If 51% of our population is currently not paying Federal Income Tax, what reason would they have for supporting a flat tax candidate?
If you are not currently paying Federal Income Tax because of the quirks of the code, why would you support a candidate espousing a plan for a flat tax that would suddenly shift any tax burden to you?
How does the President justify saying everyone should pay their fair share but half the people in our country pay nothing? If he thinks folks who pay nothing are paying more than their fair share, how can he say that those who pay everything don’t pay enough? What should a fair share be? How does he quantify what a fair share should be?
Having said all of that;
The chances of the US Congress passing a Flat Tax in place of the current system is zero so I would suggest we focus on “reforming” the current law to eliminate the special interest deductions everyone seems to detest and adjust tax rates so lower income folks start paying something.
Changes affecting deductions may change more quickly, but changes increasing tax rates on lower income “tax payers” should take place more gradually. Big changes coming too quickly cause big protests.
I think we all agree that the current tax code is too complex and unwieldy. But if the existing progressive system is so much more desirable, what has Congress done or what are they doing to strip away the exemptions that allow a company like GE to pay no Federal Income Tax?
Americans are upset, but it’s likely that inaction by Congress is the most frustrating reason. Let’s get the Super Committee working on deleting 2/3 of the 71,000 pages of the tax code for starters. When the Simpson-Boles Report suggested a few changes, neither side of the political aisle stepped up and agreed because of their own sacred cows; that has to change.
In my view, our government uses the tax code to shape public behavior. We create incentives for behaviors we like and penalties for behaviors we dislike.
As an example, we want folks to buy homes so we give generous deductions for mortgage interest. But, what happens to the housing industry in our country if that cash cow dries up? So is that one is a keeper; if it is, then how about the next one and the next one?
The Progressive Tax system is not an equal treatment system but it’s characterized as being more “fair” because it shifts a higher burden to folks who have been successful and a lesser burden on everyone else. I don’t understand how the more you make the higher the rate is fair! If we have to accept that application of the word “fair” as the true definition of fair, maybe that is part of the problem.
No Loss for Words 
CAIN, a Candidate with a Plan
by Steve DanaAfter the Republican “debate” last night everyone was piling on Herman Cain because he offered his 999 Plan but just like the Democrats in the Senate, none of the other candidates besides Gingrich have offered a plan of their own.
As soon as the other candidates roll out their own plans we can compare them and maybe pick and choose the best parts of each that we may or may not adopt. What’s important is that the other candidates get a plan out there for the same level of scrutiny as the 999 Plan. In the mean time, I like the fact that Cain had the courage to put a plan on the table recognizing that it would put a target on his back.
When the President’s Boles-Simpson Committee unveiled their plan it was panned too. Every plan will be panned by someone. Our country faces tough problems so the solutions aren’t likely to be easy, but solutions don’t come from hand wringing.
So how do we move forward in the selection process?
Newt Gingrich offers a very comprehensive plan to address the issues in the campaign, but I doubt Newt will be the candidate. I like Newt, but that won’t get him elected. Just because Newt can’t be elected doesn’t mean his ideas can’t be used.
Mitt Romney needs to offer his plan if he doesn’t like Herman Cain’s. I can’t recall anything specific he’s put on the table to address any of the marquee issues other than his experience in both government and private sector business. Where I certainly acknowledge that he is more qualified to manage the Federal Government than Obama, I’m not so sure he is much of a leader. I don’t have much confidence in a guy that has switched sides on so many issues. To me, that suggests either poor judgment or he has no core principles.
Rick Perry suggested that he has been successful in Texas, but can’t articulate the “plan” he used to achieve that success. That troubles me a little. If he’s claiming credit for creating economic prosperity in Texas it shouldn’t be hard to at least show us an outline.
Then with the border security issue so high on our list, Perry’s answers don’t build confidence that he would do any better than Bush or Obama in dealing with ILLEGAL Immigration. If National Security is important; border security in necessary. Once we secure the border we can talk about other issues like paths to citizenship for current illegals.
(American consumers will have to adjust to the changes in food cost if farmers can’t plant or harvest without the Hispanic workers that appear to do the bulk of that work. That will be one of those trade-offs we make for National Security. Or there will be additional negotiation to re-establish a guest worker program.)
In spite of the fact that Herman Cain has no experience as an elected official I don’t necessarily view that as a negative. The government experiences of some of the candidates on both sides of the aisle do not inspire confidence in their ability to lead.
Herman Cain has extensive experience in managing a large bureaucracy and being accountable to shareholders and customers is a skill none of the other candidates can match. The thing that differentiates Cain from Romney is the fact that he has been the same guy as he is today for his whole career. That instills confidence that he will be the same guy tomorrow.
Obama ran for President on a platform significantly different than his previous record would suggest. Voters chose a guy with slick words but got a President whose record in office reflected his past performance in previous public office. In Romney I see another candidate saying what he needs to say to get elected without previous public record to support his claim.
Few elected officials ever come to the presidency with foreign policy experience. If the knock on Cain is that he doesn’t have foreign policy experience then let’s compare his record to the rest of the field. Bill Clinton certainly didn’t come to the job with foreign policy experience unless working with illegal aliens counts. I’m still waiting for those foreign policy résumés from the other candidates.
I’m looking for a candidate who can inspire people to follow him or her and have demonstrated the ability to recruit capable staff to manage a huge bureaucracy. For me that person is Herman Cain in spite of his shortcomings. I will know who he is and what he stands for after we elect him.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »