INDEX
- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What Tax Increases Does Gene Taylor Want to “Pay For” ObamaCare?
Sunday, August 2, 2009 6:17 PMRep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) states he will support Obama’s government takeover of healthcare if it is “paid for,” Blue Dog language referring to tax increases
In an interview with WLOX on Saturday, Congressman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) stated he would support the Pelosi/Waxman government takeover of healthcare if it was “paid for”.
Rep. Taylor now has at least three positions on the Pelosi healthcare scheme:
(1) He will support it if it has “major changes.” This was his position on his website as of July 30, 2009. Yet after the major changes orchestrated by Congressman Taylor’s own Blue Dog caucus, the congressman has become irate, offensive and belligerent in his attempts to distance himself from the caucus he helped found.
(2) He “opposes” the plan. This was stated in the offensive press release, littered with ad hominem attacks, issued by Rep. Taylor on Friday, July 31.
(3) He will support the plan if it is “paid for”. This was revealed in an interview with Mississippi’s WLOX on Saturday, August 1. Rep. Taylor’s description of his newest policy is at http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=10832230. It is critical to note the Blue Dog Coalition’s enforced policy of “pay fors”. Since Speaker Pelosi took the helm of Congress, Rep. Taylor’s Blue Dog Caucus has insisted that any government spending is fine as long as it is “paid for” with new tax increases. Rep. Taylor has even voted to include the tax increase rule as a part of the governing rules of the House of Representatives. Now, Rep. Taylor admits that he will support government-run healthcare if it is simply coupled with enough tax increases.
It should come as no surprise to Rep. Taylor’s constituents that he is disingenuous. His rhetoric back in Biloxi just doesn’t match his votes in Washington. In Mississippi, Rep. Taylor signed a Pledge not to increase taxes. In Washington, Rep. Taylor voted to break his Pledge on three occasions the very first year he was offered the chance. In fact, Rep. Taylor only waited 14 days after he elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker before voting for his first tax increase; this one was on U.S. fuel production only a few months before gas climbed to more than $4.00 a gallon.
Now, Rep. Taylor’s Blue Dogs are cutting deals with Speaker Pelosi that punish small businesses with tax hikes during the worst recession in 20 years, and he says he’ll support the plan if it is “paid for”. Already the Blue Dog plan increases the tax rate paid by most small businesses by over 50 percent, imposes a new payroll tax of 8 percent on successful small employers, and slaps on a new tax on individuals of up to 2.5 percent of income. How many more tax increases does Rep. Gene Taylor want to “pay for” ObamaCare?














Comments
I would be careful about making broad allegations toward Rep. Taylor. I lived on the Mississippi Gulf Coast for 11 years, and I have never found him to be disingenious as you claim. As your commentary appears to jump around from point to point, I find nothing objectionable with Rep. Taylor saying that a program should be paid for before being passed. Bottom line: he doesn't support current legislation. The chance of any current legislation being modified to be completely covered with revenue is zero. He knows that, and you should as well. His record over his entire legislative career is very consistent on being a budget deficit monitor.
>> charles farrior Monday, August 3, 2009 6:45 AM Report Comment
Sounds to me that the only jumping "around from point to point" is Rep. Taylor's position on the bill. These aren't broad allegations but merely citations of what this Representative has said.
>> Jennifer Monday, August 3, 2009 9:41 AM Report Comment
Just because Rep. Taylor may not support the health care legislation unless it is paid for does not mean that he is not voting for a tax increase. He is an ATR pledge signer, meaning he took a vow to his constituents and the public that he would not raise taxes, yet he is doing just that through his vague Blue-Dog rhetoric-"if the [bill] is paid for." ATR should continue to expose Taylor's finicky political decisions; one minute Taylor is promising his voters that he will not raise their taxes, the next he supporting government-run health care.
>> Bill Monday, August 3, 2009 10:50 AM Report Comment
Con't...Rep. Taylor--if you're going to be a liberal Democrat, then be one. Stop being hypocritical and either commit to upholding your campaign promises or be honest with your constituents and let them know that you will vote with Pelosi. You can't have your conservative cake and eat it too.
>> Bill Monday, August 3, 2009 10:54 AM Report Comment
Rep. Taylor should be more mindful of his own hypocrisy before getting into a media fight with Americans for Tax Reform.
>> Conservative Tom Monday, August 3, 2009 12:36 PM Report Comment
IF THE HEALTH UNCARE BILL PASS, WE WILL SPEND ALL THE MONEY REQUIRED TO DEFEND YOU AND ALL THE DEM-WITS. DEM-WITS WILL PAY THE PRICE IN 2010.
>> Foy Hodge Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:31 AM Report Comment