Update: The GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" Shop

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As I've said before, nobody does bumper sticker slogan gimmicks better than the Republican Party. They have excelled at this "simple solutions to complex problems" that you can reduce to a bumper sticker for years.

Last week the GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" shop came up with "voluntary taxes" for Arizona Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley. This gimmick was roundly mocked by the state's major newspapers.

This week the GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" shop came up with the "Save Our Jobs: Stop the Tax Hike" committee (note the bumper sticker slogan) for Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker, a Republican candidate for governor.

The committee is to oppose a hypothetical sales tax increase referral to the ballot that has not been able to make it out of the legislature after a regular session and four special sessions this year, but no matter. This is all about gimmicks. Parker files papers to oppose tax hike | eastvalleytribune.com

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Vernon Parker took the first steps Wednesday to start collecting cash to battle a proposal by Gov. Jan Brewer for a temporary tax hike.

Parker filed the paperwork for the "Save Our Jobs: Stop the Tax Hike" committee designed to convince voters to reject higher sales taxes if the issue makes its way to the ballot. That 1-cent hike in the state's 5.6 percent sales tax is a key element of Brewer's plan for economic recovery.

Parker said he believes higher taxes would be the worst thing the state could do to its economy. He said Arizona can find its way out of the current deficit without additional funds, though he refused to provide specifics.

"Parker, who in the last poll came in with the backing of just 6 percent of Republicans, said he did not form the anti-tax committee to raise his profile." Right. I call bullshit. This is a play to appeal to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth for their independent expenditures on his behalf in the GOP primary: "Vern's a knee-jerk reactionary no-new-tax pledge anti-tax zealot - he's our kind of guy!"

Parker also enjoys the benefit of having his name appear on mailings and ads for this gimmick committee as its chairman. "Parker said his name, as chairman, will be on all materials prepared and paid for by the anti-tax committee." Combined messaging with his own gubernatorial campaign and the independent expenditure committees could give this relative unknown the media saturation he needs for name ID in a statewide primary.

"It's about leadership; it truly is," Parker said. But Parker declined to provide any details of how he would deal with the state's short-term deficit. Yep, phony as a $3 dollar bill. It's about the gimmicks. It truly is.

It gets better. Vernon Parker is running as a Clean Elections candidate, using public funds to run for office while railing against a hypothetical temporary sales tax increase. That is sure to lock up the hypocrite vote.

Comments

[Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer]

I realize that one of the dearest words in some people's vocabulary is hypocrite but I find this use to be a bit of a stretch. The proposed/urged/recommended/hypothetical tax hike has been the darling of the pro-government crowd ever since it found an advocate in Jan Brewer. It has been on some page of the Arizona Republic (or the rest of the news media) any time it could be referred to usually accompanied by the term necessary. Complaining that proposed taxes hikes are hypothetical is a sad complaint. We all know that any proposed law is hypothetical until it is passed, don't we?

Then a complaint that Vernon Parker is going to participate in the Arizona Clean Election program. Why not? My father collected signatures to have that system placed on the ballot and he never stops declaring how it reduces the influence of special interests and provide more choices in candidates. Are the only valid choices those that support more government and more taxes?

Complaining about Vernon Parker choosing to participate in the CCEC system just strikes me as.. how should I put it.. hypocritical. Is it not a system where any candidate Republican or Democrat (or Independent) can opt in so as to gain its benefits - or does that only count when the beneficiary is a Democrat? Perhaps you are trying to say that the Arizona CCEC isn't really very vitally necessary. I would certainly support it being placed on the ballot for hypothetical elimination.

As for not providing any specifics, that is the most worthy point you make but it is hardly necessary to identify what the anti-higher-taxes crowd suggests as alternatives, I'll offer two: stop spending so much and sell off some unneeded assets.

I don't think that either I or Vernon Parker are obligated to offer specifics. It is incumbent upon those who propose continued government spending to make their case that each and every government program is vitally necessary and that there are absolutely-positively no assets it can do without.

http://icarizona.blogspot.com/2009/03/afp-presents-budget-fix-that-will-not.html

Why none of these suggestions are discussed in the news is a puzzle, save that many of them would reduce the size, scope and pervasiveness of government. Perhaps the proposals are *too* specific?

I am sure those who support government as a solution would love to have Parker provide specifics so that they can call down criticism from now until election day on his (hypothetical) proposed specific cuts - that might just be the reason why he doesn't offer any. Why should Parker offer specific cuts, they would only be hypothetical, right?

In time I imagine that the Governor and the legislature will do their job of deciding how much government spending is really vitally necessary. So far as I can gather all government departments are equally vitally necessary and so the Governor is going to reduce all of them 15% across the board.

http://www.ospb.state.az.us/BudgetReports.asp

The legislature could propose a special election where some (or all) government departments or spending programs are put on the chopping block and let the voters decide whether or not to keep it or reduced by what percent. I'll suggest ASU/NAU/UofA but I'll leave it up to the people who have been elected to offer up the details.

I also will again suggest that drugs be legalized and all persons serving sentences under those laws be set free.

http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/articles/legalize-methamphetamine.htm