Thursday, January 19, 2006

HUH?

Jim Young had this...the post title makes it sound as though he was right about Connaughton raising his taxes all the time... in the article which he references, Chairman Sean T. Connaughton says: Before the vote to change the code, Chairman Sean T. Connaughton, R-at large, said he wanted to make it clear that the county was not responsible for the increased percentage people will have to pay in coming years. "We did not do this," he said. "We're doing this because the state changed its code." Could he be any clearer PWC far-far-far right?

28 Comments:

At 1/19/2006 09:27:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I pointedly said not a single word about Chairman Sean. Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

 
At 1/19/2006 09:37:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

However, it is indeed interesting how Chairman Sean is attempting place the blame elsewhere --- while taking credit for everything good, including this morning's sunrise --- since it is the COUNTY, after all, which sets the personal property tax rate.

 
At 1/19/2006 09:56:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Take a chill pill, james.

 
At 1/19/2006 11:14:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Why, willis? He doesn't seem to be at all heated.

He wrote a brief and entirely rational post noting that our personal property taxes are going up.

Mr. "too conservative" (I am more an more at a loss to understand how he thinks that is a reasonable name) launches an attack against Jim, based entirely on what he THINKS Jim must be thinking about.

Jim responds to defend himself against this scurrilous attack, and you ask HIM to chill?

The county sets the personal property tax rate. Of course, I don't expect them to cut it. The state froze the amount of money each county gets. The state is primarily at fault, because they are meddling in what the county can do.

BTW, each time one of your new rich neighbors buys a brand-new car, YOUR personal property tax on your car will go up now, because you will get a smaller part of the state refund pie.

I note that the article doesn't mention THAT.

Also, anybody remember Sean down in Richmond the last two years lobbying valiantly but unsuccessfully against the 2004 budget deal which "forced" the county to do this to us, or the 2005 budget? Anybody?

I don't blame Sean for this, or at least I hadn't thought to until TC turned this into a personal attack on Sean. Something I am unfortunately beginning to come to expect from the "moderates" in our party.

 
At 1/19/2006 11:22:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Charles, you have to understand that Willis responds to any argument he can't answer by name-calling his opponent (not the idea), or by ascribing to him or her less-than-attractive characteristics like "anger."

At the risk of using psychobabble, sounds a lot like projection to me.

 
At 1/19/2006 11:55:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"Also, anybody remember Sean down in Richmond the last two years lobbying valiantly but unsuccessfully against the 2004 budget deal which "forced" the county to do this to us, or the 2005 budget? Anybody?"

I do. Sean spent a great deal of his time during the 2005 General Assembly session running for LG. During that campaign, i9ncluding during the session, he criticized both the proposal to cap the car tax reimbursement AND those in the General Assembly who supported this policy change. He used it as an example of what is WRONG in Richmond and got a fair amount of positive press coverage for it.

For any delegate or senator who opposed the car tax phase out, supporting the $950 million cap is consistent. (Incorrect, I beleive, but consistent.)

But any delegate who supported the car tax phase out (either as an incumbent, candidate or activist) who now supports this cap, is a hypocrite and a tax raiser; plain and simple.

A promise was made to the voters of this state: Eliminate the car tax by replacing that stream of local revenue with a reimbursment from state general revenues. Anyone who claims to support or claimed to have supported that proposition and now is not fighting to eliminate the cap and take the next step toward full phase out is a liar and deserves to be beaten in the next election.

 
At 1/19/2006 11:59:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Hey james: you know you are a hypocrite, as you have unabashadly admitted, proudly, to being prejudiced.

When I called you out on that on your blog, you deleted not only my post, but your as well.

Everyone, just be aware that James has no ground to stand on when he calls me a name-caller.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:16:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

No, willis, I am not prejudiced. I judge people according to their behavior, whether it be criminal, perverse, or respectable. And I delete your peurile and sophomoric posts. Act like a child, and you can expect to be treated like one. I certainly don't have to tolerate your personal insults and name-calling on my own blog. It's one of the benefits of ownership. Since I doubt that you actually have the courage of your socialist convictions, it's probably a benefit that you'll enjoy some day. When you grow up.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:22:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

James, did you, or did you not, delete my posts because I'm a member of Democratic Underground??

You admitted it proudly. That fits the definition of prejudiced perfectly.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:31:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Keep up those Big Lies, Willis! It's so much easier than rational argument. Your posts were deleted because: (1) you couldn't keep a civil tongue; (2) decided to post childish jibes when I deleted your repetitive "Delete this comment!!!" posts; and (3) attacked my very happy and intelligent children.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:39:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I didn't attack your children, James, I said I pitied them. And I do.

You deleted my comments because I pointed out that, in a post where you criticized people for criticizing you in a certain way, you criticized them in the exact same way. Seems you didn't appreciate that revalation.

Enjoy deleting my comments!!!

 
At 1/20/2006 12:42:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, Willis, since you seem to like response in kind, I pity your parents.

As for your childish and boorish behavior on my blog, my only response to it elsewhere (I beg TC's indulgence on this) is this: You can keep demonstrating it if you choose, but you only discredit yourself by doing so.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:48:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Maybe so, I can't disagree with you there.

In any event, you have an enemy in me, James, and I'm quite a stubborn guy.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:53:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Yeah, someone who thoroughly discredits your specious arguments must be a b***h. 'Least, so I've heard.

