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

[Respect38]

I can't vote for Garry Johnson. He is pro-choice. I have never and will never vote for a candidate that is pro-choice.

That'll teach 'em!

 

[RickyJ]

That'll teach 'em!

It's called principle. Some people have it, others endorse Romney.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

The only thing is, you don't have to sacrifice principle to send a message. I'd vote for the flying spaghetti monster if it got another political party into the ring.

It's called principle. Some people have it, others endorse Romney.

 

[cheapseats]

That'll teach 'em!

If "Sanctity of Life" Hysterics would betake themselves to the Middle East to serve as human shields for innocent civilians, they would not only quell the warfare, they would cease being Hypocrites.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

You don't make sense.

 

[cheapseats]

Normally I vote for the Constitution Party candidate for POTUS, but I don't like their nominee this cycle. I will vote for Gary if Romney is nominated, and I will likely talk him up to those in my circle, but I won't be campaigning for him. There are contests down ballot that have my attention.

This is FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC, for real, "pardon my French".

Somewhere around this joint, there is a podcast interview with Marianne Stebbins, of Minnesota acclaim. She promptly and forthrightly answered the question about pledging to vote for Mitt Romney in November: "I had to make a deal with myself."

When pressed about CAMPAIGNING for Romney, she declined. She said she/they have a bunch of state & local candidates they will promote, might even run for office herself, and that she hoped other Ron Paul Supporters had ALSO by now identified (lower) candidates to foster.

(She did NOT use the word LOWER, nor do I imply insult with it.)

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I have my doubts about this website. Where does it get its information?

From the primary source documents: the budgets themselves. You may easily go to the New Mexico state government web site and look up the PDFs yourself. It really should be fairly easy for you. You need not be troubled with doubts any longer.

If you find the figures are deficient somehow, perhaps you could post alternative numbers. I will warn you, that I cast a... not super-wide but somewhat wide net when I did my research on this; I did not just go to one web site. So, to get better numbers than me, you will have to do better research than me, and that might take you quite a bit of time, depending on how much your intelligence exceeds my own, enabling you to do a more rapid search.

You have posted this shit before.

Thank you for noticing! I appreciate your attentiveness.

Gary Johnson was not a DICTATOR in New Mexico . . . that WORKS for me.

He was a "red" governor of a "blue" state. BLUE Lawmakers had their asses handed to them over 750 times (PLUS line-item vetoes) by a RED governor, into whom a BLUE electorate willingly and by a large margin INVESTED a second term.

OK, that is one narrative, and it is a cohesive one (though one sounding kind of whiny and pitiful, being as it is just a story excusing failure), but then you give us a competing narrative:

Gary Johnson INHERITED A DEFICIT, BALANCED THE BUDGET & BEQUEATHED A SURPLUS.

So which one is it?

#1: Was Gary Johnson a helpless victim, steamrolled by the evil Democrats in the legislature and thus unable to actually achieve any of his goals, but nevertheless standing boldly for liberty even in the face of unending defeat? That is, did he really want to make New Mexico a freer place, and was he constantly doing everything he could to make New Mexico a freer place but he was blocked at every turn by those wicked Blues?

#2: Or, was Gary Johnson successful in taking what had been historically an unbalanced budget ("INHERITED A DEFICIT," as you term it), cutting enough spending so that it became balanced, and in fact by the end reducing the government so much that it was unbalanced the other way -- revenues exceeded outlays? That is, was he successful in at least this one goal of making the state fiscally responsible?

#2 cannot be true, because the budget was not balanced, not during any year when Gary Johnson was in office as governor. In 2003, the New Mexico state government spent about 432 million dollars more than it stole. In 2002 it spent 964 million more than it stole -- a deficit of almost a billion! You can read the reports for yourself here:

http://sunshineportalnm.com/sample/#section=BudgetsExpenditures

Where was Gary Johnson with his veto pen? Mr Johnson never once vetoed an appropriation bill. Not once! Those were the ones he needed to be vetoing!! What's more, New Mexico's line item veto is extremely powerful. Extremely powerful. Is it too powerful, making the executive too much like a dictator? That may be. But regardless, it is what it is, and Mr. Johnson did not use it effectively. He could have vetoed Billions with a "B" of dollars of spending from the budgets. It would have been very difficult and unlikely for the NM legislature to be able to override such line-item vetoes.

He didn't SHRINK government as YOU would have done? Would YOU "just" go the full-on EXECUTIVE ORDER route to get 'er done?

