Gary Johnson It's time to throw our full weight behind Gary Johnson.

[helmuth_hubener]

Look in your own graphs. At least 6 of those years had tax revenue (due to economic growth) surpassing expenditures (due to vetos).

Ha! You're right! Well, obviously they also disagree with each other, since the gross debt went up every year.

The reason is that for some reason usgov'tspending.com has used the "Direct expenditure by function" line rather than just the total "Expenditure" line. The difference is that the "by function" line excludes intergovernmental expenditures, that is, the money that the state turns around and doles out to the local governments.

I don't know why for sure they did this, but probably because they decided to count that as spending for the local gov'ts and didn't want to double-count it. As for me, I think it is more accurate to include it as state spending, since, well, the state spends it. It is money that leaves the State of New Mexico's figurative wallet and goes away. That's called spending.

For example, in 2000 actual total expenditure was 8.7 billion, but "Direct expenditure by function" was 6.25 billion. 8.7 billion is the correct number; there is no reason to exclude spending just because it has been spent by doling it to other levels of gov't.

They do the same thing for revenue. In 2000 actual gross revenue was 10.57 billion, but usgov'tspending lists it as 8.38. That's because they exclude intergovernmental transfers again. The bigger problem here, and an actual mistake not just a judgment call, is that while they exclude intergovernmental they include the insurance trust revenue, which is not actually revenue available to be spent. 7.89 billion is the correct number -- the general revenue number, which includes intergovernmental but excludes insurance trust revenue inlays (mostly employees' retirement contributions).

Thus, for 2000, we can see clearly that the budget was not balanced. The state took in 7.89 billion, but spent 8.7 billion.

So let's say he had 6 ACTUAL balanced budgets and 7-8 projected ones. He says 8. He's not the type to lie.

Is he the type to steal from other people's retirement funds? Because, as I said, general revenue is always less than expenditures. Every year. The only way to make these budgets "balance" on paper is for us to pretend that the state was embezzling funds every year.

Please, someone, just look at the census dept.'s numbers. Here is the year 2000 which I was using as an example: http://www.census.gov//govs/estimate/00sl32nm.html

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Your own graphs show that tax revenue surpassed expenses.

No, state-level tax revenue definitely never surpassed, nor even approached, expenses. State tax revenue, plus revenue from the federal government, plus revenue from the local governments of New Mexico, (all of which is ultimately tax revenue, of course, though not taxed by the state level government themselves), all of that... still doesn't ever equal expenses. Not even for one year. State tax revenue, plus revenue from the federal government, plus revenue from the local governments of New Mexico, plus embezzling from the employees' retirement account... now that will, in some years, total into a number as great or greater than expenses. Not all years even then (!!), but some of them.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Of course, if you're a neo-con!

You're calling others "neocons" while supporting troops-in-Africa Gary Johnson?

The very definition of neocon is someone who wants to intervene in foreign countries' affairs.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Hello? You said you could actually SHOW me rates GJ raised. I'm still waiting. Did you not read my last post I want you to show it to me.

And, again, you still don't know how to interpret those graphs. Obviously, you didn't listen to the poster before me, either. Like I said, in one ear, out the other.

Ignore any relevant information, facts, and requests so you don't lose face.

Ha! You're right! Well, obviously they also disagree with each other, since the gross debt went up every year.

The reason is that for some reason usgov'tspending.com has used the "Direct expenditure by function" line rather than just the total "Expenditure" line. The difference is that the "by function" line excludes intergovernmental expenditures, that is, the money that the state turns around and doles out to the local governments.

I don't know why for sure they did this, but probably because they decided to count that as spending for the local gov'ts and didn't want to double-count it. As for me, I think it is more accurate to include it as state spending, since, well, the state spends it. It is money that leaves the State of New Mexico's figurative wallet and goes away. That's called spending.

For example, in 2000 actual total expenditure was 8.7 billion, but "Direct expenditure by function" was 6.25 billion. 8.7 billion is the correct number; there is no reason to exclude spending just because it has been spent by doling it to other levels of gov't.

They do the same thing for revenue. In 2000 actual gross revenue was 10.57 billion, but usgov'tspending lists it as 8.38. That's because they exclude intergovernmental transfers again. The bigger problem here, and an actual mistake not just a judgment call, is that while they exclude intergovernmental they include the insurance trust revenue, which is not actually revenue available to be spent. 7.89 billion is the correct number -- the general revenue number, which includes intergovernmental but excludes insurance trust revenue inlays (mostly employees' retirement contributions).

