Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Dear Mr Levin(And I love Mark Levin)

Dear Mark.
I have always respected your opinion. You are usually always pretty much spot on. I feel that you usually do your homework on people. I have always felt that I could "trust" what you say as Gospel. What I did disagree with, so what, right? That is until recently with Mitt Romney. Your statements have not been factual at all.
Your first issue is with the Massachusetts Health Care that you seem to want to call RomneyCare.  I know you a smarter man than me. I know you understand when a legislatures decisions are  veto proof, meaning they have the right power to eventually have whatever bill that they wish passed no matter how many times a Governor was to veto it, he would have to eventually sign it or face impeachment. It is due process.

Mitt Romney's state was facing a annual cost of 1 Billion dollars from people that went in and used the health care system without having insurance. The cost to the hospitals and state tax payers was overwhelming. The legislature felt that without having state run health care that the system itself would fail.  They told him they were going to have it nomatter if he liked it or not. They knew they were veto proof. It was going to happen either way.
Mitt did a study, found out many people that could afford heath care chose not to because they knew they could go for free instead of paying for health care and the deductibles. You can get treated in any state if you need it. So there is socialized medicine in a round about way. Mitt came up with his own plan Mark. It was vetoed by that 85% liberal Legislature. So what was left? Their plan. He could have just allowed it and signed it right then and there . No he did not. He vetoed the things in the bill that he considered bad, knowing something would take place. What he did sign, added no new taxes to pay for it. Was 1% of the state budget and did not try and get rid of the private health care system. It insured more people. Mandates were to have private or state and be willing to be responsible for your usage if you did not carry insurance. 1 Billion dollar problem addressed the best he could in adverse circumstances. I consider what he was able to accomplish in adverse conditions extraordinary. Now keep in mind, 8 things he saw as bad and had vetoed were later put back after he left office. Intellectual honesty. If Mitt Romney did not initiate or write the bill and actually vetoed much of a bad bill originally...how does it have his name attached? It is the Massachusetts Health Care Law. Not RomneyCare. He is not a King or Tyrant. People complain about President Obama pushing things through, and there is no difference that they think a Governor can just do as he want and not ever lose a battle. In this case he won. What was originally signed was not bad. Perhaps you feel mandates are bad. Here is a history of mandates and our founding fathers.
Truth about Mandates

Mark you accuse Mitt Romney of being a Global Warming Supporter. I presume it is from a recent comment that where the full comment was not shown. I know you have been taken out of context, and I would think that you would be careful to make sure the sources that you receive are reliable. There were many people on Facebook that were at the meeting who saw what was presented that stood up and said hey...that's not what he said. They did not show all of it.  Mitt Romney is the KIng of defusing things that other people polarize. What does he say in his book?

 “I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on climate but could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.” -- Mitt Romney No Apology, p. 227

and more:

*Cap and Trade legislation would be disastrous for our economy.
*The earth’s climate has been constantly changing throughout its history.
*We should not take extreme measures when we are unsure of human role in global warming.
 “In 2004, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg gathered ten of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, in what he called the Copenhagen Consensus. He asked them prioritize the greatest problems faced by humankind. They w...ere not asked to determine which problems were the most severe, but rather to rank the most severe global challenges according to the coast and benefit of overcoming them… Astonishingly, spending money to prevent global warming came in last. Why? To reduce global temperature even by a very small amount requires enormous investment. Achieving the Kyoto objectives, they reasoned, would cost $150 billion a year and only delay the global temperature that would otherwise have been reached in the year 2100 by six years.” -- No Apology, p. 228-229

He comes out and says yes man may have some part, he says that there is no way to measure it and that things like cap and trade would be a disaster. So in essence he didn't alienate anyone and he also took a stance of no cap and trade.... so what do you want Mark? Here is Mitt fully answering the questions and he handles this well. He by this can get people who think it exists to realize there is no way to measure the input from man. He is smart the way he handles this:

The interesting thing is that someone you seem to wish to protect and promote, Sarah Palin says the same thing in her interview. So why is Mitt the bad guy and Sarah is not?

Sarah says, its real and we need to do something about it. I do not call her a Rino because of this. But lets be fair. Come on Mark. What is good for the goose is good for the gander I have always been told. Mark you love Ronald Reagan and so do I. You know he was the Governor of a liberal state just as much as I do. You also know at one time President Reagan was an FDR Democrat and helped him get elected.

I am not into comparing apples to oranges. I am into comparing records of Governorship. If Mitt is President, then we can compare Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney's Presidency.  But now we can compare them as Governors. Here is Governor Reagans record:

  • Was once a pro-choice liberal who helped elect one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever seen
  • While Governor, signed into law a tax increase that is one of the largest for a state in our nation's history
  • Inherited a massive deficit, but actually increased spending to the tune of doubling his state's budget
  • Signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country into law(though regretted it later on)
  • state funding for public schools increased 105% in his tenure
  • Signed welfare reform that helped relieve the caseload, but also increased benefits by 30%
  • Expanded his state's medicaid system which was the largest in the country
  • Signed some of the first tailpipe emission standards into law in his State
  • Tax witholding was introduced during his tenure as Governor
These are just some of the things on his record as Governor and there are other stories about his beliefs such as being rumored to support the Brady Gun Law, rumored to want to disarm our nuclear weapons and more. However, there are mitigating factors within his record that a reasonable person could understand. He attempted to cut his state's government spending by 10% across the board, but then had to restore some of the funding because some of these agencies were cut as thin as it was with the budget. He fought for tax cuts several times(and won a couple battles such as with property and inventory tax cuts), but was outnumbered by the leftist house and senate of his state.

That is not a great record as a Governor. What did Mitt do? Here are some statements:

In 2002, Massachusetts' economy was rapidly deteriorating.  It was ranked 50th, the second worst in the nation in its increase in unemployment. [1] Job losses were so great that although a dozen states were more populous, and California had over 5 times as many people [2], Massachusetts lost more jobs than anywhere else in the country:

“Massachusetts is number one in the nation in job losses, shedding 4.7 percent of all jobs over the last two years. The state has lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs, or 17 percent; 69,000, or nearly 14 percent, of all jobs in the professional and business services sector; and nearly 18 percent of all jobs in the information industry.”

Debt was mounting in the state government as jobs were leaving the state at such an alarming rate.

“Antitax activist Barbara Anderson recalls leaving the following message on Romney's answering machine: ''I know you're really busy now with the Olympics, but when you're finished, please come back and save Massachusetts.''

“The state party's new chairwoman, Kerry Healey, discreetly flew to Salt Lake City to gauge his intentions. He was noncommittal.”

“A "Draft Mitt" campaign sprouted up in the state... Ann Romney had grown to love living in Utah. (Among other reasons, she'd been found to have multiple sclerosis a few years earlier, and horseback riding in the Utah mountains was therapeutic.) And they still bore the scars of the 1994 campaign. But the forces beckoning Romney to run were too strong to resist. Nearly everyone, it seemed, wanted him.”

The economic situation was so grave, that after Romney decided to run, Tim Russert (from NBC) said:

“Lets go to a very, very important issue confronting this state. It's fiscal health. This is what someone on Beacon Hill said just the other day:

''A lot of people think this has been bad. This was the warm-up! This was just spring training. There's no glimmer of economic optimism or life or confidence out there. The next governor, whoever it is, is going to have to address this aggressively.''

“ -Speaker Thomas Finnernan...

“There's a $300 million shortfall. There is a $2 billion structural deficit confronting Massachusetts. The budget is $23 billion, 40% of which is off the table because of court mandates and laws that you must provide that kind of funding. With the remaining $12 billion, you have to find $2 billion...”

click to Play

Jim Cramer - TheStreet.com
Plays Hardball about Romney
Jim Cramer - Mad Money
Assesses Mitt Romney (1:33)
Julian Robertson - Tiger Mgmt CEO
Assesses Romney - 0:30

That was in October, but by December the Boston Globe reported it got even worst:

“ "It's the worst I've seen it. Going back to the post-war era, I've never seen such an acute and focused fiscal crisis and particularly for the state government," said Richard P. Nathan, director of the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York-Albany...

“The estimated budget gap of $547 million in Massachusetts is among the largest in total dollars, according to the report by the National Conference of State Legislatures... Massachusetts officials have predicted that in the next fiscal year the shortfall will far exceed an earlier projection of $2 billion.”

It continued to get worse. By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4a]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [4b]
Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [5] He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [6] The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [7] nearly $1 billion in 2005 [8a],[8b],[8c] and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes. [9] By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [10] He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [11]

An Introduction to Mitt Romney
Businessman Romney- how he differed in govt ways of spending
click to Play
Romney on how he balanced the budget & used funds (2:44)

(double click for full screen)
He sought to lower the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% but was unable to get the legislature to comply. [12a] However, Governor Romney did succeed in cutting taxes in many areas (as noted later in a few examples), but many cities and counties in turn raised their taxes. As he fixed the state's economy and deficit spending, Romney continued to cut taxes where possible. In 2007, the year he left office, The Tax Foundation, a national organization founded in 1937, determined that the combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts was 9.9%, the same as it was in 2003 when he entered office. During that time, Massachusetts dropped from the 13th highest taxed state in the nation, to the 17th. [12b] The 2007 budget was his final budget as governor.
The unemployment rate had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003 when he took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping. [13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was in the top ten in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - Mass. Unemployment Rate

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - Massachusetts
                    (retrieved November 2008)

While jobs were shrinking by the thousands each month in Massachusetts when he took office [16], by the time he left office, "the state had attracted hundreds of new companies and added [a net total of] 60,000 new jobs." [17] It takes time for pro-growth policies to effect the economy, but before the end of his first year in office the job losses had stopped, and in his remaining time in office 81,000 new jobs were created. [18] The people in the state benefited not only by increased employment and not having their taxes raised, but they also saw tax cuts by the governor. As the following article pointed out:

“He cut capital gains taxes, benefiting well over 150,000 residents. Thousands more are currently benefiting from new jobs in the biotech field because of Romney's manufacturing tax relief and because he made the investment tax credit permanent. Thousands of Massachusetts families saved their hard-earned dollars when Romney enacted sales tax holidays. Seniors are benefiting from property tax relief proposed and signed into law by Romney. Our honorable veterans and National Guard members have several new tax breaks because of Romney's belief that they should be taxed less. Commuters can now deduct expenses for travel because Romney believes they shouldn't be penalized for helping increase commerce.”

“Massachusetts saw its S&P rating rise to double-A from double-A-minus under Romney.”
Contrast that with Pres. Obama:
“This administration has set another landmark: For the first time, America’s bond rating has fallen from standard to negative and the country may lose its Standard & Poor’s AAA rating.”
Romney cautioned about that:
“ "The president really ought to personally sit down and meet with S&P," Romney said Wednesday on KCBQ radio. "I did that when I was governor; I met with the ratings agencies and talked about our future and tried to instill confidence in our future because, look, how they rate our debt and how they rate our future as a nation will affect the interest costs that we end up paying and will affect homeowners and borrowers all over the country." ”

During Governor Romney's tenure from 2003-7, Massachusetts dropped from 13th to 17th in national tax burden rankings. Gov. Romney created the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 budgets (and slashed spending in the existing 2003 budget as soon as he entered office). Massachusetts' combined state and local tax burden was the same in 2007, the year he left office, as it was in 2003 when he took office, at 9.9%. However, he cut taxes while city and county governments within the state raised them, which caused a small bulge in the tax burden in the years in between but ended the tax burden at the same level in the year of his final budget as in the year he entered office.
This improvement in tax burden rankings occurred while Massachusetts experienced the worst economic situation in the nation and had the highest ratio in the nation of democrats controlling the legislature, a veto-proof 85%, whose leadership stated intentions to raise taxes. (See record survey above and Taxes/Fees link above for details.)
Contrast that with other fmr. governors considering a 2012 presidential run:
• Tim Pawlenty. Minnesota's tax burden increased 1/2% during his tenure, from 9.8% when he took office in 2003, to 10.3% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 17th most taxed state to the 7th most taxed state in the nation.
• Mike Huckabee. Arkansas' tax burden increased 0.7% during his tenure, from 9.3% when he took office in 1996, to 10% when he left in 2007, changing his state from the 33rd most taxed state to the 14th most taxed state in the nation.
• Sarah Palin. Alaska's tax burden increased 0.9% during her tenure, from 5.4% when she took office in 2006 to 6.3% when she left in 2009, maintaining the ranking of the state with the lowest tax burden in the nation.
• Charlie Crist. Florida's tax burden increased 0.4% during his tenure, from 8.8% when he took office in 2007 to 9.2% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 36th most taxed state to the 31st most taxed state in the nation.


  1. To argue against Mark Levin is not very smart or wise. Mark Levin is usually right and spot on just as you admit yourself in this blog post. Levin is not wrong about Romney. You're just a Romney kool-aid drinker who only sees the good and positive about Romney. Romney is not a Conservative. He's a Rockefeller Wing RINO Republican along the same lines as Bob Dole, Both Bushes and McCain. We've all seen how successful they were when they got their chance to govern. They brought us legislation like No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Brilliant! Romney campaigns on Conservative Principles but his executive experience as governor of MA shows when the rubber meets the road, Romney caves in and folds like a cheap lawn chair. The other GOP candidates don' t have Romneycare, ethenol subsidies and support for AGW in their political closets. We can do better than Romney. Conservatives want a Conservative to represent us in the White House. Romney is not that Conservative Representative they're looking for.

  2. Jeremy, your response is typical. Romney is a Rino, he is a liberal. He's not a conservative. Yet you present no evidence to back up your claim. This blog is well thought out and shows the circumstances of his time in office which apparently you didn't read or perhaps comprehend. Of course if it doesn't fit into a 30 second sound byte, you probably can't focus long enough to soak it in. Unfortunately, you are somewhat typical.

  3. ConsvtvRobb - I think you need to go back and re-read my comment from above. Its more than a "typical" response. The evidence I included in my above comment was the part about Romney's positions on Romneycare, ethenol and AGW. I could have included links to back upwhat Im saying but I assumed it was already known. No need to prove it because Dennis already heard from Mark Levin all of these positions. Also if you agree with me about Romney being a RINO, why are you challenging me instead of Dennis for writing this blog post in defense of Romney. You don't make any sense. Normal people don't argue with people they agree with. You're probably tons of fun to be around at family reunions and company parties. Quit talking about my focus and comprehension. We don't know each other well enough to be making such accussations about one another. Conservatives I know, don't verbally attack/judge each other over minor differences they may have. Nobody is going to agree with each other all of the time. That'd be boring anyways.

  4. Jeremy. Its in his book and in the tape. Mitt Romney is not a global warming advocate and Levin is flat out wrong. Intellectually dishonest as well as he is well rehearsed in defending Reagan, but refuses to look at Romney. Ethanol. If we stopped using it right now, it would kill our gas prices. Once again, if you listen to everything he says about it, he is for drilling here and also more refineries. THEN it is safe to get rid of ethanol. One other thing you really miss is due process. Governors are not Kings. They have to sign things eventually by law. Mitt had 844 vetos as Governor and was vetoed 700 times by the 85% liberal legislature. Thats a veto proof legislature and he fought them tooth and nail

  5. and its not Romney Care:


  6. Tons of info here Dennis. You make great arguments. I concur that conservative media has not done its homework. Many are in love with Sarah Palin, which is disturbing. What kind of public servant quits her job? It's the supreme violation to a voter's trust!

  7. Sad part is people want perfection.