This is a good thought experiment: what would you do as governor? Would you pardon people who have not aggressed? Would you fight epic battles to cut -- CUT! -- the budget? Would you fight epic battles to cut -- CUT! -- the number of state laws and regulation? Would you, in short, make any attempt to reduce the tyranny and increase the freedom in your state? To answer your question: I would. I would do those things I mentioned. That is exactly what I would do. Freedom is my only political goal. It is really an anti-political goal.

Gary Johnson IS on the wrong side of Privatized Prisons. "Hopefully", that was a budget consideration and he can be persuaded by our APPALLING prison population statistics to flop-flip. "We'll see."

I agree, but a more fundamental consideration in this problem is just the total number of people caged. If 2 million people are caged, that's a problem regardless of how the system is managed. If zero people are caged (or 5, or 1,000, or whatever you think the right number is) because the governor pardoned them, then the prison problem is essentially solved.

Anyway, thank you for your reply. I was totally open to Gary Johnson, and pro-him earlier -- you can look up my posts. I don't have any real beef nor problem with him, and he has said some good things on the debate stage with Dr. Paul. His commercials seem to be good. In short, he talks the liberty talk (at least by and large). Unfortunately, I at some point decided to do the actual research on him and the other candidates, and his track record on the thing important to me -- decreasing the state and thus increasing liberty -- his track record on this was, like the rest of the candidates, totally uninspiring. Dismal, in fact. Sorry. I did want to like him. But the facts are facts.

 

[cheapseats]

I don't have any real beef nor problem with him...

That is FALSE, undermining the credibility of your entire missive.

-- decreasing the state and thus increasing liberty

Decreasing the size of the State does not automatically increase Liberty. We could have a Dictator and fewer, fiercer, more efficient Enforcers.

Would you have a Governor or President "simply" machete thru the mess via Executive Order?

But the facts are facts.

I can play that game, too.

DESIRE = DESIRE

HOPE = HOPE

EMOTION = EMOTION

OPINON = OPINION

REVERENCE = REVERENCE

RESENTMENT = RESENTMENT

PEEVISHNESS = PEEVISHNESS

SHORTSIGHTEDNESS = SHORTSIGHTEDNESS

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That is FALSE, undermining the credibility of your entire missive.

Nah, you don't know me. You can't hear my tone of voice as I discuss Gary. You think I must hate ole Gary just because I'm explaining to you that New Mexico did not become freer when he was a governor, and that he was not taking actions to make it freer (at least not enough such actions for me). But, as it turns out, I don't!

I joined the Libertarian Party at age 14 or so. I am happy to see them nominate Gary Johnson this time rather than someone utterly horrible like Bob Barr or W.A.R. Johnson is tons better than those putzes. But is Ron Paul about a million times still better than him? Yes, yes he is. As is Mary Ruwart, Lee Wrights, etc., etc., etc.

Anyway, I wish Mr. Johnson and the LP the best of luck and the achievement of what limited success might be possible in this race. Spread the message! Getting 7%, or even 3%, by the way, is not part of that "what might be possible," so set your expectations realistically. One percent would be a very good showing. More importantly, he should be doing lots of radio interviews, etc., getting the message out there. I'm not going to be supporting him, because he hasn't got any credibility with me as someone who would actually cut the government. He didn't do it. He didn't do everything he could to try. So, he probably won't do it in the future either.

Do you understand what I'm saying here cheapseats? I'm saying he's fine, maybe he's an ally of sorts, he's out in an outer ring somewhere of the big tent of the liberty movement, but I'm also saying, "Here is his record as the governor of New Mexico. Is this record good enough for you to really get excited about?"

Is it?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Helmuth; I could be using that website wrong, but why is it only letting me search 2010, 2011, and 2012?

I'll further challenge you and state it has been authorized by the government GJ balanced the budget and had surpluses. It wasn't just "fact checked," it's 100% true. I don't know where you're getting your info.

All I have to remember is you're the same person that quoted "usgovernmentspending.com" in an attempt to discredit GJ. A source that is not accredited.

You also fail to take into account predetermined liabilities. GJ doesn't have a hand in that.

And show me the appropriations bills he "refused" to veto. He vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors COMBINED.

Long story short, you're full of shit. Show me the evidence from a credible source. All major publications, fact checking organizations, etc have recognized GJ balanced the budget, produced surpluses, cut public sector jobs, all without raising taxes. That's a FACT.

 

[Respect38]

Getting 7%, or even 3%, by the way, is not part of that "what might be possible," so set your expectations realistically. One percent would be a very good showing.

You do realize that we're trying to get Johnson to the debates, right?

7% would be a sucky showing if we got him to the debates, which is what we're aiming for, and why we're asking for support to begin for him NOW! Waiting until after the convention to begin to even LOOK INTO supporting Gary Johnson could very well mean that we would be too late, as the decision for who would go to the debates would be made about a week or two after that date.

 

[JohnAshman]

Nah, you don't know me. You can't hear my tone of voice as I discuss Gary. You think I must hate ole Gary just because I'm explaining to you that New Mexico did not become freer when he was a governor, and that he was not taking actions to make it freer (at least not enough such actions for me).

Actually, it did get freer. Not a lot, because he couldn't just overturn existing law, nor contradict federal law, but every attempt to decrease freedom was also vetoed.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Here are my findings about Gary Johnson, reposted yet again. Sorry to be so repetitive, but I of course not everyone reads every thread, and since this thread is not going well -- I seem to be being misunderstood/hated -- it seems necessary.

He did a nice job as governor of New Mexico and shrunk the state government so he's got my vote in November.

No, he did not. It is important to realize this. qh4dotcom's statement above is not true. It is false.

• New Mexico's state government's spending went way up while Johnson was governor, from 4.4 billion annually to 7.7 billion annually. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's taxes went way up while Johnson was governor. Total direct revenue increased from 5.3 billion to 6.6 billion (see here) . Or, according to a different measurement from a different site, tax revenue increased from 2.7 billion to 3.5 billion. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's debt went way up while Johnson was governor. In fact, it tripled: from 1.82 billion to 4.6 billion. (see here)

More spending. More taxes. More debt.

So, there's his record. But, but, but, you say! But, he really shares our vision of liberty at heart, he just did a lousy job actually implementing it as governor. Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels, in other words, that he's rolled out for leviathan and its grateful parasites.

Here it is: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/speech?contentId=16108

