Posted on 08/11/2004 5:03:46 AM PDT by phil_will1
President Bush is just wrong to back an "intelligence czar" to oversee all U.S. intelligence/terrorist-fighting operations but not give that person ultimate budget authority, Sen. Orrin Hatch told a teacher seminar Monday. It's not often that Hatch, R-Utah, a GOP senator for 28 years, disagrees with his party's president. But Hatch told the Huntsman Seminar for Teachers at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics that naming an overall intelligence boss without giving him or her the final "power of the purse" -- as Bush has suggested -- would result in the "czar" having as little power as the current drug czar: A person with a bully pulpit but no real power. "It would be a big mistake to put a political person" in that new job, in any case, said Hatch.
"We should go slow," said Hatch, in implementing recommendations recently made by a bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which studied failures in the United States intelligence community to stop terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. "I'm not against the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission," said Hatch, who also hinted that he'd seek re-election in 2006. "I'd give (the intelligence czar's job) to the CIA director," said Hatch, who said as the only U.S. senator to twice sit on the body's intelligence committees he knows what he's talking about. "But he has to have teeth in it. You can't be like (Democratic presidential candidate) John Kerry and say: Do it," Hatch said snapping his fingers, indicating how some say revamping the huge federal intelligence bureaucracy would be easy. "President Bush is not right on this one -- he's been paying too much attention to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld," said Hatch. The Pentagon controls nearly 80 percent of U.S. intelligence funds, and Rumsfeld reportedly has lobbied Bush not to take those funds away from the Department of Defense and give such spending authority to the new intelligence czar. Hatch, who is not up for election this year, noted that at the end of 2004 he loses his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee because internal GOP rules limit committee chair tenure. (That assumes Republicans keep control of the Senate after November's elections, for he'd lose the chairmanship anyway if Democrats take the majority.) "But within four years I become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee" because of those same internal rules, Hatch said. That would only happen, however, if he runs and wins another six-year term in 2006. And in that Finance Committee chairmanship, Hatch promised he'd "change this God-awful (federal income tax) code or die trying." Hatch said he personally favors a national sales tax, phasing that in as the federal income tax is phased out. "The IRS would go away. We would end this harassing bureaucracy." Kerry and others may blather on about the rich not paying their fair share of income taxes, said Hatch, but it is a phony argument, playing well only with those Americans who really don't understand what's happening. The top 5 percent of rich Americans pay 50 percent of all federal income taxes collected, he said. Imposing a federal sales tax and eliminating the income tax would put into taxpayers' hands their own decisions on how much tax they pay. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the expensive items, he said. "You would pay a heck of a lot more for a Cadillac," said Hatch. "But you make the choice." The government wouldn't tax food or other "basic necessities," he said. Hatch spoke at length about how Senate Democrats have "unconstitutionally" blocked Bush's nominations to federal courts. If Kerry wins, over the next four years he'd likely get four appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court as older, liberal justices retire. If Bush wins, he'll probably get two such high court appointments, as several liberal justices stick it out rather than give a Republican president their replacement nominations. In either case, there will be bitter, partisan battles over new Supreme Court nominations. "It's really all about abortion," said Hatch in analyzing whether nominees are acceptable to anti-abortion GOP or abortion-rights Democratic senators -- "although it shouldn't be that way."
tax reform bump
Of course, the senator is wrong about that (US produced) Cadillac costing a lot more and also a phase-in isn't really practical. However, it is obvious that he gets the big picture.
In a related poll, vote.com asked
"Speaker of the House Denny Hastert wants to eliminate the IRS: do you agree?"
Result
Yes 89%
No 11%
http://www.vote.com/category/4075633/activeVotes.html
I think it was Hatch that disclosed that we could track Bin Laden's satellite phone in 1998 and OBL stopped using it.
What is it with all this czar business ? Drug "Czar", Intel "Czar". I don't like it. This is America not Russia. Do they not have the testicular wherewithal to call someone a King or more precisely Dictator ? That's what a czar is, ya know. It goes against America's principles.
And in that Finance Committee chairmanship, Hatch promised he'd "change this God-awful (federal income tax) code or die trying." Hatch said he personally favors a national sales tax, phasing that in as the federal income tax is phased out. "The IRS would go away. We would end this harassing bureaucracy."
Kerry and others may blather on about the rich not paying their fair share of income taxes, said Hatch, but it is a phony argument, playing well only with those Americans who really don't understand what's happening. The top 5 percent of rich Americans pay 50 percent of all federal income taxes collected, he said. Imposing a federal sales tax and eliminating the income tax would put into taxpayers' hands their own decisions on how much tax they pay. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the expensive items, he said. "You would pay a heck of a lot more for a Cadillac," said Hatch. "But you make the choice." The government wouldn't tax food or other "basic necessities,"
Another Critter gets the message.
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
I find it extremely insulting myself.
Hatch is not my favorite politician... But, go ahead, pull him on board... LOL
"The government wouldn't tax food or other "basic necessities," he said."
