“Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians. If you don’t want the rates raised, don’t elect politicians who will raise them. Even if we repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminated the income tax, as some demand in return for establishing a consumption tax, politicians could raise that rate too...any plan could be criticized for what it would look like if someone messed it up. The plan as I’m proposing it is a huge improvement over the status quo.”
This is the most substantive of the criticisms levied against 9-9-9 and he pretends it’s not important by saying essentially that “well, any plan could be twisted by bad politicians.” Not if the income tax were entirely repealed first instead of following this incremental step towards doing that. I don’t understand why Cain thinks 9-9-9 is a step we need to take if he really supports the Fair Tax and limited government. Just saying “we’ll make everything 9,” doesn’t stop the next wave of Rats from saying, “Well, let’s just make it 10, shall we?”
And even without that omission, these responses don’t address the most cutting criticism of Cain: he is not in the least a reflexive, principled conservative. He supported the TARP bailout in the strongest language possible, to the point that he wrote articles extolling the virtues of a bailout. He endorsed ROMNEY in 2008. The man is simply not cut out to be a leader for the right.
Palin and Perry endorsed TARP also. Which of the candidates currently running opposed it?
I think what he is saying is there is nothing stopping politicians from implementing a national sales tax right now. He addresses the rate change issue much the same way but also adds the salient point that those who don’t pay much or any now would not be inclined to see the rate rise.
... He endorsed ROMNEY in 2008....
what were his other options?
Not if the income tax were entirely repealed first instead of following this incremental step towards doing that.
Considering his tax plan eventually has no income tax, I think He’d be on your side.
Meanwhile, he’s proposing drastic improvements, even if they are reversible (though he explains why that becomes unlikely politically).
He supported the TARP bailout in the strongest language possible, to the point that he wrote articles extolling the virtues of a bailout.
Government shouldn’t pick winners & losers
Q: Mr. Cain, you initially supported the TARP program?
CAIN: I studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own that we needed to do something drastic, yes. When the concept of TARP was first presented to the public, I was willing to go along with it. But then when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also directing funds to General Motors and others that had nothing to do with the financial system, that’s where I totally disagreed. The government should not be selecting winners and losers, and I don’t believe in this concept of too big to fail. If they fail, the free market will figure out who’s going to pick up the pieces.
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011
Especially since later he argued that we can’t have a pre-bate because bad politicians would make it into an entitlement program.
This is the most substantive of the criticisms levied against 9-9-9 and he pretends it’s not important by saying essentially that “well, any plan could be twisted by bad politicians.”
Herman Cain aims to please, LibertarianInExile.
Since you did not like that answer, Herman Cain argues THE EXACT OPPOSITE in my Post 195.
===========================
November 21, 2010, By Herman Cain
"The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.
Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table.
First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. ......
Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. ....
For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, ...."
Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside. A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.