Thus, for 2000, we can see clearly that the budget was not balanced. The state took in 7.89 billion, but spent 8.7 billion.

Is he the type to steal from other people's retirement funds? Because, as I said, general revenue is always less than expenditures. Every year. The only way to make these budgets "balance" on paper is for us to pretend that the state was embezzling funds every year.

Please, someone, just look at the census dept.'s numbers. Here is the year 2000 which I was using as an example: http://www.census.gov//govs/estimate/00sl32nm.html

 

[rockandrollsouls]

This has already been explained and GJ would still require a vote, regardless.

Still, you're on an awfully high horse considering Ron personally said he supported Gary Johnson for president before he, himself declared. Ron supported "troops-in-Africa Gary Johnson," too.

You're calling others "neocons" while supporting troops-in-Africa Gary Johnson?

The very definition of neocon is someone who wants to intervene in foreign countries' affairs.

 

[V3n]

A delegate for RP that isn't in touch with the campaign or state campaign HQ probably shouldn't be a delegate...they'd be a bit out of the loop, no? Delegates are constantly updated, particularly with strategy. Your fictional scenario will remain fictional. Poor example....

I thought it was funny. The point is the lie that Ron Paul has totally conceded is demoralizing and there's enough of that going around that the GJ folks don't have to add to it. Not at this mid-stage when there are still plenty of conventions left. And especially when some are lying saying he is completely out, when he is still IN fighting for the platform. I'll admit he's conceded he won't be President, but he has not folded camp and gone home. There's still a lot of work to do.

There's got to be a way to promote Gary Johnson's vision of Liberty for this country that doesn't involve bashing Ron and Rand Paul.
I'm sure there's a way to promote Ron Paul's vision with one hand, and Gary Johnson's with the other, working together, not against each other.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

@ Helmuth; because you lie, or you're just plain too stupid to understand those numbers.

Indeed, I expressed the fear that this might be the case. I am waiting for you to bring your greater mental faculties to bear on the question and explain the truth of the matter to us, of what New Mexico's budget numbers really were during Gary Johnson's tenure. I seem to be waiting in vain?

It's a fact budget numbers include predetermined liabilities. It's a fact tax revenue is affected by an increase in the tax base, population growth, and the Laffer curve. That's not speculative, it's proven.

All of these are indeed facts, other than the Laffer Curve specifically, but the more general point you are meaning to make that tax rates will affect the quantity of taxes collected and that a lower rate can sometimes result in a higher total collection, that is a fact. All of these things being facts is why I do not disagree with any of them, and in fact told you I agree with them.

Yet, you choose to ignore all of those factors, which can be mathematically plugged into an accurate regression model if you wanted to actually QUANTIFY it, and instead look at it this way.

To quantify what, exactly? I feel like you are throwing around words the definition of which you may not know and making statements you may not have completely thought through, but this could just be my own admitted stupidity popping up again.

"Revenue went up. Therefore, Gary Johnson must have increased taxes." Not only is that incredibly flawed logic for a number of reasons, including those I stated above, you can look at the bills he signed and his record (which has been verified) and you will quickly see he NEVER AUTHORIZED A TAX INCREASE. So now you have a number of things clearly showing you your reasoning is beyond flawed, yet you're still trumpeting an evidently flawed, fabricated story.

Well, the thing you put in quote marks would certainly be flawed. I never said it, of course, for that very reason. I merely presented the first part: "Revenue went up." That is true. It did. That, to me, is a very Bad Thing(TM). This is a thing which, as libertarians, we do not want. The government taking more of the people's money is something which we oppose. We prefer the government to take less of the people's money, that is, for their revenues to go down. Preferably to zero.

PLEASE show me the bill stating a tax would increase and if GJ signed it into law. Not one person on your side of the argument has provided this information yet.

I'm unsure why you're seeking that information. I did not make any claim that tax rates increased. Did someone else with whom you are infuriated make that claim?

