08-15-2012, 07:39 PM
|
#239
|
Timed Out
How Do You Identify?: Butch, Dyke, Feminist, Contrarian
Preferred Pronoun?: She, her
Relationship Status: Single
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey, The Garden State
Posts: 732
Thanks: 1,308
Thanked 2,229 Times in 586 Posts
Rep Power: 0
|
Rachel Maddow on msnbc is awesome: Romney proposed that the blind and those with mental retardation should pay a fee (to help balance the budget) when he was in Mass.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06...the-privilege/
Republicans love to play semantics. The 1% are not bloated pigs bleeding the country dry, they’re “job creators.” We’re not empire building when we invade sovereign countries, we’re “spreading democracy.” We’re not raising your taxes, we’re only charging you a “fee.”
While he was governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney chose to balance his budget by charging all kinds of “fees” instead of raising taxes. Semantics. But the newsworthy part is who he charged with new “fees” and for what. Business Insider found all sorts of ugly stuff back in January. Why it hasn’t been used is a mystery but there’s still five months to go before election day.
Pay per not view: “It now costs to be blind in Massachusetts. The state’s approximately 35,000 blind and legally blind residents must now pay $10 annually for a certificate of blindness and $15 every four years for a blind identification card. Without the formerly-free documents, blind people cannot take advantage of tax abatements, affordable housing programs, health care services, transportation discounts and other benefits. … The fees originated in February, in Gov. Mitt Romney’s budget proposal for fiscal 2004.” (Shaun Sutner, “Advocates Fight Fees For The Blind,” Telegram & Gazette, 8/5/03)
Sure, it’s only $10 but try charging a rich person $10 extra for a yacht license. “Why are you punishing success?!”
|
|
|