 
At 1/20/2006 01:08:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Nah, James, I like those people.

You are just an ass. I'm hardly the only person to not like you, although I'd guess the extent of my dislike for you is probably greater than most.

 
At 1/20/2006 05:44:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Cut it guys-

The entire point of his post was to try and link Connaughton with a tax increase...there would be no other need for the post, on some subliminal way..

the only proof we need are his 10398390840 comments trying to link connaughton to a tax increase

 
At 1/20/2006 07:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Criticallythinking -

I remember Connaughton constantly talking against the 2004 and 2005 State budgets.

You can't hear people if you don't want to listen.

 
At 1/20/2006 07:57:00 AM, Anonymous MOM said...

TC, you and Willis are destined to be roomates. You suggest that JY posted the topic as a precursor to an attack on Lord Connaughton, I would suggest it is possible that he may have posted the topic to incite your and Willis's banal reactions. Your original post and comment regarding the "10398390840 comments trying to link connaughton to a tax increase" as well as Willis's sophmoric drivel serve as evidence that such a tactic can be successful. Why attack the Great Prevaricator, Jr. directly when your collective banter in response to presumed intent is much more damaging and only further diminishes what collective credit you neophytes have left.

If you wish to really delve into the actual statements and issues, here's a thought, why has no one mentioned that Connaughton has reportedly said nothing with regard to Supervisor Jenkins comment "We ought to say the reason you're having to pay a local tax is because the state is requiring you to do it". Does Connaughton's silence mean he endorses this ridiculous view?

 
At 1/20/2006 09:16:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

If the commenters are correct about their assertion that Chairman Sean "criticized both the proposal to cap the car tax reimbursement AND those in the General Assembly who supported this policy change," then he was correct to do so and I credit him for it. Sadly, even assuming arguendo the truth of the assertion, that effort was meager --- and of meager effect, even if successful --- compared to the property tax increases suffered by most PWC taxpayers over the previous five years.

And mitch's wife, you assert that "A promise was made to the voters of this state: Eliminate the car tax by replacing that stream of local revenue with a reimbursment from state general revenues." That is half true. You are correct that "A promise was made to the voters of this state: Eliminate the car tax." The device to do so --- "replacing that stream of local revenue with a reimbursment from state general revenues" --- was wholly a creation of those like John Chichester who opposed the phaseout in the first place, and therefore created a monstrosity which sowed within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The real perfidy lies in that scheme, not in getting rid of the car tax, which is, as I understand it, a device for revenue rather unique to Virginia.

 
At 1/20/2006 09:51:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Property taxes haven't gone up in Prince William, they have gone down.

 
At 1/20/2006 11:30:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Obviously, Anon 9:51, you're reading Chairman Sean's campaign literature, NOT property tax bills.

 
At 1/20/2006 12:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the Staton endorsements of the Club for Growth and Senator Ken Cuccinelli. They said that cutting the tax rate was a tax cut, regardless of whether the average tax bill went up. That was why they were supporting Staton, that he lowered tax rates. Are you saying they were wrong?

 
At 1/20/2006 01:19:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 12:54 --- If VCG said that, then yes, they were wrong. Where ad velorum taxes are concerned, a tax rate decrease is not a "cut" unless it meets the increased value sufficiently.

'Course, you're misrepresenting what VCG said. Staton's own website talks about a "tax rate decrease," not a tax cut http://www.mickstaton. com/localNews.php?ID=15). VCG's website says that: "'Mick Staton has worked hard to ensure that the citizens of Loudoun County are protected against soaring tax increases,' said Phil Rodokanakis, the President of the Virginia Club for Growth.... Mick Staton is a member of the Board of Supervisors in Loudoun County and has signed the taxpayer protection pledge not to raise taxes. Consistent with the Club’s pledge he signed in 2003, Mick voted against the budget in 2004 because it didn’t lower taxes enough. He voted for the budget in 2005 because it was the largest tax rate decrease in Loudoun County’s history." ttp://www.virginiaclubfor growth.org/pac/news/PR010206.htm. So nowhere does VCG say "that cutting the tax rate was a tax cut, regardless of whether the average tax bill went up."

As for Ken Cuccinelli, I was unable to find any source for the comments you attribute to him.

Are you just making this up to defend others who have made/would make such inaccurate assertions? Or just to discredit VCG and Cuccinelli by misrepresenting them?

 
At 1/20/2006 02:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is James Young calling the Club for Growth and Ken Cucinnelli liars?

 
At 1/20/2006 04:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Young -

"He voted for the budget in 2005 because it was the largest tax rate decrease in Loudoun County’s history."

That vote was meaningless because they cut the rate but increased my taxes by almost $1000 since Staton took office. He cut the rate but my taxes went up. The Club for Growth, and its pro-tax RINOs like you, are simply political liars.

 
At 1/20/2006 08:53:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

"(Staton) voted for the budget in 2005 because it was the largest tax rate decrease in Loudoun County’s history."

So Connaughton, Caddigan, Covington, Nohe, Jenkins and Barg can all expect endorsements from VCFC because last year they voted for the budget in 2005 because it was the largest tax rate decrease in Prince William's history."

 
At 1/20/2006 08:53:00 PM, Blogger mitch's wife said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/21/2006 08:26:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forget about the Club for Growth; they'll get the most important endorsement of all -- James Young!!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home