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

~~~

Another note: But, but, but, you say! But, this was the legislature's fault! Mr. Johnson was vetoing, vetoing, vetoing, as much as he could, but they were overriding him. It would have been tons worse if not for him.

Truth will contradict this theory. Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough. He did not veto appropriations bills. Those would have been the important ones to veto! He did not veto all the outrageous growth in the state government that was occurring during his tenure. In fact, as you can see from his address above, he took pride in much of this growth. He could have vetoed the cancerous growth. The debt. The taxes. The waste. He could have stopped it. But, either he had no desire to do so (this is what I think is the truth), or, the most charitable possibility is that he had the desire, but lacked the courage to do it.

What's more, New Mexico has the line item veto. Not only could he have vetoed budget bills outright, he could have crossed out billions of dollars of spending, line by line. Did he? No. His line item vetoing was weak, weak, weak. Paltry. Inconsequential. 27 million out of multi-billion dollar budgets.

Weak.

Fake.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth; I could be using that website wrong, but why is it only letting me search 2010, 2011, and 2012?

I do not know to which web site of the many I have used and directed people to you may be referring. But perhaps you have not figured out how to use it correctly? Just one possibility!

I'll further challenge you and state it has been authorized by the government GJ balanced the budget and had surpluses. It wasn't just "fact checked," it's 100% true. I don't know where you're getting your info.

And I likewise do not know where you got yours. I, however, have posted the various places from which I have gotten my info and you have not posted from whence you got yours, so my ignorance is rather less surprising than yours. I can find no numbers for any years which show the NM parasites stealing more than they spent. If you can find some numbers contradicting me, by all means post them and we can discuss them. This will be the second time I have made this invitation in this thread.

All I have to remember is you're the same person that quoted "usgovernmentspending.com" in an attempt to discredit GJ. A source that is not accredited.

I do not know what you mean by "accredited." Is this a quality which some sources can possess while others do not? How can I tell which are which?
How does a source go about becoming accredited? Who does the accrediting?

You also fail to take into account predetermined liabilities. GJ doesn't have a hand in that.

Fail to take them into account to what? Certainly the graph I posted takes them into account. Look how high the debt bar already is in 1995 -- that's debt already accumulated, for which Gary Johnson bore no responsibility. No one faults him for that. It's just that the debt numbers went up even higher -- almost tripled -- that is the unfortunate thing for New Mexicans. If he would have paid down the debt, or kept it the same, or, best of all, repudiated it, then I would hail him as a tremendously fiscally responsible politician. He'd be right up there with Ron Paul.

And show me the appropriations bills he "refused" to veto. He vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors COMBINED.

Oh, I have no idea if he "refused" to veto them, or "forgot" to, or "was pressured" not to, or "felt he had no choice but" not to, or "took one for the team" ala Santorum. I presented no theory as to his motives. I simply stated he didn't. Because he didn't.

If you are claiming that I am mistaken, if you know of some appropriations that he did in fact veto, by all means present it and then we can discuss it and I can retract my statement.

Long story short, you're full of shit.

What solution do you propose for me so that I can rectify this situation?

All major publications, fact checking organizations, etc have recognized GJ balanced the budget, produced surpluses, cut public sector jobs, all without raising taxes. That's a FACT.

I am simply unable to find this fact. It is not for lack of trying. But I have been unable to locate a New Mexican balanced budget 1995-2003. This could be due to my own stupidity, misunderstanding, or poor searching skills. I do not rule those possibilities out. So I invite you to show me those budgets.

Now you likewise invite me...

Show me the evidence from a credible source.

...however, I have already shown it from as creditable sources as I deemed necessary.

I have linked you to multiple pages on http://www.usgovernmentspending.com (this, this, and this)
who got the raw data from here: http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/index.html .
I also linked to here: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/state-taxes/new-mexico/all-tax-types/tax-revenue#table
who say they also got their data from the Census Bureau.
I linked to here: http://sunshineportalnm.com/sample/#section=BudgetsExpenditures , which has the word "official" in the title of the site (does that make them accredited?),
who appear to get their data from here: http://www.nmdfa.state.nm.us/Financial_Control.aspx
I suggested that you go to the New Mexico State Government site and poke around and find the actual budget files. In case you could not locate this site, I will link to it now. It is http://www.newmexico.gov .
I would have enjoyed linking you to http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_Mexico_state_budget , but unfortunately it only covers very recent budgets, not historical ones. It is a good site if you are looking up current budget issues.

I find these sources credible. I judge that the fact that I found no contradictory figures anywhere on the search-indexed internet tends to be corroboratory to these sources' story. I am open to your repudiation of these sources (essentially every source on the internet having to do with the topic of New Mexico's budget). Unfortunately, as of yet I have not received such a repudiation. So, I must make do with what meager resources and intelligence I have at my disposal. If you would make your own more formidable ones available to me, I am sure we can get a much more accurate picture of New Mexico's budget during Gary Johnson's tenure. Thank you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Actually, it did get freer. Not a lot, because he couldn't just overturn existing law, nor contradict federal law, but every attempt to decrease freedom was also vetoed.

Well that is good news. Which oppressions were repealed or softened?

 

[JohnAshman]

Well, for instance, we got to gamble. Taxes went down. Economy went up. We got to keep more of our money. The Tax/Rev Dept got a whole lot friendlier. I can't remember any specific thing he was able to get overturned, because he didn't have that power. But he vetoed or stopped stupidity like forcing motorcyclists to register as organ donors. I believe the helmet law was repealed under Johnson as well.

 

[JohnAshman]

I am simply unable to find this fact. It is not for lack of trying. But I have been unable to locate a New Mexican balanced budget 1995-2003. This could be due to my own stupidity, misunderstanding, or poor searching skills. I do not rule those possibilities out. So I invite you to show me those budgets.

How do you think NM went from deep in the red to well into the black? Money fell from the sky?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How do you think NM went from deep in the red to well into the black? Money fell from the sky?

New Mexico does not appear to have done so. They do not look to be in the black at all. They look to be many billions in the red. So I don't need to think of an explanation for a phenomenon I see as not being existent.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, for instance, we got to gamble. Taxes went down. Economy went up. We got to keep more of our money. The Tax/Rev Dept got a whole lot friendlier. I can't remember any specific thing he was able to get overturned, because he didn't have that power. But he vetoed or stopped stupidity like forcing motorcyclists to register as organ donors. I believe the helmet law was repealed under Johnson as well.

Thank you!!!! That's real information, see? That's exactly what I was asking for, and you're the first one who has actually provided any.

I did not know gambling is legal in New Mexico, nor that it used to be illegal. That's good news. I did know that there were a couple tax rates that went down, although the total tax revenue went up substantially, as did spending, as they seems to inexorably do in every state, every year, for the last century (with the sole, single, proud exception of New Hampshire's last budget session). I also did not know about the helmet law situation.

So New Mexico got freer in terms of gambling laws and (perhaps) the helmet law. That is good news. I don't know that this increased freedom outweighs the increased tyranny of a government which has overall doubled in size. For me it wouldn't outweigh that, but for someone interested in gambling and helmet-less motorcycling it very well could.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm not saying anyone should get behind gary, just don't trash him.
i don't think he is our enemy.