Oh, and as you might or might not be aware, Bobby Jindal tried to force through exactly this in Louisiana last month, only to be thoroughly humiliated as both the public and his own party turned strongly against his plans as soon as he had to reveal the dystopian cuts necessary to balance his budget with no income tax. As it happens, Republican budget math is astoundingly unpopular, even among Republicans, if the numbers actually have to add up. I'm guessing that's why you didn't even try.
The state income tax makes up 44.6% of the state's general fund, compared to 2.3% produced by the corporate income tax. We are required to balance the budget by state law. How were you planning to compensate for the loss of nearly half our revenue? Are you planning huge tax increases on businesses? I assume not. Does the magic confidence fairy of tax cuts double our sales tax revenue? Or is the idea that we simply make massive cuts in revenue first and then the massive cuts to our underfunded schools (47.2% of the general fund's spending) and our already brutally stingy social services (another 23.8%) follow later once we've turned out our pockets and found no way to pay for them? Don't you think this is something you should have addressed in your article?
Have you never voted before, Pronghorn? The Working Families Party has a candidate in just about every election here. If it's an Alvin Greene/Ben Frazier situation, as it regrettably so often is, they run their own third-party candidate, but often they give their endorsement to the Democratic candidate. It's called fusion voting, and a number of states have it. It allows third parties to receive support without their torpedoing the candidates that are their clear second choice (and I'd like to note, to all those haters on the Green Party posts here, that that candidate got as I repeatedly predicted far less than 1% of the vote, as they always do).
"Why should the Green Party and its candidates silence themselves by not running and thus perpetuate a continuation of the current lesser of two evils system?"
Because making it more likely that Republicans get elected directly makes the country and its citizens worse off. You know it, Republicans certainly know it, and they're laughing themselves silly every time there's a Green Party flareup. We already endured eight years of Bush due to attitudes like yours. If you care so much about progressive policy, try steering the party that can actually win elections and govern into a more progressive direction. You didn't bother running a progressive primary candidate, though, did you?
"Adam83 appears not to have read the details of the poll that included Eugene Platt. It showed that 5% of the 2012 Romney voters intend to vote for Platt, but only 1% of the 2012 Obama voters intend to do that."
I read the crosstabs. I'm sure Mr. Platt is quite eager to appeal to his legions of Romney voters who strongly disagree with just about every single one of his stances but hate Sanford so much they'll tell a pollster they'll vote for literally anyone who isn't him or a Democrat. But they won't. They'll stay home or reluctantly vote for Sanford - you'll notice Sanford's entire strategy at this point is just to say Pelosi as many times as possible hoping to get said people to hold their nose and head to the booth. As I said, polls always significantly overestimate third-party support. You've given no reason at all why we should include in debates every goofy extremist who pays the filing fee when they have no actual campaign or support to speak of. The 15% requirement is there for a reason - so the debate lets us actually focus on the candidates with real campaigns instead of being hijacked by buffoons who inevitably end up with 1-2% of the vote, as Mr. Platt almost certainly will. Plenty of third-party candidates in all types of races have met this requirement. Mr. Platt isn't remotely close, it's not a three-way race, and he knows it and is just whining to try to get some free publicity.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper