Bold, Brash and Wrong

Yep. Absolutely.

Since WFB has passed away, NR has become the mouthpiece for the GOP’s northeastern RINO establishment, policy wonks from (insert name of think tank here) and other limp-wristed elitists.

Oh, and they talk inside baseball nonsense about Catholicism all the time too, while ignoring that the Catholic Church does not back actual conservatives. Oh, the Catholic Church makes a lot of NOISE about pro-life issues, but when push comes to shove, the papists always come down on the side of more illegal immigration, more welfare, more public spending.

Why a bunch of Catholics are backing the Mormon in the race is a new angle to me, but I have to guess that Willard’s Stanford and Harvard degrees trump issues of religion .... or conservative doctrine. Because Willard has been to the “correct” schools, he’s A-OK.

Thanks for the ping.

>>>>>>You’ve been on nearly every 999 thread bashing the plan for the last many days at least, and you just now have learned that Cain plans it as a transition to the Fair Tax?

One man's honest criticism, is another man's bashing. First off, my major objection to Cain's 999 tax plan has EVERYTHING to do with the 9% sales tax provision. Reducing personal and corporate tax rates is consistent with the "flat tax" which I have supported for 30 years. Next, I know Cain would transition to the Fair Tax, but the figure I was familiar with was 23%, NOT 30%.

The fact is, the 999 plan expands the federal income tax code to include a national sales tax. When you consider that Cain's plan is a two-phase operation without a specific time frame for completion, that raises a lot of questions and concerns. It leaves the door open for wholesale changes at any time and the possible expansion to include a VAT. The procedure for the added sales tax feature sounds like it would enlarge the IRS, not shrink it. Lets not forget, only a Constitutional amendment can make specific tax policy permanent.

On the political side. Its going to be extermely difficult building a concensus that says throw out the exisitng tax system and start from scratch. Especially in the middle of the extreme partisanship and hardened ideology of WashDC's current political climate.

Lets not overlook the obvious either. Cain would have to win the GOP nomination first and then beat Obama before he could even think about advancing his tax reform agenda. Shifting from the hypothetical to the real world of politics.

Tax reform is necessary, but spending reform is even more critical. If we don't stop spending so much and running up the debt, we will go bankrupt. On taxes, if we returned to the final tax rates of the Reagan era, 28% and 15% in 1988-89, it would be easier to find bipartisan poliitcal agreement. As I said, we do need to lower the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax rate.

In reality, Cain's 999 tax plan is a gimmick to attract conservative support and voters in the GOP primary campaign. Congrats to Herman. He has hoodwinked some conservatives, just not all conservatives.

I, like you, am 100% opposed to a VAT. But I disagree completely when you say a 9% sales tax at the retail counter will lead to a VAT. If, God forbid, after 999 implementation, the tax was to be raised, in such an environment the path of least resistance would be to raise the retail tax rate or one of the other rates, or add a new tax like 9% on capital gains, but NOT to institute an entire new mechanism of calculating taxes that expands a whole new bureaucracy and adds all new layers of complexity to businesses and enterprises. If you think 999 is politically impossible, then VAT is just a dream (nightmare). Given that we already have a government that is grotesquely out of proportions and a budget that is 50% over budget, I doubt anyone could muster 20% support for a VAT. The Europeans and Canadians are nuts. I export to Canada and have to pay the VAT on my wholesale sales. Its’ absurd and worse than the tax is that it is an attempt to view (and one step closer to control) the means of production every step of the way.

Your previous criticisms seen to have been erroneous and I want to be sure are on the same page as everyone else. You have previously asserted that the 9% rate was applied throughout the production chain. It appears that assertion of yours is wrong and that the 9% sales tax only applies at the retail cash register, and only on new goods and services. Do you agree, or do you still think this 9% means the wholesale bread maker has to charge 9% to the grocery store?

I am considering whether 999 may be better than the FairTax. I frankly think the FairTax is DOA. No way that seniors will ever go for 23% on purchases after paying income tax all their lives. They might, on the other hand, be persuaded to pay 9% tax in return for no tax on their SS, no tax on their IRAs and 401Ks, no tax on their capital gains, accumulated interest etc etc. Plus the FairTax is not ideally Conservative either - it still requires “registration” if not reporting to the Federal government to get your pre-bate checks etc and it is not clear on who qualifies to receive such a check - families would be better off registering as individuals, or be forced to declare their marriage to the federal government. It is imperfect too, imho. I wonder if you have to register with the feds 999 may be the better solution to the FairTax.

I do hope Cain is open to some ideas around the edges to help prevent VAT, to help prevent 999 from becoming 15-15-15. I hope he will take some of Pauls mojo and start talking about how cut the budget. If 999 is revenue neutral, how about we cut the budget and pay down debt, and go from 999 to 777 in 10 years? These kind of ideas I hope he is open to but most importantly I like that this debate is out in the open. Reform is critical and needs to be a plank, and a specific plan needs to be put forth. Cain and Ryan are only 2 who have a plan - and Paul says he will have one soon.

