|
Tax issues are bipartisan because they work
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * Some Republicans have complained (with some justification) that Bruce Rauner is being excoriated for legally avoiding paying payroll taxes over two years. But this rather draggy, not well produced YouTube ad by Republican Darlene Senger’s campaign uses basically the same issue against her Democratic opponent…
The video… Obviously, Foster did pay some taxes, like sales taxes. But it’s a good political issue to use against somebody and that’s why people do it. Also, note to the Senger campaign: If you want people to watch your YouTube ads, make them shorter, make them more watchable, give them some snap, for crying out loud. YouTube ads shouldn’t just be a mass dumping ground. * Meanwhile, Republicans have also complained about Pat Quinn’s demands that Bruce Rauner release his 2013 taxes - which he hasn’t yet filed - and provide much more details about his previous tax returns. As much as the GOP hates to admit it, that attack works as well. Illinois Review…
|
- Chris - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 12:53 pm:
How many dollars of FICA has Pat Quinn paid in the past 20 years?
Yes, I realize that his current (and many prior) job is outside of Social Security, but that isn’t the point, is it? Does anyone *know* that Rauner will fill out the paper work to receive Social Security?
- jim - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 12:53 pm:
what a shock — hypocrisy in politics. they say whatever is convenient at the moment. that’s why these races are such a farce.
by the way, do the Dems now agree what Rauner did is no big deal because Foster did the same thing.,
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 12:55 pm:
But it’s different, because Foster isn’t a billionaire, only a millionaire…
Also he is a scientist and businessman…Don’t you understand?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:16 pm:
Why do we, the voters, think we’re entitled to look at somebody else’s tax returns?
- Chris - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
“Why do we, the voters, think we’re entitled to look at somebody else’s tax returns?”
For the same reason we’re ‘entitled’ to any other information about candidates?
We aren’t ‘entitled’ to it, but if one candidate willingly provides it, and the other doesn’t, what impression does that give?
- Jimbo - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
Public perusal lol. Looks like IR just found out about alliteration.
- anon - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:26 pm:
+1 @Demoralized
As long as it isn’t criminal, it’s none of my business / I don’t really care.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
==We aren’t ‘entitled’ to it, but if one candidate willingly provides it, and the other doesn’t, what impression does that give?==
Impressions are important. I just don’t think any of them should provide it in the first place. Not my business nor is it anybody else’s business. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not naive about the politics of it. Just don’t agree with it.
- Chris - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 1:54 pm:
“I just don’t think any of them should provide it in the first place.”
But if you are, say, a career public employee, and your opponent is, say, a centi-millionaire who rarely pays income tax at an OI rate, don’t you show yours in order to put focus on the centi-millionaire?
How is that meaningfully different from a regular church goer making hay about being a ‘devout Christian’ when his opponent is basically agnostic, in a district where the evangelical set really gets out the vote?
In both cases, it’s a totally personal matter that *also* says something about the candidate that is meaningful to many voters.
What about gun-owner/not-gun-owner. Dog lover/puts dog on the car roof. Veteran/not. etc etc etc. Each provides some insight into the person who you are possibly voting for, but is not actually determinate of how they would govern.
Why is any of it relevant? Why don’t people tune out the personalities, and focus solely on the policies? Because that’s not how most people (I might say no one, but you are apparently the exception Demo) work.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 2:21 pm:
Too bad tax reform isn’t a successful bipartisan issue as well.
- Chris - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 2:23 pm:
“Too bad tax reform isn’t a successful bipartisan issue as well.”
It’s certainly bipartisan–in the apathy toward it.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 2:44 pm:
Brad Schneider might be soft b/c the Dem brand is having problems.
It might be that Israel voters, especially affluent Israel voters, are shifting to the Right.
If might be that economic progressives have a hard time embracing Brad Schneider’s economic policies.
Or it might be that as people deal with Brad Schneider they just ain’t impressed with him.
Heard an anecdote at Netroots Nation where Schneider decided he couldn’t even have a civil conversation with someone based on him/her working for an org Schneider didn’t like in the past. It was a Dem org.
If Schneider can’t be more mature than that, perhaps people are thinking they can get a better representative.
- Adam Smith - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 3:21 pm:
In Schneider’s case there are a lot of questions about how he earns a living. All he says is he is a “businessman.”. Everyone knows what Rauner did at GTCR and that he got loads of dough for it. In Schneider’s case, voters should know what the guy did to earn a living, and if he actually did earn a living, before jumping on the government payroll.
- Tom - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 4:00 pm:
Senger may want to stop with the “Republican for Congress” line. I know this is a midterm year and the GOP seems to have more enthusiasm, but the 11th is a Democratic favored district and she already won the primary. Unless she has polling that indicates identifying herself as a Republican is the right track, I’d suggest she ditch that line. Just my two cents.
- walker - Thursday, Jul 24, 14 @ 4:57 pm:
===”Everyone knows what Rauner did at GTCR”===
Lol
Very hard to tell from his own reporting.