I haven't had the time to settle in and think about how I feel about the new political landscape.
In the last week, I've traveled back and forth to Washington twice, first, to do two days of appointments interviews and second, to attend CNN's election night blog party. The first trip set in motion the second stage of interviewing, when we bring candidates here to Madison for full-day interviews. As the appointments chair, I'm caught up in a whirl of scheduling and hosting.
The second trip took the place of simulblogging the election from my calm TV room, with my customary distance from the political world. Immersed in the blog party, my resistance to politics surged and the usual flow of opinions got stifled. I'm still feeling a little fried from it all.
In spite of that, I recorded a BloggingHeads episode this morning, and I hope that comes out okay. I'll link to that when it's up, which is not yet. (Though you might want to go over there and watch Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus talk about the election.)
Anyway, I finally have a night of serenity, and I want to watch and read some news and see if I have anything to say. Even though I fretted that the Democrats would do dangerous things if they got power, I'm not alarmed. My tendency is to be fatalistic but optimistic. I assume the Democrats will shape up and live up to their responsibilities, and I like the new conservative blood they've transfused themselves with.
As for Bush, it may do him good to work with Democrats. It will bring out something new in him, and I think that so far he's handled himself rather well.
More later. Right now, I need to cook some dinner and watch some TV.
९ नोव्हेंबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
One message that rings loud and clear: people expect their House members to be honest and ethical.
Democrats took over the seats previously held by Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and Bob Ney. Curt Weldon and Don Sherwood also lost due to scandals. The two incumbent Democrats who lost or in one case almost certainly will lose this year were scandal tainted Cynthia McKinney (fired in a September primary) and William Jefferson (who only got 29% of the vote Tuesday and will face off in a December runoff against Karen Carter, who finished second in the multiple candidate open election.)
This should be a strong message that congressional ethics reform needs to be high on the agenda (and Pelosi has suggested that it will be.)
I'm scared to death for the Iraqi people. Are we soon going to "deploy"?
Well, the Dems still seem to have a lower tolerance for ethics problems. Two that come to mind are Alan Mollohan, who till recently was the ranking Dem member of the House Ethics committee.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051401032.html
and Hastings. Impeached by a Dem House for bribery and corruption (Pelosi voting to impeach) and convicted by a Dem Senate, that failed to place this text in the charges (Article 1 of the Constitution)
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States He now is going to get a key chairmanship from Pelosi.
Humility becomes the president. He sounded like a whole different guy!
Maybe this loss has liberated him, as well as Rush Limbaugh??
vw: hepuhmn
(hep human?)
I would have hoped that the newly elected Dems would move the House and Senate from Conservative to Libertarian, but I fear, from plugging in their likely answers to the World's Shortest Political Quiz, that the move will be more toward Statism.
Sarge, you forgot about John Murtha's ethical problems with bribery. Abscam seems like so long ago.
Oh man is this sweet. This is what This is exactly what I expected the aftermath to look like over here.
Althouse playing it off like she's totally, like, above partisan politics, and her hardcore wingnut flock weeping for the safety of the Iraqi people.
That the "Blue Dog" meme shows up too is of course a given. Stealth Republicans who really only have a tiptoe in the nasty vat of liberal ideology? Whatever makes this process less painful for you all, I guess. It gets a pretty good debunking here, though, if you're up to it.
Watching George Allen's political career end in slow motion was just an added bonus.
Yes, I think maybe it did liberate GWB, though of course in a different way for Rush. GWB is free now to pursue compromise areas where he disagreed with the hardcore conservative base. Rush, on the other hand, is free to advocate for conservatism even when his preferred party doesn't. He has explicitly said in the past that he refused to help the Democrats tear down the Republican party by putting full force behind his criticisms of the latter. In other words, Rush is now free to compromise less, not more.
I share dave's point about how dangerous the Republicans were... just in case it gets deleted or something.
Go stick an awl where the sun don't shine, Dave.
mcg -
I love how now Rush listeners just sort of understand that he had been just "carrying water" for the Republican party. Now that they've gotten their teeth kicked in, he's "more free" to compromise, instead of having been revealed as a disingenuous shill.