There may in fact be such a bill. There very likely were individual taxes which did see an increase in rate sometime between 1995 and 2003. I could spend time digging up this information, but it would seem to be losing sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the budget increased from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion. That's the big deal for me. Spending IS the tax, as Ron Paul says! The government got bigger, and that means the people were more burdened, one way or another. Now in New Mexico's case, tax revenue went up, and that covered part of its machinations, and the debt tripled and that covered the rest of its oppressions. That the ballooning government's mammoth and cancerous growth was funded via massive debt and not tax increases is not such an important point, though it does cast doubt on any idea that Mr. Johnson is a hard-core deficit hawk, or would be one as President.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm still waiting for him to show me those tax rates he so adamantly believes GJ increased, and promised he could prove it to me! I guess he's still looking!

Hello? You said you could actually SHOW me rates GJ raised. I'm still waiting. Did you not read my last post I want you to show it to me.

Myself, I do not recall ever making such statements, nor giving such promises, nor possessing such adamant beliefs.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Here you are, slowly warping your argument because you can't defend it. Now it's a bad thing Gary helped the economy to thrive by not raising taxes, leading in part to increased revenue as a result of the stronger economic conditions?

How do you suggest GJ address that, hmm? Should he have declared himself acting dictator, cut taxes single handedly, and overridden the legislature and decided on his own to hand excess revenue back to the people?

You do realize a 2 to 1 democratic legislature would not permit him to cut taxes. All he could do was veto new tax proposals. You do realize a refund of some sort or reducing the tax revenue the state could collect would require the cooperation of the 2 to 1 legislature.

So, it's a "very bad thing" GJ was responsible for....because....he doesn't have enough power to change the situation? I'm not understanding you.

I once again ask you, please show me a bill Johnson signed authorizing an increase in government scope and size. You do realize he cut over 1,200 public sector jobs. That doesn't qualify as "increasing." If you're referring to your numbers, which may or may not be correct because we can't verify them, that too is out of Gary Johnson's hands. Those increased numbers, that you're pinning on Johnson, could be liabilities the state had promised by law or contract or otherwise. More workers may have been collecting pensions. There may have been government contracts GJ did not establish that were in place at the time. The municipalities themselves may have done some spending, which, if you read your source, is represented in those numbers. There are so many factors that are out of the control of Johnson, how can you even say Gary let the government grow. Nearly everything he signed either halted the increase of government or reduced government (ie, cutting public sector jobs.) So since we have clear evidence GJ was shrinking the public sector to the best of his ability and halting everything else, why would you think that "increase in government" was a consequence of GJ and not the factors out of his control?

My point is you didn't look at that side of the argument. My point is you saw those numbers, said "GJ is governor, everything went up, therefore he signed legislation to let it go up," and my point is that's simply not the reality. I'd like you to show me at least a few pieces of legislation that showed GJ increased the size of his govt, but no one has provided one piece of evidence yet.

Meanwhile, you could create a multiple regression with at least 50 explanatory variables, none of which are under GJs control, in that model....

Just show me one piece of legislation where he authorized the bloating of government. And, like I said before, if GJ was half the big government mogul you make him out to be, Ron wouldn't have supported him before he decided to run himself.

Indeed, I expressed the fear that this might be the case. I am waiting for you to bring your greater mental faculties to bear on the question and explain the truth of the matter to us, of what New Mexico's budget numbers really were during Gary Johnson's tenure. I seem to be waiting in vain?

All of these are indeed facts, other than the Laffer Curve specifically, but the more general point you are meaning to make that tax rates will affect the quantity of taxes collected and that a lower rate can sometimes result in a higher total collection, that is a fact. All of these things being facts is why I do not disagree with any of them, and in fact told you I agree with them.

To quantify what, exactly? I feel like you are throwing around words the definition of which you may not know and making statements you may not have completely thought through, but this could just be my own admitted stupidity popping up again.

Well, the thing you put in quote marks would certainly be flawed. I never said it, of course, for that very reason. I merely presented the first part: "Revenue went up." That is true. It did. That, to me, is a very Bad Thing(TM). This is a thing which, as libertarians, we do not want. The government taking more of the people's money is something which we oppose. We prefer the government to take less of the people's money, that is, for their revenues to go down. Preferably to zero.

I'm unsure why you're seeking that information. I did not make any claim that tax rates increased. Did someone else with whom you are infuriated make that claim?