As for the political expediency, nothing good will ever come easy. And as others have said I won’t let good be enemy of perfect. However, one thing that a Cain presidency will do - especially if he wins by a big mandate - it will but the fear of their constituency into the hears of Congressmen. As much as many people hoped an Obama presidency would herald a new day in politics, it turned out to be worse than we feared. His was all smoke. But if a man like Cain can be elected out of blue, with almost no money and with zero political experience all on the merit of one simple idea, it will be like a bolt of lightening to Congress. I can’t see how they could resist it for long.

As for the politics there are other threads I hope you will join them. The Zogby thread has some discussion about the race for the nomination and an elector path for Cain, as well as some ideas (e.g. Newt as Veep, who knows how to move in the House and would sit in the Senate) for a ticket that could help get things done.

I have posted nothing “erroneous” and am well aware of the difference between a national sales tax and a VAT. I'm vigilant when it comes to ALL politicians. I will bend but not break my principles. The known facts about 999 are very vague and troubling. One thing is certain. The sales tax provision of Cain's 999 tax plan opens a can of worms. Sorry, not buying it.

As for Herman Cain. I'm not particularly fond of him. The more he is vetted and the more I learn about him, the more he rubs me the wrong way. Cain does offer good conservative rhetoric, but no substance. He has no governing or legislative record to judge him on. I would vote for him over Romney, but I doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm still waiting to see if Perry can make a comeback. The Texas Governor is a fiscal and social conservative with a successful conservative executive record for the last 11 years. Imo, Perry is a Reagan conservative I can support. Whether he can better express his views in a debate setting is anyones guess at this point.

"You don’t go to the NRO site very often."

Wrong. I go there at least 3 or 4 times a week.

"They always sign staff editorials that way. Please get your facts straight."

Duh. Hence the name, "Staff Editorial."

Sheesh, you are wound up tighter than a golf ball sitting on a tee. Take a chill pill. It was a joke. Get over it.

"What part of their editorial do you disagree with?"

Pretty much all of it. However, for the sake of brevity, let me just attack their main premise; Rather than taking Herman Cain's 9-9-9 as a complete package with each leg of the plan supporting the others (think triangle--remove just one side and it instantly collapses), they all but ignored the other two legs of the plan and concentrated almost exclusively on the National Sales Tax. It doesn't work that way, and they know it. Then, they began laying the foundation of their straw man argument by equating the Sales Tax portion of 9-9-9 with a VAT Tax, saying, "In particular Cain’s inability to choose between a sales tax and a VAT is puzzling. The two are very similar in their economic effects."

That's a load of caca, if you don't mind my saying so.

What "inability" to choose are they talking about? Am I to believe that the "Staff Editors" at NRO were flies on the wall in Herman Cain's office as he hammered out his 9-9-9 plan; then, watched him hit a speed bump while weighing the pros and cons of a VAT tax or a National Sales Tax until he finally flipped a proverbial coin to decide the winner? Obviously not. It's all a biased literary setup:

The "Staff" carefully and purposely chose the phrasing, "inability to choose" and "puzzling," so as to cast Mr. Cain in a bad light while setting up their Straw Man: The much execrated VAT tax.

This VAT tax straw man then allows the NRO "Staff Editors" to draw parallels and conclusions which simply do not exist. All the while, using the fetor of a VAT tax to permeate and taint Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the mind of the reader by saying things like, "The two are very similar in their economic effects." What a bunch of caca. The only real similarity is that they both are designed to raise revenue for the government--as are ANY and ALL taxes.

The article then goes on to claim:

"The chief advantage of the VAT over the sales tax is that it is easier to enforce without stimulating black markets."

Pure speciousness. ALL taxes, hidden or otherwise, "stimulate" black markets. It's not the way in which the tax is implemented that causes an increase in black market activity, IT IS THE TAX PERCENTAGE WHICH STIMULATES THE BLACK MARKET! That is to say, the higher the taxes, the higher the black market activity. The lower the taxes, the lower the black market activity.

Got it? It's a fairly simple concept.

Additionally, in the sentence I quoted above, the "Staff Editors" (no doubt purloining, err, quoting and cherry picking content from a Congressional Briefing given in 2003 (IB92069)) claim that VAT taxes are easier to "enforce" than sales taxes. That's a true--albeit somewhat misleading--statement; the government, most definitely, would have to ENFORCE a VAT tax at all levels--from production to market--whereas, a National Sales Tax (NST) is easier to evade. In other words, a VAT tax requires an army of IRS agents to "enforce" and keep track of every single transaction along with the concomitant mountain of paperwork pouring in; whereas, an NST is simply handled between the retail seller and the consumer at the cash register--business as usual.

Result of a VAT? Bigger government to "enforce" the taxes.

So, once you know what is contained in that phrase, "easier to enforce," you have to honestly ask yourself if that is really an advantage of a VAT over an NST? Certainly not! Ergo, long story short, the editorial is just a bunch of "caca."

Anyway, if I really cared to enlighten you further, I could take the article on a point by point basis and show you all the flaws inherent in their argument. But, why should I waste any more of my time rebutting NRO's simple straw man argument? After all, anyone, including yourself, with even a modicum of intelligence can read it and quite readily find numerous flaws in the "Staff Editors'" argument. You just have to stop merely reading what they are saying and start actually thinking about what they are saying--and why.

Cheers

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.