Huh? First, I said he could now compromise less, not more. And second, how does it make his shillery "disingenuous" if he 1) explicitly states that's what he's doing; and 2) still criticizes them anyway (immigration, Medicare, spending, etc. etc.)?
But hey, you keep listening every day, so you can be sure to know exactly what it is he's actually saying, instead of what you think someone else might have blogged about him saying at some point.
Bo: Harold T. Ford, Jr.
Was today the day we're supposed to wear brown shirts and crap our pants?
Eli: Earnestly hope you are right. (Doubt you are, though.)
dave: Your messages are always so delightfully insightful that further conversation seems pointless.
Doyle: Partisan hack that you are, I am tempted to ask if you missed the recent memo from party HQ about post-election behavior, but then I remembered reading comprehension never was your strong suit.
I assume the Democrats will shape up and live up to their responsibilities,
If you mean start voting like Democrats, instead of Republicans, I couldn't agree more.
So Rush's listeners accept that he will, as necessary, say things he doesn't believe for the benefit of one interest group or another?
I would find that frustrating, were I a devoted listener. But I just listen to clips when he makes a fool out of himself, as I thought he did yesterday. I guess his audience is plenty used to being lied to.
I am tempted to ask if you missed the recent memo from party HQ about post-election behavior
If it said anything about being gracious, I missed it, or willfully didn't register it because I found it inconvenient.
alan - that seems to be a very fair statement to me (even if simply repeating the obvious), although I think many would disagree with you (and me).
I don't know if the democrats will manage to do anything useful in the end, but I think that change, and its possibilities is a good thing.
So Rush's listeners accept that he will, as necessary, say things he doesn't believe for the benefit of one interest group or another?
What exactly did he say that he doesn't believe? What he copped to was going easier on the Republicans than he could have been. There is a difference, you know. Or do you mean that it is somehow *gasp* a revelation that he is a partisan?
As I understand it, the liberal movement in the 60s was substantially different from the Democratic party today. Webb was a military guy, and probably took a lot of abuse from dirty hippies or whatever. I don't condemn him for having been on the wrong team earlier in his life. He's been an outspoken critic of the Iraq War all along, and sort of an economic populist (if not quite as much as say Sherrod Brown).
Plus, he's not a Bush-following faux-Confederate good old boy with a fondness for racial slurs.
I blame Diebold.
Perhaps you could reflect on your feelings about the election and then impart your wisdom to us in a podcast this Sunday evening.
Just a thought from a poor old soul down here in Tennessee whose drives to school just haven't been the same these last few weeks (since the last podcast [nude-nudge-wink-wink]).
I think the Republican attitude towards electoral defeat compares favorably to Democratic defeat, and that this is not lost on the American people.
As if Bush is really going to partner with the Democrats. He doesn't know how.
This Democratic rout was so easy to predict. Only those with blinders on failed to see it coming.
You can't keep kicking people out of the party for not being "pure" enough and then act shocked when you're suddenly in the minority.
The 2008 election season has already started. Bush is a lame duck. Anyone who thinks Bush is suddenly going to pull a 1994 Clinton and start acting bipartisan doesn't know jack about how the real world works. Bush has 2 years left in his term, not 6.
Ann Althouse wrote:
As for Bush, it may do him good to work with Democrats. It will bring out something new in him, and I think that so far he's handled himself rather well.
I'd also say the same about Nancy Perlosi, apart from the nausea-inducing brain-fart about taking up the gavel 'for the children' she's done a fairly good job of hosing down the Kossack base and colleagues I'm sure are itching to deliver twelve years of payback. It 's also going to be good for the Democrats to be put in a position where they're going to have to (finally) articulate what they're for rather than what they're against. They don't have the cover of the eeevil Republicans running everything... You can get away with being *ahem* strategically ambiguous on the campaign trail, but I suspect the electorate isn't going to look too kindly if the next Congress over-reach their rather limited mandate, or the leadership alienate their own moderate wing by pandering to the Kossaks. (Of the 28 seats Democrats picked up in the House, 22 were won by 2 points or less, and 18 were won by 5,000 votes or less. A win is a win, but no grounds for complacency. Especially when bogeymen like Bush, Santorum etc. are out of power, and not around to run against. And many of them weren't won by Perlosi liberals, but Blue Dog Democrats who would give The Governator or your average New Englander a stroke.)