There may in fact be such a bill. There very likely were individual taxes which did see an increase in rate sometime between 1995 and 2003. I could spend time digging up this information, but it would seem to be losing sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that the budget increased from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion. That's the big deal for me. Spending IS the tax, as Ron Paul says! The government got bigger, and that means the people were more burdened, one way or another. Now in New Mexico's case, tax revenue went up, and that covered part of its machinations, and the debt tripled and that covered the rest of its oppressions. That the ballooning government's mammoth and cancerous growth was funded via massive debt and not tax increases is not such an important point, though it does cast doubt on any idea that Mr. Johnson is a hard-core deficit hawk, or would be one as President.

 

[Athan]

Only the Liberty movement can get this guy to the 15% he needs to get in the national debates.

I think it's obvious we need to try, and there is nothing to lose from trying. Rand Paul and the national delegates are building goodwill for us in the Republican Party, so the rest of us need to refocus for the next 5 months on Gary Johnson. He's already at 8% nationally, we just need to add 7%. I think if we utilize all the tools we have for Dr. Paul, we can make this work.

So, what I want to hear from all of you is, if you agree, how do we get started? If you disagree, why?

Here's the daily show interview from last week. I think it proves that he's serious and ready to present a focused message to the American people.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-5-2012/gary-johnson

I'll support if you need my vote. I couldn't imagine myself voting for Romney, but I'm already going to basically vote for every republican possible for congress.

 

[cheapseats]

The sad thing is he'll never comprehend your post. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Fuck 'em. The Republican Par-taaay can HAVE 'em.

Some are being deliberately obtuse, some are more devious...BOTH are for purpose of DERAILING advocacy of Gary Johnson.

Payback is a bitch, that's my new policy. Nooooooo, I am not making threats. I am issuing Fair Warning, AS PEOPLE OUGHT.

I will match Johnson bashing with bashing of Compromisers on Twitter, even-steven. "Naturally." That's what people DO with Opposing Candidates...riiiight?

RON. PAUL. WILL. NOT. BE. ON. THE. NOVEMBER. BALLOT.

NON. REPUBLICAN. FREEDOM. FIGHTERS. ARE. THEREFORE. NO. LONGER. ONBOARD. WITH. THE. REPUBLICAN. TAKEOVER. STRATEGY.

The people taking mean-spirited and even BASELESS potshots at Gary Johnson should be up in Grassroots Central helping "real" Liberty Lovers GET DELEGATES.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Here you are, slowly warping your argument because you can't defend it.

Oh dear, I didn't think I was doing that. I rather thought I was just saying the same things over and over quite consistently. My misapprehension was due I'm sure, yet again, to my oversupply of astounding stupidity. Mostly the stupidity to continue participating in this... can I call it a conversation?

So, it's a "very bad thing" GJ was responsible for....because....he doesn't have enough power to change the situation? I'm not understanding you.

I believe he did have the power to change it, but that he didn't use that power. Of course, this doesn't fit into your narrative.

I once again ask you, please show me a bill Johnson signed authorizing an increase in government scope and size.
...
I'd like you to show me at least a few pieces of legislation that showed GJ increased the size of his govt, but no one has provided one piece of evidence yet.
...
Just show me one piece of legislation where he authorized the bloating of government.

In 1996, Governor Gary Johnson signed into law a budget which increased the size of New Mexico's government by about 400 million dollars annually.

He did likewise in 1997. And every year he was in office.

It's that simple. I'm glad he was in there vetoing hundreds of bills (over 700). But he wasn't vetoing enough. And most importantly, he never vetoed a single appropriations bill. Those were the ones he especially definitely totally needed to be vetoing!! It bothers me that he didn't. I understand it doesn't bother you. But it bothers me. Though you perhaps cannot respect that, there may be others who can.

It's kind of like Scott Walker in Wisconsin. I wanted to like him, I really did. I wanted him to be a Ron Paul-type guy. But look at the budget numbers: they actually increased, from 63 billion to 66 billion (biennially). So what was all the battle about? If you're going to have an epic struggle over cuts, at least actually CUT! He didn't cut. Nothing was cut. Nothing is ever cut. All the talk is just talk. It's all just spin. Every budget graph for every U.S. state government for as far back as I can find data has gone up every single time a new budget is passed. No exceptions (OK, one: NH 2011). No one ever cuts anything. Gary Johnson didn't cut. Scott Walker didn't cut. Mitt Romney certainly didn't cut, and neither did Rick Perry, nor Jon Huntsman,... NOBODY! That's the sad, sad truth.