-- I guess he hasn't read S 1493!
I've always seen Hatch as a bit of a pussy myself, so this is surprising.
"I've always seen Hatch as a bit of a pussy myself, so this is surprising."
Last week it was Hastert, this week, Hatch ..... wonder who will come on board next week.
One thing is for sure, it won't be Ted Kennedy.
"One thing is for sure, it won't be Ted Kennedy."
-- Probably not Teddy. But I do think a lot of Dems will jump on board. Why? How will they be able to place class politics if they rejected a bill that would 100% eliminate the tax burden for everybody under the poverty line? That's career suicide. I think the Dems will get on board and start lobbying for exemptions and a Family Consumption Allowance higher than the poverty line. That's my guess.
Honestly, how could a Democrat respond in a debate when a Republican states "my opponent opposed a bill that would completely eliminate taxes for every poor American"? They can't. In fact, what this bill may do is separate the socialists from the liberals (i.e. separate the Barbara Boxers and Ted Kennedys from the Evan Bayhs and Joe Liebermans).
The Intel "Czar" IS a bad idea. However, there needs to be some slight tweaks. I'm an intel analysts myself, and there's only one real problem right now, organizationally-speaking: The DCI wears 2 hats. That's right, whoever is the DCI is the CIA Director, and the CIA Director is also the DCI. What does this do? It gives CIA the trump card in any interagency dispute (Also, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which is supposed to be interagency, is at Langley!). If CIA and STATE disagree with DIA and DOE-Intel, CIA wins out, bottom line. And this gets real bad when you see that CIA and STATE have more politically-motivated folks than DIA (primarily career military). So, the DCI and CIA director should be separated and the NIC should be relocated. CIA, DIA, and STATE need to be on an equal playing field; there are major philosophical differences between the three, and one shouldn't be ther other's "boss".
"Honestly, how could a Democrat respond in a debate when a Republican states 'my opponent opposed a bill that would completely eliminate taxes for every poor American'? They can't. In fact, what this bill may do is separate the socialists from the liberals (i.e. separate the Barbara Boxers and Ted Kennedys from the Evan Bayhs and Joe Liebermans)."
A Democrat could say "my opponent wants you to pay 59.5% in taxes for every purchase you make" or "my opponent wants to take away your home mortgage deduction" or "my opponent wants you to pay taxes on your social security" or "my opponent wants give give Haliburton and other giant corporations a huge tax break". I know, these are all misleading at best and untrue at worst. However, that won't stop SOME Democrats from demagoguing the issue.
We will get some Democrats on the bill, no doubt about it. Here in Ga, I am working on 2 of our congressmen. Another Democrat congressman, Denise Majette, who is running for the senate, just said in a debate that it is something that she is looking at. Her primary opponent immediately pounced on her for it, saying that a national sales tax is something that far right wing Republicans are pushing and accusing her of being a DINO.
I can't wait until we pass the bill and prove all the naysayers and doom and gloomers (like Your Nightmare) wrong. The economic expansion is going to be something the likes of which we have never seen before.
One point we need to clarify is the collection issue and the annoying inclusive-exclusive debate.
This is how we should portray it:
1. Retailers are responsible for remitting 23% of TOTAL SALES to the government; that's it. Retailers raise prices as much as they need to.
2. On the receipt, it would state:
Of the $100 in goods you bought, $23 of it is taxes.
It's that simple; end of debate.
3. It's been mentioned that retailers will retain a certain % of the sales tax in exchange for collecting it; that's fine, but we should also pay States to collect it as well. How about each gets 0.25% out of the total 23%. That way, the States will be encouraged to enforce tax evasion laws. If we don't do this, the states won't have any inventive to enforce tax evasion laws, leaving an opening for the Feds to come back to enforce it for them.
4. Speaking of evasion, it's pretty simple: all goods the retailer bought wholesale must be accounted for. They can be audited at a later date. It's very simple compliance: Goods bought, goods sold, and goods remaining. The question of theft comes up, with retailers stating any difference in the books was due to shoplifters. Well, that won't cut it. They've got to remit for those items as well. The price that will be used will be (1) the cost of the same item which was sold, and if that good was never sold (2) the price it was bought from the wholesaler. I guess it's a pretty good incentive to prevent theft, don't you think?
Thoughts???
My recollection is that the states also get a small percentage to defray their administrative costs. I believe the state percentage is smaller than the retailers but, of course, the states will be collecting vastly larger amounts than any individual retailer would. It's sort of like a pyramid, I guess.
I think the Treasury Dept will have to be involved with enforcement/compliance to a certain extent. However, given the dramatically simpler system and far, far fewer collection points, the resources necessary to police this system will be radically scaled back.
I think you are always going to have a certain amount of theft/shoplifting/pilferage, whatever you want to call it. The way to monitor it would be to make sure it is a reasonably small and stable percentage of sales. Penalizing a store financially for inventory loss isn't really fair - or necessary.
Those are my opinions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.