**Written by Doug Powers Several reporters caught up to John Kerry and asked him about keeping his newest yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts — a move that just by happenstance allows Thurston and Lovey to avoid a $500,000 Bay State luxury tax. Kerry’s claim is that the boat is in Rhode Island for repair work. Everybody who’s ever been to Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod and the general Boston area knows there’s a tremendous shortage of businesses that perform boat repair: For the record, Kerry shouldn’t just fess up and pay the extra Massachusetts tax. Kerry should admit that the exorbitantly high taxation he helps promote chases people away to other states — states bright enough to realize that lower taxes collected from more taxpayers, including wealthy out-of-staters like John Kerry who are running from the results of their own policies — is a boon to private businesses not to mention the government coffers. If Massachusetts luxury taxes were, say, half of what they are, not only would the state have a quarter-million or so in luxury tax money, but an in-state company would be performing the alleged repair work on Kerry’s boat and paying taxes on that income to Massachusetts instead of Rhode Island. John Kerry is swift-boating his own state. (h/t Dittos Rush ) **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See more here:
John Kerry Gets a Long Face When Reporters Confront Him About Taxes on the SS Rhode Island
You do have to give John Kerry some props: he is using the old saying that there is no such thing as bad press to good effect. Witness his latest histrionics Speaking at a town hall-style meeting promoting climate change legislation on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) predicted there will be “an ice-free Arctic”
**Written by Doug Powers John Kerry, who fights on behalf of the little people on whose backs the rich get richer by avoiding taxes most Americans can’t afford to dodge, is seeing to it that the little people aren’t burdened by an extra $500k in his home state’s tax coffers. From the Boston Herald : Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I. Isabel – Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage – was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine. But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern. Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners? Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000. John Kerry said this in February of 2009: If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there’s no guarantee that they’re going to invest that or invest it in America. The $7 million dollar yacht on which the Kerrys avoided a heavy “sails tax” hit in their home state was constructed in New Zealand , so Kerry really went out of his way to prove himself correct. Update: Just because it fits so well, here’s Rep. Alan Grayson mocking the GOP for their “yachts and art collections.” Um, yeah, darn those Republicans and their yachts. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
During then candidate Obama’s campaign, he made the same promise that if he was president he would begin the immediate removal of troops from Iraq:
In May 2008, Obama promised to end the war in 2009.
Obama: “When I promise that we are going to bring this war inIraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The North Carolina Democrat Party 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner,Raleigh, NC, 5/2/08)– Click Here To View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxPxjtqDso
In April 2008, Obama reaffirmed his 16-month timetable; he did not say that it would be dictated by security on the ground.
NBC’s Meredith Vieira: “You’ve said when, Senator. You’ve said if you are elected, that within 16 months you’re going to bring all the troops home fromIraq. Senator McCain said yesterday that that is a reckless promise that you cannot possibly keep, a failure of leadership. And even military leaders say that any withdrawal of troops would be dictated by security on the ground. So how can you guarantee you can pull out those troops in just 16 months?”
Obama: “Meredith, I’ve been very consistent in saying that we are going to set a timetable and we will have a prudent pace of withdrawal, one to two brigades per month. At that pace we can have combat troops out within approximately 16 months.”
(NBC’s “The Today Show,” 4/8/08)In March 2008, Obama said he would “Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq And Have Them Out In 16 Months.”
Obama: “In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops fromIraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have inIraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)– Click Here To View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJlBF26y-O0
In November 2007, Obama said he would have troops out of Iraq “within 16 months”.
Obama: “I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.”
(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)– Obama: “As president I will end this war in Iraq. We will have our troops home within 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Democrat National Committee Annual Fall Meeting,Vienna, VA, 11/30/07)– Obama said he would remove troops from Iraq in 16 months because “the overall strategy has failed.”
Obama: “But the overall strategy has failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders. And that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That’s why I’m going to bring this war to a close. That’s why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Nevada Democrat Party Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Las Vegas, NV, 11/15/07)In September 2007, Obama called for the U.S. to “immediately begin to remove our combat troops” from Iraq.
Obama: “So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq,Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)
Currently there are about 150,000 troops in Iraq – nowhere near a drawdown that was initially forecast. To be fair, President Obama said he would have the troops out by August of 2010, but we are not seeing hundreds of troops coming home month after month, right?
So why the change?
For one, Obama knew that he would have to listen to the commanders on the ground:
Obama: “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed … And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
(Jeff Zeleny, “Obama: Open to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The New York Times’ ”The Caucus” Blog, 7/3/08)
Now, it seems Obama is more inclined to listen to Senator (General?) Kerry ( instead of listening to General McChrystal’s recommendations from August) when it comes to adding more troops in Afghanistan:
Senator (General) John Kerry
“I am convinced, from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal – and I’m grateful to him for the time he gave me there and even on the telephone since – he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area,” he said. “But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast.”
“We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and of development capacity – the other two legs of counterinsurgency,”
“I define success as the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible, and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by al-Qaida or the Taliban,”
Which is it, President Obama?
And what if Bush did it?