Here's a little thing I wrote up for the Herman Cain Forums back when I was "supporting" the great Mr. Herman Cain, C.E.O. (R.I.P.)

Mitt Romney: Establishment. Doesn't stand for anything. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 26 billion to 35 billion. Debt up too. (see here)
Rick Perry: Establishment. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 44 billion to 91 billion. Debt up too. (here, here)
Michele Bachmann: Actually kind of anti-establishment in her ideology and voting record. But, I could never vote for her because she's a former IRS prosecutor. Just not happening.
Herman Cain: Firmly anti-establishment. Small businessman, not a politician. Saved several businesses from bankruptcy, could have saved the USA from bankruptcy but was the victim of a smear campaign. :'(
Ron Paul: From what I can tell so far, firmly anti-establishment.
Jon Huntsman: Establishment. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 9 billion to 12.5 billion. Debt up too. (here) Also, he's way too left-wing for the Republican Party, and definitely for myself and the Cain supporters I know. Basically a Democrat running as a Republican.
Rick Santorum: Establishment. Never met a spending increase he didn't like and vote for while in the Senate.
Gary Johnson: Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion. Debt up too. (see here). However, unlike the other three governors, there is evidence he was at least vetoing some of the spending and it would have been even worse without him as governor. Nonetheless, he was clearly not vetoing enough. I would put him at kind of anti-establishment at best.
Newt Gingrich: Establishment. More establishment than them all. The very personification of Establishment. Betrayed the 1994 Republican Revolution. Will betray us again without missing a beat or blinking an eye. No principles, integrity, nor respectability whatsoever.

All the governors had their states' budgets massively increase while they were the executive. I see no reason to expect them to do any differently as executive of the Federal government and every reason to expect them to do the same. Santorum and Gingrich both have voted for and even proposed massive spending increases and boondoggle projects. They have sometimes voted against tax increases, at least more often than against spending increases (which was pretty much never) but guess what Gingtorum? If spending increases then taxes will increase too, sooner or later. Every businessman knows this. Money doesn't come from thin air. Debts can't accumulate exponentially forever.​

Obviously some of this was just staying "in character," as Herman Cain is absolutely not anti-establishment, but the write-ups on the governors is more or less what I believe. If you think Mitt Romney is horrible because his state's budget went up 34%, from 26 billion to 35 billion, what does that mean for Gary Johnson, whose state budget went up 75%, from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion? Well, in fairness Gary Johnson was in office twice as long, so I guess the rate of increase was approximately the same.

Anyway, make it a great one, everyone! Keep up the fight for liberty! And if you're excited about Gary Johnson, by all means stay excited and get out there and have some fun spreading the Message of Freeee-dommmm!

 

[cheapseats]

I thought it was funny. The point is the lie that Ron Paul has totally conceded is demoralizing and there's enough of that going around...

Then his son RAND should have waited until the Convention to endorse Romney.

No-no-no...you don't understaaaand....he HAD TO endorse before the Kentucky Convention because...

It was better for RAND.

No-no-no...you STILL don't understand...Rand is just a vehicle for Liberty and in an elaborate pretzel-logic kinda way, this compromise of principle actually ADVANCES Liberty down the road.

B-b-but Gary Johnson is ALSO a vehicle for Liberty, on the November ballot, this year.

 

[W_BRANDON]

Then his son RAND should have waited until the Convention to endorse Romney.

No-no-no...you don't understaaaand....he HAD TO endorse before the Kentucky Convention because...

It was better for RAND.

No-no-no...you STILL don't understand...Rand is just a vehicle for Liberty and in an elaborate pretzel-logic kinda way, this compromise of principle actually ADVANCES Liberty down the road.

B-b-but Gary Johnson is ALSO a vehicle for Liberty, on the November ballot, this year.

I'm not sure why you insist on continually bringing up Rand's endorsement of Romney as part of your "argument" for people to support Gary Johnson.

I don't agree with what Rand did. I despise it actually. Then again, my feelings and convictions about liberty and political justice were never embodied and captured by Rand to begin with, it was Ron.

I don't agree with what Rand did. I don't agree with how GJ has hung back like a vulture over RP's supporters, slighting RP at every turn.