I wish Dave wouldn't be quite so personal, but Ms. Althouse is pretty infuriating when she puts her Independent/Disillusioned Democrat hat on.
For one thing, it's not as though the Dems have had any real power in government recently, so it's not as though they've "done" anything to lose her.
Second, supporting George Bush's foreign policy (including the illegal domestic aspects) is an increasingly radical position, and to cite opposition to it as the apparently sole reason she "can't support" Democrats anymore is bizarre.
And many of them weren't won by Perlosi liberals, but Blue Dog Democrats who would give The Governator or your average New Englander a stroke.)
Name them.
Ethics problems? You want Ethics problems?
Consider that the USA will now be totally beholden, and run by the AFL-CIO (ie..Mafia).
Labor Unions make the big Oil Companies look like Mickey Mouse!
That, and we are now headed towards Socialized Medicine...because it's working so well in the U.K, right?
Unless we die first once the Dems trash the Patriot Act.
Won't much matter what the Dems do then.
... but Ann's not "alarmed" in the least.
Ok, if you say so.
Peace, Maxine
1. This article says that 9 of the 30 new Dems have already joined the Blue Dog Coalition. And they'll likely feel entitled to some of the credit for Nancy's promotion.
2. Q.: Is Ann entitled to her own opinion on her own blog? Or should she check first with the Politburo?
Wow, Doyle, so you do understand what Rush was talking about. You're actually better at this shill stuff than he is. More than willing to carry the water of Blue Dog dems as long as they agree with you on one all-important issue. Nevermind that they're pro-life, pro-gun, whatever.
Well the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility and national security, and "Blue Dog" sounds cool, but... well, whatever. Fine, the liberals are going to have a hell of a time come January. I withdraw my request for names beyond Shuler (who is big on the environment, I understand).
As for Ann being free to express her opinions on her own blog, of course! They're just so often maddeningly, nay dangerously wrong (see: NYT op-ed on NSA wiretapping), it would be a mistake to let her go unheckled.
Don't worry Menken, once the Patriot act is trashed and the Dems invite the Jihadists to put all Americans under Martial Law....it won't much matter who Ann's commenters are.
Then, again I'm so crazy I see Black Helicopters coming out the sky whenever I look up, right?
Peace, Maxine
Maxine -
It's not martial law we're after, it's Sharia! What could be better for the debt-laden middle class than the abolition of interest?
It sells itself in '08.
Doyle said...
"Althouse is pretty infuriating when she puts her Independent/Disillusioned Democrat hat on ... it's not as though the Dems have had any real power in government recently, so it's not as though they've "done" anything to lose her."
Well hold on a second there, fella. It doesn't make much sense to say that a party can only do something to lose its supporters when it's in power. Even an opposition party without but a single lever of government to call their own can still do things to lose former supporters. I know it's hard for you to imagine how anyone could disagree with the Democrats on foreign policy, but you can surely see that if the Democrats are saying "this is what we think about foreign policy," it is perfectly possible for someone who supported them previously to say "no way,you've got to be kidding me, this is an incredibly, totally stupid policy, I completely disagree with it, and you're losing my support over it"? American political parties are coalitions of ideas, and people can leave a party just as much because they've parted ways over ideas as because they've parted way over actions. If Ann thinks that the Democrats' vision of foreign policy is catastrophic for America, she surely doesn't have to wait to be proven right before saying that she's not supporting them on that issue any more.
"to cite opposition to [Bush's foreign policy] as the apparently sole reason she 'can't support' Democrats anymore is bizarre."
I don't think her overwhelming commitment to Bush's foreign policy is the reason that Ann "can't support" Democrats any more. Even assuming, arguendo, that foreign policy is the only issue in play, I don't think Ann's argument is "isn't George Bush's foreign policy just dreamy," it's that "well, it's certainly better than what the Democrats are proposing." You can't beat somebody with nobody, and the fact is, that if you've got a choice between the Bush foreign policy and the Democrats' foreign policy, you vote much the same way as you would if you have a choice between eternal damnation and the land of milk and honey - like pooh bear doing a "got milk" commercial!
