Uh5fR)

31 It isn't the divorces that bother anyone, it's the cheating and humilating.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 29, 2007 01:55 PM (ZLSG3)

32 I don't really care if he sodomizes Vaclav Klaus in the bathroom of the UN on his anniversary.

Now I don't care who you are, that's teh funnee™ right there!

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 29, 2007 02:38 PM (CkYzD)

Posted by: laptop batteries at August 26, 2010 03:39 PM (l6w/z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
90kb generated in CPU 0.35, elapsed 3.2746 seconds.
62 queries taking 3.1452 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.