I don't completely trust Rand. I don't completely trust GJ.

Where is the correlation between Rand and GJ?

 

[JohnAshman]

No, state-level tax revenue definitely never surpassed, nor even approached, expenses. State tax revenue, plus revenue from the federal government, plus revenue from the local governments of New Mexico, (all of which is ultimately tax revenue, of course, though not taxed by the state level government themselves), all of that... still doesn't ever equal expenses. Not even for one year. State tax revenue, plus revenue from the federal government, plus revenue from the local governments of New Mexico, plus embezzling from the employees' retirement account... now that will, in some years, total into a number as great or greater than expenses. Not all years even then (!!), but some of them.

I notice you keep changing your argument. You are simply now making things up because we showed that your original premise was incorrect.

 

[JohnAshman]

I'm not sure why you insist on continually bringing up Rand's endorsement of Romney as part of your "argument" for people to support Gary Johnson.

I don't agree with what Rand did. I despise it actually. Then again, my feelings and convictions about liberty and political justice were never embodied and captured by Rand to begin with, it was Ron.

I don't agree with what Rand did. I don't agree with how GJ has hung back like a vulture over RP's supporters, slighting RP at every turn.

I don't completely trust Rand. I don't completely trust GJ.

Where is the correlation between Rand and GJ?

Did you know that Gary's decision to run is partly because he didn't think Ron was going to run. Then Ron joined the race a month later. Gary actually helped Ron do better than he ever has before by showing that he's not the only one who believed as he did.

The difference is that Gary was willing to break with Republicans and Rand and Ron are not. But that is good in a way. We have outsiders and insiders both disrupting the party. And you can support Ron at the convention and STILL vote for Gary if you decide you like him. The best of both worlds.

 

[Peace Piper]

I don't agree with how GJ has hung back like a vulture over RP's supporters, slighting RP at every turn.

examples or sources?

I don't completely trust Rand. I don't completely trust GJ.

"Trusting" *any* politician for even a second is a recipe for disaster.

Might "trust" Ron Paul but I'd verify...Pretty sure he'd want that too...

 

[cheapseats]

I'm not sure why you insist on continually bringing up Rand's endorsement of Romney as part of your "argument" for people to support Gary Johnson.

Because Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney in June...on HANNITY, no less...is a big (backroom) deal.

I don't agree with what Rand did. I despise it actually. Then again, my feelings and convictions about liberty and political justice were never embodied and captured by Rand to begin with, it was Ron.

DESPISE is a strong word, and Ron Paul is OUTTA CONTENTION.

Gary Johnson makes sense and cents.

I don't agree with how GJ has hung back like a vulture over RP's supporters, slighting RP at every turn.

ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
Indy's IMPLORED #RonPaul to bail on #GOP, run ThirdParty. But nooo...#RAND's career to consider. Therefore, Devotees are mad at Johnson?!?!?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

What budget do you suggest he propose? A 0$ budget? You do realize the budget is planned according to his state's needs, right? You do realize that state has a specific population growth, an increase in businesses, etc, etc. You make a few very faulty and ill placed assumptions. 1) The budget increase was not necessary and 2) That GJ introduced new programs or actually increased the size of the government. 3) You don't know what was in that budget.

Simple scenario you should be able to understand: Assuming the population in New Mexico is not constant, unless Gary could get the legislature to make cuts, the budget would almost certainly have to increase. How do you do the same thing with the same budget when you have more people? Something has to give.

Further, even though you assume that budget was bad (though you can't show us what was in it....) it was STILL balanced, and even had a surplus, and GJ didn't raise any taxes to do it. So can you explain how you raise a budget by 75% (your words) and still balance it without raising any taxes or fees?

There are so many factors and you're just jumping to conclusions. People don't dislike Romney because of his budget, though it's a factor. Most people dislike him because he's a liar, cheat, raised taxes, funded unconstitutional programs, and just wasn't a true republican.

Also, can you kindly share your source for your budget numbers.

Oh dear, I didn't think I was doing that. I rather thought I was just saying the same things over and over quite consistently. My misapprehension was due I'm sure, yet again, to my oversupply of astounding stupidity. Mostly the stupidity to continue participating in this... can I call it a conversation?



I believe he did have the power to change it, but that he didn't use that power. Of course, this doesn't fit into your narrative.