While the partisan comments of downtownman may not match the opinions of the majority here, they stand comfortably within the realm of civil discourse.
Don't you ever, ever, EVER call me civil. I have a reputation to uphold.
Doyle said...
"Well the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility"
Wow! I missed that announcement from Pelosi HQ. So the plans to expand entitlement spending and raise taxes (including the minimum wage, which is basically a tax on business) are out the window, then?
Fiscal responsibility means cutting spending, and keeping taxes minimal. Democrats got some mileage this election by talking about balancing the budget, but the reality is, they aren't going to balance the budget (an act which requires cutting spending, dramatically), they're going to raise taxes. Which will balance the budget right before it unbalances the budget, because of the inevitable economic contraction.
Simon - It's hard to get more fiscally irresponsible than the last Republican Congress. It was the worst since Lyndon B. Johnson, i.e. worse than Clinton from 1992-1994, worse from Jimmy Carter from 1976-1980.
So yes - I expect a substantial improvement on fiscal responsibility.
These are facts. Deal with them as they are, not as you "want" them to be.
Which will balance the budget right before it unbalances the budget, because of the inevitable economic contraction.
Oh - you mean like what happened after Clinton raised taxes? Yes - the incredible "economic contraction" of the 1990's. We all remember that. And the rising deficits of the 1990's. We all remember that too.
Not.
These are facts. Deal with them as they are, not as you "want" them to be.
If Ann has identified a cohesive Democratic foreign policy, she needs to tell them what it is pronto.
As I understand it, it basically amounts to enjoying global military hegemony while engaging in fewer unjustified wars that also weaken our security, and bringing the one Bush started to a swift conclusion.
Doyle - Who cares of Ann supports the war? It's not like she pretends not to.
And she's made it quite clear that she supports politicians who want to win the war, even if she disagrees with them on most of the other issues. The war is the deal breaker for her.
That doesn't make her a Republican. It makes her a Scoop Jackson Democrat. Unfortunately, there aren't many Scoop Jackson Democrats left, which doesn't give her many options when it comes to voting.
Ann is very upfront with her views, and I think she's clearly a moderate. Heck - she tolerates me.
Ann is very upfront with her views
Look at the title of this post!
DTL,
To some extent, I disagree. The last Congress added a lot of pork to the bill, but pork is -- to some extent, although obviously interest on the federal debt complicates the picture -- one-of spending. It's entitlement spending that's the big, underlying problem, and so the 108th Congress beats out the 109th on Medicare Part D alone.
Will the democrats be even worse? Sure they will. Unless they really are joking about raising taxes and yet more entitlement spending in the form of a new prescription drug benefit, they will, by definition, be more fiscally irresponsible than was the 109th. Which is in no way to defend the 109th Congress, and -- as I've said repeatedly -- I'm fine with losing the House as a way of punishing them for that irresponsibility. But are the Dems going to be worse? Sure they are. It isn't just about pork. If it were, though, I'd agree with you.
Doyle you're being manipulated.
This is a ploy.
Ann is a scheming conniver.
Peace, Maxine
Doyle said...
"If Ann has identified a cohesive Democratic foreign policy, she needs to tell them what it is pronto."
Well, the more that one believes that to be true, the less it helps your case, IMO. We are, for better or worse, under attack by Al Queda and its associates; like it or not, that didn't begin when George Bush took office, and it won't end when he leaves or if the Democrats really do wave the white flag in Iraq and pull out the troops. That being the case, something always beats nothing, and so if there is no cohesive Democratic foreign policy, then that's a strike against them if national security is a big issue for you. Somebody always beats nobody, and a bad plan always beats a catastrophic plan. What the Democrats are offering is somewhere between a bad plan and no plan at all, and that just doesn't suffice.
I'm not talking about pork Simon. I'm talking about total spending. I don't care if you talk about just non-discretionary spending, or the whole enchilada (war, medicare, etc.) Spending has risen more under Bush than it has under any President since Lyndon Johnson.
Don't believe me. Believe the Cato institute, hardly a mouthpiece of the Democratic party.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
Spending will improve dramatically under this new Congress.
I always wonder...What is it with people on Dave/Doyle's side, who become obsessed with what a person here and there thinks about THEIR ISSUES? If you don't like Ann's point of view, why do you keep coming here?
Oh, and as to the Iraqi people, pardon my offensive concern--let's just close Iraq off and let them do their dying off camera, as they did before the invasion, and we can get back to enjoying life.
The Democrats are now the party of fiscal discipline. I believe they learned that from Treasury Secretary Rubin. I don't see the Democrats advocating massive new programs anymore. Maybe making college loans tax deductable, but that is piddly. No different than Bush subsidizing high school students who promise to refrain from masturbation, or whatever theocratic program he's babbling about today.
And with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President I expect pure gridlock. Maybe Bush will even learn to use his veto pen. And then if we're lucky we'll get spending growth of 3% a year.
...But she had good hair, at least.
Peace, Maxine
The president is responsible for military strategy, not Congress.
The plan to invade in Iraq in the first place was catastrophic.
That there is no "good plan" in Iraq is not the Democrats' fault.
The people who still insist Iraq was a good idea have no credibility.
There will be no triumphant victory in Iraq, no matter how badly we might want one. It's just a question of minimizing the damage to our citizens and, to a lesser extent, those in other countries.
Democrats are more inclined to do this because they have no vested interest in delaying the final judgment on the operation.
Fortunately, neither does the new Secretary of Defense.
downtownlad said...
"I'm not talking about pork Simon. I'm talking about total spending. I don't care if you talk about just non-discretionary spending, or the whole enchilada (war, medicare, etc.) Spending has risen more under Bush than it has under any President since Lyndon Johnson."
All true, but none of which means that Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility. I pointed out in an earlier thread, and I think this is right, the only thing that the Democrats are upset about is WHAT the money's being spent on. If it were going to abortion clinics, they'd be all for it. The fact is, if the Democrats were the party of fiscal responsibility, why have they been opposing tax cuts? Why do they want to stand pat on social security (and, in an ultimate feat of irony, call a policy that a fifth grader with a reasonable grasp of math could tell you will be a total disaster "saving social security)? Why was their major problem with Medicare Part D that it didn't go far enough? This simply isn't a party that can be taken seriously on spending, and just saying "well, the Republicans haven't been any better in the last couple of years" doesn't change that.
In short -- the problem with your argument is that the best way to sum up everything that has been wrong with the Republican approach to spending in the last six years is that they've been acting like Democrats. That says it all, I think.
The fact is, if the Democrats were the party of fiscal responsibility, why have they been opposing tax cuts?
You're joking right? They oppose tax cuts, because they wanted to balance the books, which is a hallmark FOR fiscal responsibility, not AGAINST it.
Look - I'm all in favor of tax cuts. As long as they correspond with spending cuts. But if you're going to keep spending high, then no - I don't favor tax cuts.
downtownlad: Are you Bill Maher?
Do you date Black chicks?
I've got bronzer.
Love, Maxine
downtownlad said...
"[Democrats] oppose tax cuts, because they wanted to balance the books, which is a hallmark FOR fiscal responsibility, not AGAINST it."
You could arguably balance the books by raising taxes if you assume that raising taxes has no impact on anything else in the economy. That is, if you assume that all else will remain equal if you change any one element, and that simplyisn't the case. Cutting taxes has raised receipts. Raising taxes will damage the economy and reduce receipts. You're absolutely right that you have to cut spending too, but that doesn't mean that the problem was the success of the tax cuts, it means that the problem was the failure to cut spending!!!
Ann wrote: "As for Bush, it may do him good to work with Democrats. It will bring out something new in him, and I think that so far he's handled himself rather well."
Bush is actually not a conservative, but a right-leaning liberal. His amnesty for illegals, scorn for fences, increased federalization of education, increased medicare drug spending, willingness to reauthorize the assault weapons ban - the guy is no right-wing conservative. Plus I think there's nothing he likes quite so much as a good slap on the back, yuck-it-up session with a political opponent. Makes him feel magnanimous. Picture of all his hugs and stuff with Democrats at the State of the Union addresses, for example. So I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was actually looking forward to signing a lot of Democratic bills even if they are entirely contrary to Republican principles or even (as in the case of amnesty) contrary to what the majority of Republicans (and Americans) want. Doing so will make him feel like he's a real magnanimous charmer. In some ways he's Clintonian in his desire to be liked.
