At least Ron Johnson has said something about something

“We may not know all of Johnson’s positions yet,” writes Mike H of Letters in Bottles, but despite not knowing anything about what Ron Johnson stands for (besides freedom), Mike H thinks Ron Johnson is supremely qualified to serve in the United States Senate, simply because Johnson is a business owner who’s enjoyed some success.

However, as The Chief astutely notes, on the one issue Johnson has said anything about – freedom – Johnson seems to equate lower taxes with freedom in a rather simplistic manner:

“The most basic right,” Johnson says, “is the right to keep your property.” Remembering the golden age when, thanks to Ronald Reagan, the top income tax rate was 28 percent, Johnson says: “For a brief moment we were 72 percent free.”

By the logic implied by Johnson, one cannot truly be on hundred percent free unless one pays nothing in taxes, but the down side to Johnson’s rationale is that in order for the citizens of the United States to be truly “free,” the government couldn’t collect any tax revenue. No doubt the lack of tax revenue would create some interesting quandaries for anti-tax conservatives, such as how to fund defense spending (always a favorite among the right wing) or how to keep those parts of government that are necessary (like Congress and the Supreme Court) operational.

Given the amateurishness of Ron Johnson’s freedom=taxes position, I can understand now why it’s taken him so long to articulate where he stands on the issues folks here in Wisconsin are concerned about.

Share:

Related Articles

22 thoughts on “At least Ron Johnson has said something about something

  1. Let’s see him run his business without roads to ship his products. If he can do that I’d vote for him.

    1. Yeah as if it takes that much taxes to build roads. Anyway there must be a surplus of taxes for transporation if Doyle can keep raiding it all the time, right?. Plus I thought liberals were all about rail; they’re not going to be building any more roads with that 28%.

  2. Freedom is a many define item

    Freedom from taxes, Freedom from Librarys, roads as Jim said, Freedom from public utilities

    We can be free of so many things, Its hard to name them.

  3. Yes, because it’s obvious that Johnson wants no government whatsoever and absolutely no taxes. He couldn’t possibly be making a point about the more money the government takes from a person in taxes, the more power it has over that person, or the more the government spends and involves itself in our daily lives, the less freedom people have in general.

    Do you honestly think that Johnson meant we shouldn’t have any taxes at all? Really? I can’t believe you do.

    Also, I do believe Johnson is qualified based on his resume. Just as Feingold was in 1992. Now, Johnson may run a horrible campaign or a great one, we simply don’t know yet, but I was responding to what I saw as liberals deriding Johnson’s “lack of experience” simply because he had no political experience. I thought that was nutty, but hey it’s nice to know someone’s at least reading what I write – occasionally.

  4. And even worse, we have one federal Government.

    Without it, we would have 51 federal governments

    Each in conflict with eachother.

    1. No we have one federal government, 50 state governments, oodles of counties, local governments, school districts, special taxing districts, etc. all ready, willing, and able to TAX TAX TAX.

      Shiva: “Freedom from taxes, Freedom from Librarys, roads as Jim said, Freedom from public utilities” … So by your logic things would be so much better if we paid even more in taxes? It’s not really being free if the government can tax you out of prosperity, not to mention your home. I just wish the govenment would keep its paws out of my wallet a little more often. But why should I expect liberals to understand that. As soon as someone like Ron Johnson makes a valid point about an overreaching federal government, here you guys are pulling out the violin about police and fire protection and roads. As if government only covered those bare essentials and nothing more. Please.

      1. No, re-read what i wrote and see the context.

        I responded to Mike H’s post (albeit not properly).

        Read his first sentence. With no Federal government we would have 51 State federal governments each in its way as powerful as the one with differing tax structures.

        iF you are being taxed out of prosperity, then it started some time ago. In fact quite a long time ago. As for more taxes, you read that into my post. I didnt say it.

        I also said we could be free of many things, but in the same vein as what Jim above said.

  5. I really understand the conservative fear of government growing too large, but I do not understand this fear that the Democratic Party will bring us into socialism. How many people like Ron Johnson would go on the attack against fire stations or police stations or numerous other government run institutions that are essential? Should all of those be run by private businesses, with poorer areas suffering the consequences?

    He made a very poor statement there.

    1. Yeah, not to mention the socialized school system.

      Or how about Medicaid, Medicare, and social security? We’d never be able to pay for all that if we were truly free, by Johnson’s logic.

      1. Yeah because our socialized school system is just top notch right? How’s that working for ya?

        And as for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security: nothing better than watching the elderly having to beg its government for benefits and polticians so afraid to make the tough decisions and tell these people the truth: these programs are unsustainable.

        “We’d never be able to pay for all that…” Well at least that part of your statment is correct. We CAN’T pay for that unless we start taking more from fewer and fewer workers. Something’s gotta give in this liberal utopia of yours. Time’s almost up, then what?

        1. So you support the destruction of the public school system, leaving many families with NO educational opportunities?

          1. So my choices are the public school system as it exists or no educational opportunities? I don’t support the destruction, but there are better ways to run a school system. How bout some vouchers, competition, letting parents decide, math & science, and esteem that is earned, not awarded to everyone. I don’t support destruction — unions and touchy feely political correctness have already done that.

            1. i think if you look at our graduation numbers, it throws your “awarded to everyone out”

              How do you propose getting kids to schools if they don’t go to the school closest to them? Leave it to the parents, both of whom are hopefully working, or have buss’s criscrossing the state going hither and yon?

              How about spending far less on defense and far more on schools? What is it you hate about the right of people to form unions? Do you support favoritism?

              Nice cliches there, but they dont mean much.

              1. Well the graduation failure in Milwaukee is also an issue I care deelply about. But what I was referring to is a kid getting an “A” in a failure of a system deosn’t mean much when he doesn’t have skills people in other nations have in a world economy. Our little Johnny gets an A in diversity while the kid in India is running circles around him in math.

                I like how you believe the school closest to children is good enough just because it’s convenient for transporation. With competition, better schools would crop up and most parents are going to choose a school that is fairly close proximity — in city or the next town over. What about expanding the school choice program?

                As far as spending less on defense in favor of education — now who’s speaking in cliches? The federal government really has no jurisdiction in education — that’s a state/local matter, so defense spending really has no bearing unless you want the federal government to nationalize primary education too. And anyway, spending has little to do with learning more to a point. There’s the law of diminishing returns on that one. Look at paraochial schools that spend less and somehow get better results.

                Yes I support favoritism when it comes to teachers (or any employees for that matter) earing their way based on merit. Unions protect bad/lazy employees (even Zach admits that) at the expense of higher performing employees. So where’s the incentive when they all move ahead based on seniority? But we wouldn’t want to show any favoritism. The fact that you view it in that way only shows why the education system is in shambles — make sure every kid gets a gold star whether they get the answer right or not.

                1. Actually Federal money does go to State run schools. Tons of stimulus money went to schools

                  Favoritism is far more than what you explain it as. Without representation anyone can get ahead. Under your system anyone can get ahead, bad or good. Under that system bad teachers have the same opportunity to get higher pay. Kids can pass if the teachers like them, they can fail if the teachers dont. Just like unions. SO basically your last paragraph means nothing. Al the way to the end.

                  You still didnt explain how you are going to get kids helter skelter all over cities. What competition are you talking about? A kid going 20 miles away to school and a kid going much closer is not competition, its a senseless waste of gas. Now if you are talking about contests between schools for graduation numbers and test scores i’m all for that. In fact Obama offered 4.5 billion last summer for schools that do that. But so far you havent defined a single type of competition

                  Detroit had under a 60% graduation rate average, most majos cities are the same. Rural schools are better. When I moved to Knoxville 8 years ago I had to write young peoples names on the tests I gave them(factory training)

        2. My socialized public school education worked out for me, at least in my opinion, and it seemed to work for my wife.

  6. BloggingBlue Rule#1: In regards to Republican and/or Conservative politicians, the absence of positions to attack will not prevent criticism. Instead, extrapolate what that politician has said to the Nth ridiculous degree so as to create an extremely easy position to attack. (For example, if they say they want to lower taxes, claim they want no taxes for public safety…claim they want children to go hungry…etc.)

    1. Roland, all we can do is extrapolate, since Ron Johnson can’t seem to articulate where he stands on the issues folks are concerned about.

Comments are closed.