|
"Tell
me what company you keep and I'll tell you what
you are." --Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
(Spanish writer, author of the masterwork 'El
Quixote', 1547-1616)
You
know that RINO (Republican In Name Only)
incumbents are in trouble when Democratic activists
feel compelled to come to their rescue. In the
“Raising Kaine” blog, a web log with the
stated mission of “Blogging Tim Kaine into the
Governor’s Mansion,” we are given some
befuddling reasoning.
In
a posting on June 2, 2005, we are told that
Republicans face a test between the “anti-tax”
and the “balanced budget/responsible
government” wings of the party. Obviously, Kaine
operatives side with the latter contingent. Just
remember that “balanced budget” and
“responsible government” are code words for
higher taxes and greater government spending.
The
Kainiacs tell us that the current fight is between
the “‘economic prosperity and quality of
life’ pro-business Republicans vs. the ‘tax
cuts at all costs’ wing of the party.” And to
make sure we know who they are cheerleading for,
we are told that Lt. Gov. candidate, Sean
Connaughton, along with incumbent Republican
Delegates Joe May, R-Leesburg, Gary Reese,
R-Fairfax, and Harry Parrish, R-Manassas, are the
candidates they are most closely attuned to
philosophically.
This
plea emanating from Democrat circles should open
the eyes of Republicans planning to vote in the
June 14 primary. Republicans need to ask
themselves: Do they really want to nominate
candidates so closely aligned with what Democrat
activists identify as "responsible
governance?"
Most
self-respecting Republicans would revolt at the
thought that their candidates are perceived by the
Democrats as doing the “right thing.”
The
face of the Democrat Party we have come to know
generally believes in a bloated, cradle-to-grave
nanny state; a government that works against
enabling its citizens and prefers to keep them on
the dole; a government that actively promotes
infanticide, the interests of teacher-union bosses
over the education of our children, gay marriage,
higher taxes and protecting the “rights” of
illegal immigrants.
Are
these the principles that these so-called
Republicans want to campaign on? Sadly, that
appears to be the case, as some of these same
Republicans expect to defeat their conservative
challengers by getting Democrats to vote for them
in the Republican primary.
Which
begs the question, why are these RINOs running
under the Republican label? Since they are
defended by Democrats and seek Democrat votes to
get elected, why not run as Democrats?
The
tax-and-spend positions espoused by Sean
Connaughton as well as the many falsehoods being
propagated by his campaign have been well
documented before in “The
Politics of Lies,” and “The
Politics of Lies II.” But what about the
three delegates mentioned in the Raising Kaine
blog?
Gary
Reese, like John Kerry, actually voted for the tax
increase before he voted against it. You see,
according to a written explanation sent to at
least one of his constituents, Gary believes that
a $1 billion tax increase is OK, but once it grew
a penny above the $1 billion dollar mark, it
became unacceptable!
The
2004 Republican Party platform states: “We
believe that good government is based on a system
of limited taxes and spending.” When Gary Reese
votes for a $1 billion dollar tax increase over
and above a projected budget surplus of $1.5
billion, Reese and the other RINOs are voting
against the principles of their own party.
But
Reese has been on the wrong side of the tax issue
time and time again. In 2002 he supported the
sales tax referendum. He also has supported giving
taxing authority to the school boards. And he has
opposed refunding the state budget surplus to the
taxpayers.
Harry
Parrish was the chief patron of the $1.5 billion
tax increase last year. Harry has consistently
supported tax increases. He voted to cap the car
tax relief. And he bottled up in committee a real
estate property tax cap bill.
Harry
also has tried to raise the gasoline tax, but
wouldn’t do it now because with gasoline prices
above the $2.00 a gallon threshold, “people
would notice.” Is that what we expect from a
so-called conservative politician—to enact tax
increases that people won’t notice?
Parrish,
like Reese, opposed returning the state budget
surplus to the taxpayers, because “the
government needs the money.”
This
was also echoed in a recent radio interview on
WMAL, by Joe May, whose basic message was that
there is never enough money to meet the needs of
government. Which begs the question, how much is
enough?
State
government spending was projected to grow in
double digits long before there was any talk of a
tax increase. But does it make sense to allow
state spending to grow faster than the growth in
personal incomes?
Most
working families have contended with average
annual household budget increases considerably
below 5 percent. So why should the state
government budget be allowed to grow at a rate
approximating 20 percent?
Big
spenders like May, Parrish, and Reese don’t want
to answer that question. They keep on harping
about unmet government needs and never bother to
ask what family needs will go unmet because of the
government’s insatiable appetite for
spending—an appetite fueled by the confiscatory
tax policies enacted by a Democrat Governor, with
the help of a RINO minority in the General
Assembly.
And
while we are talking about Joe May, let us not
forget that the toll increase that went into
effect last month on the Dulles Toll Road was a
direct result of a bill he championed last year,
which authorized the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to issue bonds not for improving the toll
road but for diverting toll revenues to fund mass
transit. (See “Railroaded
Again.”)
The
Raising Kaine blogers are right in one respect.
There is little doubt that the primary elections
on June 14, 2005, will have a defining impact on
the future of the Republican Party.
--
June 6, 2005
|
