Five Years and going strong

Dave Wissing’s blog “The Hedgehog Report” celebrated it’s 5 years yesterday.  Dave has had an interesting run with his site.  Take a look at his post describing the last 5 years of the Hedgehog!
Congratulations Dave.

The fiscal state of Howard County depends on a few very weathy tax payers?

Did anyone tell Martin O’Malley, Mike Miller, Mike Busch and the rest of the Democrats in the General Assembly before their special session this little fact from Howard County Budget Director Raymond S. Wacks (from the Baltimore Sun, Robey urges Ulman to alter state’s view of county finances):

The county can count on a steady 5 percent to 6 percent annual increase in property tax revenues based on growing home values, but Wacks said income tax receipts can fluctuate, especially if a relatively few very wealthy taxpayers change or delay their payments. [emphasis added]

Really. With new tax increases about to go into effect in less than 24 hours, especially the ones that target those very same wealthy taxpayers, did anyone think it could have a negative effect?

Well, at least Sen. Allan Kittleman and Del. Gail Bates get it:

“Big-money people are leaving to go to Florida,” Kittleman said, explaining that several constituents have told him that they live in Florida part time and might convert to full-time residents.

Bates said the owner of a computer services company told her of doing something similar, if the General Assembly leaves that portion of the sales tax intact.

I though tax cuts “cost money” and raising taxes “made money”? Is Mr. Wacks contradicting the Democratic Party wisdom? Besides, how can the tax receipts from a relatively few taxpayers effect the county to any extent? I’ve could have sworn that I’ve heard elected officials state that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Mr Robey’s implication that Gov. O’Malley and the state of Maryland will probably reward the fiscally irresponsible Montgomery County (with a projected 70 million dollar deficit by June 30th) will have to be (hopefully) another post.

Which Hillary should we belive, the 1992 or the 2007 version?

Trying to keeping track of the latest attempt to package Hillary (sometimes Rodham) Clinton is as simple as looking at the latest poll and determining what rates as her highest negative. Recently (Dec 19, 2007) she started touring Iowa on a likability tour and even made appearances with her mother and her daughter in the latest attempt to soften her image.

After chatting sympathetically with Hillary Clinton for a moment about the silliness of judging a woman by her hairdo, a television reporter from Columbus, Ohio, zeroed in for the sound bite.

“You know, some people think of you as an inspiring female attorney mother, and other people think of you as the overbearing yuppie wife from hell,” the reporter said. “How would you describe yourself?”

A look of annoyance glittered through Mrs. Clinton’s blue eyes, but she was on a mission to soften her image and show that she has a sense of humor. So she smiled and described herself as a wife, a mother and an activist. Later, on her small campaign plane traveling in Kentucky, she took a bite of an apple and said, “I’m too old to be a yuppie.”

Oops, my fault. That quote is from the 1992 campaign, THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Candidate’s Wife; Hillary Clinton as Aspiring First Lady: Role Model, or a ‘Hall Monitor’ Type? So, on and off for the last 16 years Hilliary has been trying to soften her image?

Did Margaret “Iron Lady” Thatcher, as she stood shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Regan against the Soviet Union, faced down the British labor unions and sent a naval task force to recapture the Falkland Islands ever feel the need to go on a likability tour? I don’t want a President with an Oprah /Dr. Phil approach to dealing with our problems – I want a President with a steel spine and thick skin that could be the prototype for one of those T3 Terminator models. If after 18+ years people still think your cold and distant, well get over it – running around for a few weeks at a time every few years posing to be warm and fuzzy when your handlers recommend it is not going to change that many peoples’ opinion. (At least I hope not.)

What about the experience that she like to tout. Well, again from the same article in 1992 she said this:

She told reporters again and again that she did not dominate her husband — “He has a real core of toughness”; — that her husband would not offer her a Cabinet post — “That’s not going to happen, and I wouldn’t take it if it did”; — that she would not sit in on Cabinet meetings — “I never did that in Arkansas and I’m not going to start now,” — and that she would not be a pioneer First Lady making radical changes — “I don’t think so; I hope I’m going to be myself.”

But today (via the Sunday Morning Talk Show Roundup at RedState.com):

HILLARY ON TW. On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos first talked to his former boss’ wife, Hillary Clinton. Hillary took credit for many things which happened during the Clinton Administration, such as the peace deal in Northern Ireland and keeping the peace with the PRC as a “spokesman in Beijing.” She said that though she did not sit in on all of her husband’s national security meetings and did not have a security clearance, she was privy to “classified information.” (This is a violation of federal law.) [Note: according to the New York Times, she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some diplomatic trips. Ed C.]

So she played a major role in the Clinton Administration, she said.

If elected, though, she promised that her husband Bill would not be allowed in on any meetings and would have no formal role. She promised that she would rely on him only as a wife might rely on her husband.

So he would play no major role in the 2nd Clinton Administration, she said.

Really? We again, again according to the New York Times, from 2007 this time (The Resume Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady):

But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.

Michael Goodwin (It’s about Hillary, stupid) pretty well sums up my feelings on a third term for Bill:

Even allowing for the historic nature of a first female commander in chief and a male First Spouse, there is much confusion about the nature of Bubba’s role. It can’t be a fifty-fifty deal. There can be only one President, for our friends and our enemies.

Yet the frequency of two campaign messages from them suggests that’s not how they see it. Her “likability tour” features him more than her. He pops off, and news reports the next day are filled with anonymous quotes about how upset the campaign officials are that he’s off message. Is he off message, or is the double message the message? What if he pops off about Russia or China? Would that be the policy, or would we have to wait for her to speak?

So, in 1992 she was down playing her role in a possible Clinton administration and today in 2007 she is taking credit for it. But don’t worry, she is now saying that Bill will not play a major role this time. Really, well at least he probably still has a security clearance, unless he surrendered that along with his law license.