In 1996, Governor Gary Johnson signed into law a budget which increased the size of New Mexico's government by about 400 million dollars annually.

He did likewise in 1997. And every year he was in office.

It's that simple. I'm glad he was in there vetoing hundreds of bills (over 700). But he wasn't vetoing enough. And most importantly, he never vetoed a single appropriations bill. Those were the ones he especially definitely totally needed to be vetoing!! It bothers me that he didn't. I understand it doesn't bother you. But it bothers me. Though you perhaps cannot respect that, there may be others who can.

It's kind of like Scott Walker in Wisconsin. I wanted to like him, I really did. I wanted him to be a Ron Paul-type guy. But look at the budget numbers: they actually increased, from 63 billion to 66 billion (biennially). So what was all the battle about? If you're going to have an epic struggle over cuts, at least actually CUT! He didn't cut. Nothing was cut. Nothing is ever cut. All the talk is just talk. It's all just spin. Every budget graph for every U.S. state government for as far back as I can find data has gone up every single time a new budget is passed. No exceptions (OK, one: NH 2011). No one ever cuts anything. Gary Johnson didn't cut. Scott Walker didn't cut. Mitt Romney certainly didn't cut, and neither did Rick Perry, nor Jon Huntsman,... NOBODY! That's the sad, sad truth.

Here's a little thing I wrote up for the Herman Cain Forums back when I was "supporting" the great Mr. Herman Cain, C.E.O. (R.I.P.)

Mitt Romney: Establishment. Doesn't stand for anything. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 26 billion to 35 billion. Debt up too. (see here)
Rick Perry: Establishment. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 44 billion to 91 billion. Debt up too. (here, here)
Michele Bachmann: Actually kind of anti-establishment in her ideology and voting record. But, I could never vote for her because she's a former IRS prosecutor. Just not happening.
Herman Cain: Firmly anti-establishment. Small businessman, not a politician. Saved several businesses from bankruptcy, could have saved the USA from bankruptcy but was the victim of a smear campaign. :'(
Ron Paul: From what I can tell so far, firmly anti-establishment.
Jon Huntsman: Establishment. Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 9 billion to 12.5 billion. Debt up too. (here) Also, he's way too left-wing for the Republican Party, and definitely for myself and the Cain supporters I know. Basically a Democrat running as a Republican.
Rick Santorum: Establishment. Never met a spending increase he didn't like and vote for while in the Senate.
Gary Johnson: Budget and taxes went way up while governor -- from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion. Debt up too. (see here). However, unlike the other three governors, there is evidence he was at least vetoing some of the spending and it would have been even worse without him as governor. Nonetheless, he was clearly not vetoing enough. I would put him at kind of anti-establishment at best.
Newt Gingrich: Establishment. More establishment than them all. The very personification of Establishment. Betrayed the 1994 Republican Revolution. Will betray us again without missing a beat or blinking an eye. No principles, integrity, nor respectability whatsoever.

All the governors had their states' budgets massively increase while they were the executive. I see no reason to expect them to do any differently as executive of the Federal government and every reason to expect them to do the same. Santorum and Gingrich both have voted for and even proposed massive spending increases and boondoggle projects. They have sometimes voted against tax increases, at least more often than against spending increases (which was pretty much never) but guess what Gingtorum? If spending increases then taxes will increase too, sooner or later. Every businessman knows this. Money doesn't come from thin air. Debts can't accumulate exponentially forever.​

Obviously some of this was just staying "in character," as Herman Cain is absolutely not anti-establishment, but the write-ups on the governors is more or less what I believe. If you think Mitt Romney is horrible because his state's budget went up 34%, from 26 billion to 35 billion, what does that mean for Gary Johnson, whose state budget went up 75%, from 4.4 billion to 7.7 billion? Well, in fairness Gary Johnson was in office twice as long, so I guess the rate of increase was approximately the same.

Anyway, make it a great one, everyone! Keep up the fight for liberty! And if you're excited about Gary Johnson, by all means stay excited and get out there and have some fun spreading the Message of Freeee-dommmm!

 

[W_BRANDON]

The difference is that Gary was willing to break with Republicans and Rand and Ron are not.

Just throwing Ron Paul's (Dr. No's) 30 years of no compromise under the bus huh? Shame on you, sir!