I think Republicans will be shocked at how much he will concede to the Democrats now, especially considering that he's a lame duck and doesn't have to do anything to please anyone if he doesn't want to. He is free to act just the way he wants to...which will be to try to charm the Democrats by signing their bills.
So when Ann says it will "bring out something new in him" I disagree. It's always been there - he just hasn't dealt with a Democratic party that controlled both houses before. If he had, he would have been caving to them long ago just like he caved to Ted Kennedy in his first term and gave Kennedy the huge education bill he wanted.
What would the GOP do without Art Laffer?
Without him, Republicans would never be able to argue with a straight face that, in seemingly all cases, there is an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax receipts.
Doyle, your comment on Laffer reveals your usual ignorance of the topic at hand, bathed in that unwarranted and permanent sneer. You and dave have a established a particular pattern of foulmouthed caterwauling, preening and frothing about subjects well beyond your mastery.
Stunning to watch. But a word to the wise: steer clear of power tools. They don't suffer fools as gladly as the internets.
Cutting taxes has raised receipts. Raising taxes will damage the economy and reduce receipts. You're absolutely right that you have to cut spending too, but that doesn't mean that the problem was the success of the tax cuts, it means that the problem was the failure to cut spending!!!
You don't have to explain supply side economics to me. But I don't believe the falacy that cutting taxes 1%, will result in a tax RISE in revenues. I think it will result in a reduction of tax revenues by less than 1%, but it's not an inverse relationship and there is zero evidence that it is.
Please take a look at tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP. They are way lower than before the tax cut. Especailly tax revenues from individuals, which were the ones cut after all. Business revenues are higher, but people are forgetting that many of the R&D credits have expired, thus resulting in an increase in the amount of taxes that business pay.
And you're still ignoring the successful economy of the 1990's when taxes were hiked. A lot.
I prefer the Reagan approach over the Clinton approach, because I don't like paying taxes. But they were both successful. You can't reduce the economy to a sound bite. It's a little more complicated than that. There are many nuances involved.
I heard this morning on NPR that Europeans approve of the Democrats' win. It's nice to know our betters admit that every now and then the vulgar, violent, fat, stupid Americans do something not quite as idiotic as usual.
C'est bon, n'est-ce pas?
downtownlad wrote:
The Democrats are now the party of fiscal discipline.
In the same sense, that the hooker with crabs is a more agreeable companion that the one with syphilis. Some of might might prefer to stay away from the infectous prostitutes all together...
The Dems want to increase capital gains tax on dividends.
I know people who rely on capital gains interest to make their house payments, and Dems want to eliminate that.
They want to increase bankruptcy fees, workers comp and insurance premiums which will instantly shut down small businesses.
Wake up everyone!
Peace, Maxine
Menken, Dihi boni!
Speaking of vulgar, perhaps we should continue the comments in Latin so that certain participants might leave off in bewilderment. Failing that, all would do well to meditate on the old polite words, absit injuria verbis.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
downtownlad said...
"Please take a look at tax revenues as a percentage of the GDP. They are way lower than before the tax cut. Especailly tax revenues from individuals, which were the ones cut after all."
Are you serious? DTL, if you lower tax rates, and tax revenues grow in real terms but shrink as a percentage of GDP, do you know what that's called? It's called successfull economic policy! It means that GDP has grown!
Are you sure that you don't need a quick refresher on supply-side economics? ;)
Simon,
A liberal never saw a tax policy he understood.
AZ voters just approved another tax increase on cigarettes AND restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants.
Cigarette tax revenue had already dropped after the last big tax increase.
I'd like to make my prediction now as to which way revenues will go.
Even better: cig tax revenues are already spoken for. We'll have to dig up the shortfall from general revenue.
Joe,
That's true, and I think they also have an inbuilt tendancy to use that as a weapon against federalism. High taxes breeds tax avoidance, so if you have a state that levies a ludicrously high gas tax, and which abuts a state with lower taxes thereupon, people sufficiently close to the border will simply drive over the border and buy gas in the cheaper state. To a liberal, that's an argument against federalism, rather than for lower tax rates. Crazy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा