Couldn’t Help But Notice (111507)
Gregg Jackson notes that the specific points he raised last week on Mitt Romney’s record (also noted in this BizzyBlog post) have not been specifically refuted. Oh, but the attacks that are totally devoid of foundation on Jackson and two other Romney critics raising similar specific questions continue. The first several responses at Jackson’s Townhall column last night continue down that odious path.
We’re still waiting, people, and we’re not going away.
Update, 10:00 a.m.: Today is Commonwealth Care Penalty Day, and Romney supporters “speculate” that the Thompson campaign paid off the National Right to Life Committee for its endorsement (I’m not kidding). More at this post.
_______________________________________________
Apparently Eliot Spitzer is trying to see how quickly his poll numbers can drop to zero:
Under a new policy, major electronic retailers, such as Amazon.com, will be required to collect sales tax on all purchases from New York. The policy, based on a novel legal theory, could hasten the end of the Internet’s era as a duty-free marketplace if other states follow New York’s lead. With the policy, New York immediately took the lead among states that are seeking to tax online commerce.
In essence, New York thinks it can force e-tailers with “affiliate” programs like Amazon to collect sales tax on every purchase made by a state resident if any one of those affiliates lives in the state. This would apply whether or not the purchase was made through an affiliate.
The state believes that a resident affiliate creates what is called “nexus,” or a business presence. I don’t believe the courts will buy this. If I’m wrong, the obvious response would be for e-tailers to end affiliate programs completely, or just for the states pursuing this “novel” theory.
Update: Spitzer has backed down, in what has to be close to record time.
______________________________________________
“Ho, ho, ho,” no mo, mo, mo (HT The Corner)?
______________________________________________
Give Fred Thompson credit, as an IBD editorial does, for stepping up with a Social Security reform plan:
It’s a gutsy move. Especially when you consider that President Bush, who courageously brought the topic up, got exactly nowhere with it — even with a Republican Congress.
There’s very little gain in this for Thompson politically. He will now take potshots from the AARP and other special interest groups, not to mention those on the left who will falsely accuse him of trying to “dismantle” Social Security.
That said, hats off to Thompson for his plan. It would trade off future benefits of those now working — people over 57 wouldn’t have their benefits touched — in exchange for letting them create 401(k)-style accounts. He would have government match the private savings that workers put in. And it’s entirely voluntary.
Workers could put aside as much as 2% of their Social Security money in a private investment fund. Upon retirement, they’d have a nest egg to pass on to their children. They’d also have the higher returns markets have always provided in modern history.
It beats the daylights out of the inevitable alternative, which is some combination of tax increases or benefit cuts.
