The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party
Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late
I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.
I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.
But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.
A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.
All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.
Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:
Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.
Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label economic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Farther Down The Economic Rabbit Hole
Howard Richman at http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/ has commented on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen’s call for an unlimited feral commitment to the liability and solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.: "socialism is alive and well in America - thanks to a Republican Treasury secretary."
Though I appreciate his resolve in protecting American security and interest, the Bush administration’s relative opacity with respect to essential philosophical principles is, unfortunately nothing new. Also unfortunately, lucid systematic thinking does not appear to be in the immediate offing. Here is my response to Howard’s post:
It's sad. At this point, one wonders if there is any possibility of removing our collective head from the folly of socialist presumptions, given the extent to which they permeate the organs of mass-communications, broadcast and print.
One hesitates to use the word "socialist," lest we are stereotyped with a disposition of fear and constipation relative to social progress. But, a socialist inclination it is, one which I have watched expand like a blob, through the social consciousness in my lifetime.
We have been watching a crisis in home-lending brought on by the imposition of external objectives into the housing market. And, we wonder how government will palliate the effects of problems that THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED! This, by the way, is a full-time and self-perpetuating liberal occupation: creating problems that they can campaign to fix!
Now, it is clear before our eyes that real estate lending hasd been virtually consolidated under the umbrella of a couple of federally secured institutions. The victims of the consequences will not be just the taxpayers specifically; the entire society will suffer the constriction of economic potential produced by the imposition of extra-market objectives.
Thus imposed, not only is economic potential constrained, but market corrections are muted, and calamity is almost inevitable: really only a matter of time.
In the late 18th century, the first English monumental works of economics were written by Adam Smith. Smith's works were not fundamentally about numerical calculations. They were observations abouthuman nature. Smith was a philosopher. Government distortion of markets restricts potential and encourages risk and thus, failure.
In the meantime we have the consolation of reduced concern about bumping our noses on the closing walls of our economy. Think of a casino where losses are cushioned and winnings restricted.
Though I appreciate his resolve in protecting American security and interest, the Bush administration’s relative opacity with respect to essential philosophical principles is, unfortunately nothing new. Also unfortunately, lucid systematic thinking does not appear to be in the immediate offing. Here is my response to Howard’s post:
It's sad. At this point, one wonders if there is any possibility of removing our collective head from the folly of socialist presumptions, given the extent to which they permeate the organs of mass-communications, broadcast and print.
One hesitates to use the word "socialist," lest we are stereotyped with a disposition of fear and constipation relative to social progress. But, a socialist inclination it is, one which I have watched expand like a blob, through the social consciousness in my lifetime.
We have been watching a crisis in home-lending brought on by the imposition of external objectives into the housing market. And, we wonder how government will palliate the effects of problems that THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED! This, by the way, is a full-time and self-perpetuating liberal occupation: creating problems that they can campaign to fix!
Now, it is clear before our eyes that real estate lending hasd been virtually consolidated under the umbrella of a couple of federally secured institutions. The victims of the consequences will not be just the taxpayers specifically; the entire society will suffer the constriction of economic potential produced by the imposition of extra-market objectives.
Thus imposed, not only is economic potential constrained, but market corrections are muted, and calamity is almost inevitable: really only a matter of time.
In the late 18th century, the first English monumental works of economics were written by Adam Smith. Smith's works were not fundamentally about numerical calculations. They were observations abouthuman nature. Smith was a philosopher. Government distortion of markets restricts potential and encourages risk and thus, failure.
In the meantime we have the consolation of reduced concern about bumping our noses on the closing walls of our economy. Think of a casino where losses are cushioned and winnings restricted.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Mother Jones and The Fair Tax
I have some comments on gay marriages, which began taking place in California on Wednesday June 18. It raises some relevant questions and an example of my occasional departure from the boilerplate “conservative” positions. I used quotes because I think many boilerplate “conservative” positions are not necessarily consonant with a conservative philosophy but mainly sentimental reactions, which is all that liberals often think conservatism is, anyway. But, Mother Jones posted an article on Huckabee and The Fair Tax on Tuesday: Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax Fallacies (I think The Fair Tax should be made a flagship Republican issue (just another idea that John McCain is not yet on board with – and yes, I’m supporting McCain enthusiastically), and this article raises some standard misguided objections, so I’m posting this, first. A couple of points in this article are legitimate things to consider, though the fear exaggerates the reality. But, mostly, assuming the article is genuine(?), it overlooks and misrepresents a number of factors. Here is the comment I left at the MJ web site:
First, there are statements that countermand each other. The article falls to the standard liberal concern that it is "regressive," because lower-income people must spend more on essentials. This overlooks the obvious fact that people have more extravagant lifestyles precisely because they spend more, and thus will pay higher taxes. Taxes will be a lot higher on BMW's than on a Ford Taurus for example, never mind on planes, boats, and travel, for only a few examples. If people save on taxes by saving or investing, more power to them and more power for society: savings and investment (jobs in liberal-speak) are encouraged.
Later, the slip of the writer's liberal perspective is showing when the article frets the possibility of companies pocketing their tax savings rather than passing it on to the consumer. No one with the barest comprehension of how markets work would raise such a silly idea. Companies will and should always try to maximize profits, but they don't set prices, markets do. And, the "prebate" goes to all citizens, so middle-class taxes are lowered, too.
You concede that economic activity will increase, but greatly understate the probable extent. No income tax for doing business in The United States? Recall that Reagan's tax cuts doubled federal revenues over his term (unfortunately, federal spending tripled). But, if that was an economic surge, The Fair Tax might provoke an economic avalanche. (i.e., economic activity and opportunity on steroids)
This is not just good; the fact is that it is now essential. We are a short distance (the next term will realize it, from a tsunami of entitlement liability arriving for an over-promising federal government. Even I doubt that even the Fair Tax's rush of economic activity will cover the drastic revenue shortfall. In brief, The Fair Tax is the least we can do, given the mistakes made. Frantic and futile foggy-headed government agents will lunge at alternative answers to meet the demand by raising taxes, restricting benefits and inflating away the value of the dollar to pay its obligations with cheap money, all of which will in short fashion make matters worse and increase hardship.
Finally, the article lapses into a typical cynical analysis about a politician's political motivation. Another, straightforward explanation for Huckabee's support of The Fair Tax is the peculiar one which I also embrace: HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE FAIR TAX WILL BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS! (Difficult as that may be to contemplate)
It is true that a vigorous system must be put in place to insure that all imported items bear the same tax to maintain a level playing field for American business. And, it's true that barter and caution in consumption will be encouraged. They used to call that "thrift." Now, it's a BAD thing?
Oh, and speaking of terms, a 5% growth in spending across Huckabee's over ten years as governor of Arkansas, would be around the rate of inflation and a little over 500 million dollars per year. Can you do a little math? That fits your numbers almost exactly. The fact is that taxes as a percentage of income were approximately the same at the beginning and end of Huckabee's governorship. You know what they say about how statistics can be presented… In brief the criticisms of The Club for Growth were mercenary rewards for CfG contributors with political or personal anti-Huckabee interests. Romney's and Thompson's criticisms were transparently political.
In truth, with no Fair Tax, economic travails appear utterly unavoidable.
First, there are statements that countermand each other. The article falls to the standard liberal concern that it is "regressive," because lower-income people must spend more on essentials. This overlooks the obvious fact that people have more extravagant lifestyles precisely because they spend more, and thus will pay higher taxes. Taxes will be a lot higher on BMW's than on a Ford Taurus for example, never mind on planes, boats, and travel, for only a few examples. If people save on taxes by saving or investing, more power to them and more power for society: savings and investment (jobs in liberal-speak) are encouraged.
Later, the slip of the writer's liberal perspective is showing when the article frets the possibility of companies pocketing their tax savings rather than passing it on to the consumer. No one with the barest comprehension of how markets work would raise such a silly idea. Companies will and should always try to maximize profits, but they don't set prices, markets do. And, the "prebate" goes to all citizens, so middle-class taxes are lowered, too.
You concede that economic activity will increase, but greatly understate the probable extent. No income tax for doing business in The United States? Recall that Reagan's tax cuts doubled federal revenues over his term (unfortunately, federal spending tripled). But, if that was an economic surge, The Fair Tax might provoke an economic avalanche. (i.e., economic activity and opportunity on steroids)
This is not just good; the fact is that it is now essential. We are a short distance (the next term will realize it, from a tsunami of entitlement liability arriving for an over-promising federal government. Even I doubt that even the Fair Tax's rush of economic activity will cover the drastic revenue shortfall. In brief, The Fair Tax is the least we can do, given the mistakes made. Frantic and futile foggy-headed government agents will lunge at alternative answers to meet the demand by raising taxes, restricting benefits and inflating away the value of the dollar to pay its obligations with cheap money, all of which will in short fashion make matters worse and increase hardship.
Finally, the article lapses into a typical cynical analysis about a politician's political motivation. Another, straightforward explanation for Huckabee's support of The Fair Tax is the peculiar one which I also embrace: HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE FAIR TAX WILL BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS! (Difficult as that may be to contemplate)
It is true that a vigorous system must be put in place to insure that all imported items bear the same tax to maintain a level playing field for American business. And, it's true that barter and caution in consumption will be encouraged. They used to call that "thrift." Now, it's a BAD thing?
Oh, and speaking of terms, a 5% growth in spending across Huckabee's over ten years as governor of Arkansas, would be around the rate of inflation and a little over 500 million dollars per year. Can you do a little math? That fits your numbers almost exactly. The fact is that taxes as a percentage of income were approximately the same at the beginning and end of Huckabee's governorship. You know what they say about how statistics can be presented… In brief the criticisms of The Club for Growth were mercenary rewards for CfG contributors with political or personal anti-Huckabee interests. Romney's and Thompson's criticisms were transparently political.
In truth, with no Fair Tax, economic travails appear utterly unavoidable.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
"Huckanomics" and Fair Tax More "Vertical Politics"
The Mike Huckabee for President Campaign website, on Saturday, posted a useful explanation of Governor Mike Huckabee’s economic perspective which justifies The Fair Tax: What is Huckonomics?
The principles of trade discussed here, could be put in a lined yellow cover and called, "Adam Smith for Dummies." The point of course, is not literally that people are "dummies." It is that the immediate social context is one where the perception of reality is distorted by the very assumption of government "commanding" an economy, from either a supply or demand prejudice.
The summary is that we should pull our heads back from the immediate social context and apply common-sense principles to American society.
What 18th century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith wrote about, was the natural human and social moral principles that underlie the creation and distribution of wealth. America was founded as a nation that respected the natural and unadulterated respect of freedom and the economic forces of supply and demand. Of course, this also led to the creation and accumulation of great wealth, which accrued to the general benefit, though more extravagantly among the investing minority.
In concert with the accelerating development of macro-communications, first through widely distributed print and literacy, this cultivated a great development of the natural human tendencies to horde among the wealthier minority and to envy among the more modestly rewarded minority: this was the seed of class identification and the “demand-side” economics that this Huckanomics article speaks of.
Democracy developed governmental means to impose supposed fairness (in reality it calcified economic divisions) for a dissatisfied majority. These “socialist” developments dominated most of the 20th century throughout Europe and less extensively in America. Its most extreme manifestations were in the ostensibly rightward (see Jonah Goldberg’s recently released book, “Liberal Fascism”) National Socialism (or Nazism) and the acknowledged leftward socialism of Karl Marx (communism), that spread even to the East with the expansion of communications.
This acceleration was intensified with the spread of the electronic communications of radio in the early 20th century and television in the mid-twentieth century. With this electronic couriership, the majesty of the economic “commander” became the status quo social understanding in America, embodied in Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30’s. As marginal tax rates reached 90% in the sixties, production incentives waned and libertarian impulses swelled. In the early sixties, Democrat John Kennedy cut taxes to provoke economic growth, and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater insolently repudiated expanding and intrusive government, suffering a landslide defeat at the hands of the still status quo stewed public. Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, who introduced new government activism with his “Great Society.”
But of course, Goldwater’s campaign was the birth of the National Review-driven conservative movement. Ronald Reagan had recognized the excesses of the New Dealism that he had supported as a young man, had come to harm the America and its people that he had grown to love. After he had risen with this message to the presidency in 1980, he introduced the command reaction of “supply-side” economics, to which establishment conservatism now frantically clings.
“Huckanomics” and The Fair Tax represent the true economic conservatism that would remove the command element of the economy, returning it to the natural and dynamic unsullied forces of human commerce. Though untamed and potentially volatile, these principles restore the fertile soil of prodigious production and the broad expansion of wealth and economic prosperity. The century of command economics was not just one of muzzled production, but one that also provoked unprecedented acrimony and bloodshed. It is a legacy the passing of which should not be mourned.
It is true that, as many challenge, Congress could never be expected to voluntarily cede its massive its power to negotiate and manipulate the tax system, and implement The Fair Tax. That is why an executive is required to inform and inspire the public to hold Congress to account. The Fair Tax is well-named, because taxation would be imposed on the level of consumption rather than the level of production. More extravagant consumption means more extravagant taxation. The poorer are untaxed by a universal “pre-bate” which monthly provides each household with the tax rate of the poverty level. So, you start the month with that AND you receive the entirety of your earnings.
Using rough current numbers, each family starts the month with over $5000 dollars. If of four earns $8000/month, there is $13,000 to spend for the month. Retail tax on spending will be 23%. Burt remember that the average 22% taxation will be removed from the imbedded cost of goods produced in America, lowering those prices dramatically, and making them more competitive with imported goods, which would be taxed equally. This represents a huge boost to American commerce, which also may sell their untaxed goods in foreign markets. Additionally, the untaxed underground economy is eliminated. Illegal members and illegal earners like pimps, prostitutes, drug-dealers, and gamblers will pay taxes on purchases like everyone else. Of course people will barter and bootleg around the system. But at least then, cheaters will be cheaters, not just expert gamers of an arcane system: street-corner hustles not luxurious tax-exemptions. This is no upper-class bonanza.
One very important thing is left to say. And, if we should embark upon this change without resolute attention to it, I fear that it is inevitable that the hording, envy, and acrimony will surely rise again. The mass-culture dampened uninhibited commerce in an effort to impose a social morality. But, an “imposed morality” is an oxymoron. And along with economic limitation, a macro-morality brought a dereliction of personal morality. What Americans must tend even more urgently than free and un-commanded markets, is the resolve to become better people. Even more important than the heightened creation of wealth, is that we support and encourage each other as moral and considerate people in the face of the irregularities of such an unregulated society.
In addition to the market-liberating principles of what the article calls, “Huckanomics,” Mike Huckabee strives to exemplify a model for such consideration that is the provocation of many of his “conservative” critics who have come to hear the idea of compassion only in terms of expanding and intruding government. That disposition is also illustrated in Huckabee’s frequent statement that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” Conservatism recognizes the value and prudence of personal and market freedom while commending an empathetic application of that freedom. In Christian terms, it respects but exhorts a virtuous rather than errant expression of a God-given freedom.
Huckabee also advocates what he calls a vertical rather than horizontal politics that is directed not at the triumph of the left or right but at the elevation of American society. Conservatism is virtuously applied to this objective, and ignobly applied to the conquest of fellow Americans.
The principles of trade discussed here, could be put in a lined yellow cover and called, "Adam Smith for Dummies." The point of course, is not literally that people are "dummies." It is that the immediate social context is one where the perception of reality is distorted by the very assumption of government "commanding" an economy, from either a supply or demand prejudice.
The summary is that we should pull our heads back from the immediate social context and apply common-sense principles to American society.
What 18th century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith wrote about, was the natural human and social moral principles that underlie the creation and distribution of wealth. America was founded as a nation that respected the natural and unadulterated respect of freedom and the economic forces of supply and demand. Of course, this also led to the creation and accumulation of great wealth, which accrued to the general benefit, though more extravagantly among the investing minority.
In concert with the accelerating development of macro-communications, first through widely distributed print and literacy, this cultivated a great development of the natural human tendencies to horde among the wealthier minority and to envy among the more modestly rewarded minority: this was the seed of class identification and the “demand-side” economics that this Huckanomics article speaks of.
Democracy developed governmental means to impose supposed fairness (in reality it calcified economic divisions) for a dissatisfied majority. These “socialist” developments dominated most of the 20th century throughout Europe and less extensively in America. Its most extreme manifestations were in the ostensibly rightward (see Jonah Goldberg’s recently released book, “Liberal Fascism”) National Socialism (or Nazism) and the acknowledged leftward socialism of Karl Marx (communism), that spread even to the East with the expansion of communications.
This acceleration was intensified with the spread of the electronic communications of radio in the early 20th century and television in the mid-twentieth century. With this electronic couriership, the majesty of the economic “commander” became the status quo social understanding in America, embodied in Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30’s. As marginal tax rates reached 90% in the sixties, production incentives waned and libertarian impulses swelled. In the early sixties, Democrat John Kennedy cut taxes to provoke economic growth, and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater insolently repudiated expanding and intrusive government, suffering a landslide defeat at the hands of the still status quo stewed public. Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, who introduced new government activism with his “Great Society.”
But of course, Goldwater’s campaign was the birth of the National Review-driven conservative movement. Ronald Reagan had recognized the excesses of the New Dealism that he had supported as a young man, had come to harm the America and its people that he had grown to love. After he had risen with this message to the presidency in 1980, he introduced the command reaction of “supply-side” economics, to which establishment conservatism now frantically clings.
“Huckanomics” and The Fair Tax represent the true economic conservatism that would remove the command element of the economy, returning it to the natural and dynamic unsullied forces of human commerce. Though untamed and potentially volatile, these principles restore the fertile soil of prodigious production and the broad expansion of wealth and economic prosperity. The century of command economics was not just one of muzzled production, but one that also provoked unprecedented acrimony and bloodshed. It is a legacy the passing of which should not be mourned.
It is true that, as many challenge, Congress could never be expected to voluntarily cede its massive its power to negotiate and manipulate the tax system, and implement The Fair Tax. That is why an executive is required to inform and inspire the public to hold Congress to account. The Fair Tax is well-named, because taxation would be imposed on the level of consumption rather than the level of production. More extravagant consumption means more extravagant taxation. The poorer are untaxed by a universal “pre-bate” which monthly provides each household with the tax rate of the poverty level. So, you start the month with that AND you receive the entirety of your earnings.
Using rough current numbers, each family starts the month with over $5000 dollars. If of four earns $8000/month, there is $13,000 to spend for the month. Retail tax on spending will be 23%. Burt remember that the average 22% taxation will be removed from the imbedded cost of goods produced in America, lowering those prices dramatically, and making them more competitive with imported goods, which would be taxed equally. This represents a huge boost to American commerce, which also may sell their untaxed goods in foreign markets. Additionally, the untaxed underground economy is eliminated. Illegal members and illegal earners like pimps, prostitutes, drug-dealers, and gamblers will pay taxes on purchases like everyone else. Of course people will barter and bootleg around the system. But at least then, cheaters will be cheaters, not just expert gamers of an arcane system: street-corner hustles not luxurious tax-exemptions. This is no upper-class bonanza.
One very important thing is left to say. And, if we should embark upon this change without resolute attention to it, I fear that it is inevitable that the hording, envy, and acrimony will surely rise again. The mass-culture dampened uninhibited commerce in an effort to impose a social morality. But, an “imposed morality” is an oxymoron. And along with economic limitation, a macro-morality brought a dereliction of personal morality. What Americans must tend even more urgently than free and un-commanded markets, is the resolve to become better people. Even more important than the heightened creation of wealth, is that we support and encourage each other as moral and considerate people in the face of the irregularities of such an unregulated society.
In addition to the market-liberating principles of what the article calls, “Huckanomics,” Mike Huckabee strives to exemplify a model for such consideration that is the provocation of many of his “conservative” critics who have come to hear the idea of compassion only in terms of expanding and intruding government. That disposition is also illustrated in Huckabee’s frequent statement that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” Conservatism recognizes the value and prudence of personal and market freedom while commending an empathetic application of that freedom. In Christian terms, it respects but exhorts a virtuous rather than errant expression of a God-given freedom.
Huckabee also advocates what he calls a vertical rather than horizontal politics that is directed not at the triumph of the left or right but at the elevation of American society. Conservatism is virtuously applied to this objective, and ignobly applied to the conquest of fellow Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)