When I first heard of Huckabee in 2008, I didn’t want him to be president. But, after learning more about him, I came to respect him more and more.
I especially like his ideas about a “fair tax”. It’s a consumption tax to replace the income tax which is the way taxes should be paid. Paying as you buy things would eliminate the dreaded (by me, the eternal procrastinator) April 15th forms to fill out.
Would give all those tax accountants and lawyers something useful to do.
But I doubt he’s electable.
I second your “Fine with me”….
So moved!
So far the cast of characters is so ………….. benign.
Romney? Cast under Romneycare, the model for Obunglercare. Sweet! Another GoP establishment gooneybird.
Trump? Laughable at the least. He will make a good foil and bring a lot of crap out into the light.
Gingrinch? More GoP establishment weakness. No, thanks.
About the only real Conservative in the race right now is Herman Cain. I am sure the powers that be will swift-boat him somehow.
The whole thing is shaping up as Kabuki of the lowest type.
As Vanderleun says: “Republicans. They thirst for Death!”
I like this. The RINOs and the brazen opportunists are self-selecting out. Either they aren’t running or more and more people are seeing them for what they are and they aren’t liking it.
Little by little, the way is being opened for Sarah. She’s going to be the only one left standing when all this shakes out.
Awwww. And i so wanted a milk toast president who’d make our handbasket to hell have such a friendly feel we’d be begging for Obama to come back in 2016 just to finish the country off.
I like Cain and Palin too.
Very well then, we’re all better off if he just stays on that couch and preaches.
No great loss. We have had enough Presidents from Arkansas for the time being.
The best scenario is that no one reaches the convention as the clear winner or even front runner. The result would be the most dramatic convention in 40 years and the opportunity for someone unexpected to emerge. That would describe some like, oh, Abraham Lincoln. It maximizes excitement, minimizes opportunities for the MSM to conduct opposition research on the candidate, and forces Obama to prepare for a wider variety of positions and attacks. As a practical matter, Generic Republican will outpoll any of our candidates for awhile yet. Generic Republican gives Obama fits.
I met him in person during the 2008 primaries, at someone’s house in my town (we’re so spoiled in New Hampshire). I was covering it for the newspaper and I noticed that almost every single sentence he spoke was succinct and highly quotable. He had a surprising warmth and charisma-in-a-good-way, and naturally held the center of the room. I didn’t vote for him then and I wouldn’t now (unless, of course, he was running against Obama) but, as first impressions go, I liked him.
Off the topic, but I think you will be interested in this, neo, because it is a well-written article about a liberal realizing he is conservative: Converting Mamet.
From Converting Mamet, in The Weekly Standard: One of Mamet’s favorite books has been Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, published during the First World War by the British social psychologist Wilfred Trotter, inventor of the term “herd instinct.”
“Trotter says the herd instinct in an animal is stronger even than the preservation of life,” Mamet said. “So I was watching the [2008] debates. My liberal friends would spit at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name. Or they would literally mime the act of vomiting. We’re watching the debates and one of my friends pretends to vomit and says, ‘I have to leave the room.’ I thought, oh my god, this is Trotter! This is the reaction of the herd instinct. When a sheep discovers a wolf in the fold, it vomits to ward off the attacker. It’s a sign that their position in the herd is threatened.”
This is good news for Sarah Palin. Huckabee would have taken many Southern Christian primary votes. Sarah’s chances just improved.
Regarding Romney, Steyn defines his main problem: Mitt thinks to use government like business. His return to social conservatism did not include limited government.
But he shouldn’t be too despised. The resurgence of the doctrine is recent. An invidious onslaught of academic and cultural propaganda for entitlements was not opposed. Decades of the claims of intellectuals combined with prosperity dictated that goods and services be promised. The question was allowed to turn from “should we” to “how should we.”
Now we are coming back to take the stand which was never taken. . Better efforts are being made. See Rand Paul for instance explaining why government imposed health care is slavery.
Health care rights? Tell the misinformed “Obama gonna pay my mortgage” townhall screamer that health care is, like a mortgage, a non-transferable duty. Requiring others to pay your bills results in severe shortages and increased scarcity.
I went to ‘prayforHuckabee.com” and prayed he would say NO!
texexec: Herman Cain is a big backer of the Fair Tax. So am I.
Nearly all the commenters at the conservative blogs are glad Huck isn’t going to run. I don’t understand how he was polling so well.
Anyway, like Amy, I want to plug the “Converting Mamet” piece at The Weekly Standard. It is long, but a must read. And a wonderful breath of fresh air about someone you’d guess would be least likely to be a “changer” — a lifelong liberal Hollywood Jew.
Now I’m off to youtube to find some of those amazing Glengary Glen Ross dialogues Mamet wrote.
I’m not a Huckabee supporter. Had he become the GOP candidate in the general I would have voted for him over ANY Dem they could run. But I think that he would have gotten lukewarm independent support and negligible crossover support.
I wish he had been in the race for a little while, though. We need GOP debates–lots of them–to put the GOP and conservative ideas before the public. If the primary candidates can avoid being cut-throat, the debates could improve the GOP prospects in the general, especially in the face of an MSM whose motto is “if you can’t say something dirty, it’s best to say nothing at all.”
I like Huckabee on a personal level. His show on Foxnews is a bit corny at times but reasonably watchable. I have read his book, “A SIMPLE GOVERNMENT,” which pretty much lays out his philosphy of governing and dealing with the issues of the day. I found many things in there I did not agree with, particluarly his acceptance of the conventional wisdom about AGW and the environmment. But my greatest beef with him is the fair tax. I know a lot of people believe it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Neal Boortz, the biggest promoter of the Fair Tax, is a smart liberatarian, but his analysis of what would happen with a Fair Tax is, IMO, way off. It would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar. I have personally witnessed this in Washington state where the state tax on cigarettes is very high. This has led to cigarette smuggling, and has been a boon to the Indian reservations where they are selling cigarettes without state taxes. The cigarette market is small, but is a sample of what happens when you put large sales taxes on products.
We must have taxes to support the government, but to dream up a tax system that will theoretically painlessly provide all the revenue the government needs is backwards. Cut goverment, cut spending, and never increase taxes because increasing taxes is the equivalent to giving more booze to an alcoholic. If I had my druthers, all taxes would be paid on a quarterly basis. The withholding tax makes taxes too painless and out of sight. When you have to write a check every three months, you begin to ask yourself what the heck you are getting in return for the money paid in. That is a good thing. More people need to think that way.
What we need is tax simplification. Phase out over ten years many of the deductions and preferences and make the system much flatter – 10, 15, 20% brackets after a single deduction of $18,000 per person or some such arrangement. Sorry for going off topic so far.
Phew… Thank goodness. I like him well enough but Presidential he’s not.
Fine with me as well. Regretably, I would say that about any of the potential candidates as well as those who have officially thrown their hat into the ring. The field of candidates is truly distressing. we need the likes of Allen West and John Bolton. Smart, serious men with a grasp of the full range of challenges facing our nation. Our prospects do not look good. Not good at all.
What ever happened to the old “favorite son” system where a state tied its convention votes up with the local governor or senator? This tied up the convention and gave the states bargaining power. Ideally, the horse trading resulted in a strong candidate.
Mr. Frank:
I think I agree with you. The “old system” of selecting candidates in smoke filled rooms seems to have produced candidates who were every bit as good (maybe better) than the ones we are getting via primaries where the ill informed get to vote on them.
Which leads me to tell a story that is sorta’ consistent with what I just said.
“A man was going to have a brain transplant which was the only thing that could save his life. He asked his doctor about the cost of the operation. The doctor told him the cost would be his usual surgical fee plus the cost of the brain. The brain from a Democrat would cost $5,000. The cost of one from a Republican would be only $500.
The man asked why there was such a big difference between the two brains. The surgeon replied that the Republican brain had been used extensively while the Democrat brain was almost new..scarcely used at all.”
Mr. Frank: one of the things that happened was this.
Neo,
Too much democracy can be a bad thing. I suspect you agree.
Palin, Cain, West, Bolton. Any of those would be a bracing, biting wind.
Huckabee is good on some issues, and a very smart guy, but he’s too much of a nanny-stater for my liking.
Beverly Says:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“Palin, Cain, West, Bolton. Any of those would be a bracing, biting wind. Huckabee is good on some issues, and a very smart guy, but he’s too much of a nanny-stater for my liking.”
My sole interest is electing a fiscal realist-conservative who will talk straight to the American people and tell them we are at the proverbial fork in the road. We can continue to ignore our dilemma and collapse, or we can take the painful steps towards fiscal responsibility.
Cain, West, Rubio, Palin, Christie…. these are the ones with the ability to talk straight and the ones with the temperament to deal with this single issue. Nothing else matters at this moment. The window of opportunity is closing.
Far worse than either primaries or the old convention system of nomination are the caucuses. Combined with the shallow and inane horse-race mentality of the MSM they enable insubstantial candidates to vault to the front of the pack. Caucuses gave us Carter and Obama, and greatly exaggerate the popularity of the crackpot Ron Paul.
I definitely see your point, Parker. But I hope that if one of those gets elected he or she chooses Bolton as Secretary of State.
Mr. Frank said:
“Too much democracy can be a bad thing. I suspect you agree.”
Amen, Mr. Frank. Especially with a low quality electorate. Our founding fathers wisely didn’t want just anybody voting and they were right.
What’s a better system? Not sure but a multiple vote system in which a person can have multiple votes based on achievements, education, etc. sounds intriguing to me. Read about it in a novel by Nevil Shute (wrote “On the Beach”) – “In the Wet”.
How about readers on Neo’s blog get 5 votes each as a base?
Here’s a short summary of Nevil Shute’s multiple vote system:
“Perhaps the most interesting, and enduring, feature of the book is the “multiple vote”, seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one’s living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to Nigger for his heroism, is only given at the Queen’s discretion by Royal Charter.
Multiple votes have been known in history. Until the late 1940s, the graduates of Oxford University and Cambridge University sent representatives to Parliament. The graduates of the National University of Ireland and of Trinity College are still represented in the upper house of Ireland’s parliament. Part of the Reform Act 1885, as originally proposed, would have granted some Britons a second vote. That part of the Act was never enacted.”
“”It (fair tax) would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar.””
J.J.
Which all sounds pretty darn reasonable compared to a million pages of rules resulting in ten billion man hours wasted on tax calculation in a country that already has major problems in the selling of big ticket items.
I think it was Mark Steyn who said it so succinctly…”Baseball is supposed to have a season. That taxes have a season is absurd.”
“”It (fair tax) would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar.”” J.J.
Surely we don’t want a market to exist for a product or service because the government subsidizes it via the tax code. That’s one of the things wrong about the current system. Special interests are subsidized by exemptions (aka “buying votes”).
Why not Paul Ryan?
“Ryan is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party on the most critical issues of the day,” says Jennifer Rubin…
“I’m at a loss to think of another Republican who can bring together Tea Partyers, wonks, social conservatives, hawks, libertarians, Wall Street and Main Street Republicans and connect with a new generation of Republicans.”
Stuff happened in the past
stuff is happening now
stuff will happen until a frozen steady state, collapse, or infinite expansion makes it too cold (or crushes everything) for stuff to happen any more.
i finally found a way to summarize everything short enough…
Steve H. “Which all sounds pretty darn reasonable compared to a million pages of rules resulting in ten billion man hours wasted on tax calculation in a country that already has major problems in the selling of big ticket items.”
texexec. “Surely we don’t want a market to exist for a product or service because the government subsidizes it via the tax code. That’s one of the things wrong about the current system. Special interests are subsidized by exemptions (aka “buying votes”).”
That is why I mentioned the idea of phasing out the exemptions and deductions over a period of time. Right now our tax code is written to steer fiscal behavior in all kinds of directions. Many people, I’m one, have arranged their financial lives to pay the least taxes possible. Is that bad? No, it’s what humans do. To abruptly change the rules would result in major financial dislocations for a large part of the population. And so it would be with a national sales tax. People would seek to lower their tax burden by no longer buying new and big ticket items or seek ways to purchase them in other tax venues or in the black market. I mentioned the small example of cigarettes. The same is true of hard liquor here in Washington State. The state sells liquor through state run stores and the taxes are exhorbitant. As a result bulk liquor sales are way down and much liquor is bootlegged into the state from Oregon and Idaho. It does probably accomplish the goal of reducing drinking somewhat. It has also goosed the consumption of wine and beer. But it has not helped the state aka tax revenue nor even with fewer DUIs.
Speaking of tax preferences how about the so-called “subsidies” for oil companies? Those are actually known as depletion allowances and have been in effect almost since the beginning of the oil industry. They are meant to encourage new exploration for new oil with the taxes saved. Do they accomplish that? For many of the operators they undoubtedly do. So, are they good or bad? Depends on where you stand on the “evil” oil companies. Another is the depreciation alllowance for buildings, equipment, vehicles, tools, and other means of earning a profit. Meant for companies to set aside money to replace worn out or outmoded parts of their businesses just like the depletion allowance. Is that good for business? IMO, yes, but when you want to collect more taxes from the “greedy” businesses it all becomes a bad thing.
My answer is to phase out the preferences and deductions over time and simplify the tax code to make it flatter. ie Steve Forbes’s postcard 1040. Then tell the government to quit doing all the extra constitutional things (Charity, education, housing, energy, agriculture, labor relations, etc. etc). Get them back to defense, law enforcement/courts, and regulation of interstate commerce, period.
The Flat Tax proposals I’ve seen elimate all income taxes, payroll taxes (Medicare and Social Security), dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. They also elimiate all the “tax expenditures”, things like mortgage interest deduction and all the other subsidies the K-Street lobbyists are paid to extract from the Treasury so their cleints can pig out at the public trough.
So, under the fair tax, you keep every penny you earn. You’re only taxed when you spend it. To me, that creates all the right incentives for people to save, invest and generate capital formation for productive economic activity. Similarly, it also provides disincentives to engage in “conspicous consumption”. You can build a McMansion if you want, but you will no longer get the tax subsidy on your mortgage interest.
I’m not saying J.J. formerly Jimmy J is wrong in his analysis. A revolutionary change like switching to the Fair Tax will undoubtedly cause some serious dislocations for a couple of years. We’re going to experience a few years of pain to get the budget deficits fixed, so this might be the time to ask “if not now, when?”
It just seems to me the incentives/disincentives line up more naturally with a tax system based on consumption rather than one based on income.
Scott, I agree with you (no big surprise). Why tax production instead of consumption. Many of the things we consume aren’t needed anyway.
J.J., all the problems you mention about elimination of depletion allowances and depreciation allowances simply disappear if the companies paid no income tax and were allowed to spend and invest as they see fit instead of being guided by the government.
And quite frankly, we NEED a sudden dislocation in the economy now…in the direction of less consumption. Excessive consumption that we haven’t been able to afford is what got us where we are now.
The government maxed out its credit card just today.
J.J. :
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about this:
“Then tell the government to quit doing all the extra constitutional things (Charity, education, housing, energy, agriculture, labor relations, etc. etc). Get them back to defense, law enforcement/courts, and regulation of interstate commerce, period.”
But that has nothing to do with how we pay for the things we DO need government to do.
Hope you agree that we also need to pay attention to what government does these things best…federal? State? Local?
texexec: “Hope you agree that we also need to pay attention to what government does these things best…federal? State? Local.”
Exactly. The closer to the people that actually see the money spent, the better. That was the genius of the Founders. They saw it was better to reserve to the states and localities those things that affected the people at those levels most directly.
Education is a great example. I remember when Sputnik went up was the beginning of a serious push by the Feds to get involved in education. It started slowly but soon the snowball effect began and now it is a major avalanche. It has, over the years, morphed from a desire to improve math and science education into an affirmative action program for all with a resultant inflation of costs. I cannot believe what a college degree costs today. I matriculated from 1950-1954. Between a summer job where my mother allowed me to live at home rent free so I could save my wages and working as a waiter, house cleaner, and yard man I got through college on my own dime. (Probably $8000[includes board, room, tuition, books, and incidentals] for the four years) That was a common story in those days. College has become so expensive that it is very difficult to do that today. Like Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) and Victor Davis Hanson I blame it primarily on Fed involvement and student loans. I think it’s also pretty well understood that the overall quality of education has declined except in the hard sciences.
I attend city council meetings occasionallly and it astounds me that fifty% of the issues taken up involve trying to conform to Federal regulations or applying for Federal grants. It was never supposed to be this way! Their tentacles are everywhere. Changing it is going to be a long struggle. I don’t expect to live long enough to see huge changes, but we have to start and 2010 was a beginning.
On to 2012.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
When I first heard of Huckabee in 2008, I didn’t want him to be president. But, after learning more about him, I came to respect him more and more.
I especially like his ideas about a “fair tax”. It’s a consumption tax to replace the income tax which is the way taxes should be paid. Paying as you buy things would eliminate the dreaded (by me, the eternal procrastinator) April 15th forms to fill out.
Would give all those tax accountants and lawyers something useful to do.
But I doubt he’s electable.
I second your “Fine with me”….
So moved!
So far the cast of characters is so ………….. benign.
Romney? Cast under Romneycare, the model for Obunglercare. Sweet! Another GoP establishment gooneybird.
Trump? Laughable at the least. He will make a good foil and bring a lot of crap out into the light.
Gingrinch? More GoP establishment weakness. No, thanks.
About the only real Conservative in the race right now is Herman Cain. I am sure the powers that be will swift-boat him somehow.
The whole thing is shaping up as Kabuki of the lowest type.
As Vanderleun says: “Republicans. They thirst for Death!”
I like this. The RINOs and the brazen opportunists are self-selecting out. Either they aren’t running or more and more people are seeing them for what they are and they aren’t liking it.
Little by little, the way is being opened for Sarah. She’s going to be the only one left standing when all this shakes out.
Awwww. And i so wanted a milk toast president who’d make our handbasket to hell have such a friendly feel we’d be begging for Obama to come back in 2016 just to finish the country off.
I like Cain and Palin too.
Very well then, we’re all better off if he just stays on that couch and preaches.
No great loss. We have had enough Presidents from Arkansas for the time being.
The best scenario is that no one reaches the convention as the clear winner or even front runner. The result would be the most dramatic convention in 40 years and the opportunity for someone unexpected to emerge. That would describe some like, oh, Abraham Lincoln. It maximizes excitement, minimizes opportunities for the MSM to conduct opposition research on the candidate, and forces Obama to prepare for a wider variety of positions and attacks. As a practical matter, Generic Republican will outpoll any of our candidates for awhile yet. Generic Republican gives Obama fits.
I met him in person during the 2008 primaries, at someone’s house in my town (we’re so spoiled in New Hampshire). I was covering it for the newspaper and I noticed that almost every single sentence he spoke was succinct and highly quotable. He had a surprising warmth and charisma-in-a-good-way, and naturally held the center of the room. I didn’t vote for him then and I wouldn’t now (unless, of course, he was running against Obama) but, as first impressions go, I liked him.
Off the topic, but I think you will be interested in this, neo, because it is a well-written article about a liberal realizing he is conservative: Converting Mamet.
From Converting Mamet, in The Weekly Standard: One of Mamet’s favorite books has been Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, published during the First World War by the British social psychologist Wilfred Trotter, inventor of the term “herd instinct.”
“Trotter says the herd instinct in an animal is stronger even than the preservation of life,” Mamet said. “So I was watching the [2008] debates. My liberal friends would spit at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name. Or they would literally mime the act of vomiting. We’re watching the debates and one of my friends pretends to vomit and says, ‘I have to leave the room.’ I thought, oh my god, this is Trotter! This is the reaction of the herd instinct. When a sheep discovers a wolf in the fold, it vomits to ward off the attacker. It’s a sign that their position in the herd is threatened.”
This is good news for Sarah Palin. Huckabee would have taken many Southern Christian primary votes. Sarah’s chances just improved.
Regarding Romney, Steyn defines his main problem: Mitt thinks to use government like business. His return to social conservatism did not include limited government.
But he shouldn’t be too despised. The resurgence of the doctrine is recent. An invidious onslaught of academic and cultural propaganda for entitlements was not opposed. Decades of the claims of intellectuals combined with prosperity dictated that goods and services be promised. The question was allowed to turn from “should we” to “how should we.”
Now we are coming back to take the stand which was never taken. . Better efforts are being made. See Rand Paul for instance explaining why government imposed health care is slavery.
Health care rights? Tell the misinformed “Obama gonna pay my mortgage” townhall screamer that health care is, like a mortgage, a non-transferable duty. Requiring others to pay your bills results in severe shortages and increased scarcity.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/12/sen_rand_paul_right_to_health_care_is_like_believing_in_slavery.html
I went to ‘prayforHuckabee.com” and prayed he would say NO!
texexec: Herman Cain is a big backer of the Fair Tax. So am I.
Nearly all the commenters at the conservative blogs are glad Huck isn’t going to run. I don’t understand how he was polling so well.
Anyway, like Amy, I want to plug the “Converting Mamet” piece at The Weekly Standard. It is long, but a must read. And a wonderful breath of fresh air about someone you’d guess would be least likely to be a “changer” — a lifelong liberal Hollywood Jew.
Now I’m off to youtube to find some of those amazing Glengary Glen Ross dialogues Mamet wrote.
I’m not a Huckabee supporter. Had he become the GOP candidate in the general I would have voted for him over ANY Dem they could run. But I think that he would have gotten lukewarm independent support and negligible crossover support.
I wish he had been in the race for a little while, though. We need GOP debates–lots of them–to put the GOP and conservative ideas before the public. If the primary candidates can avoid being cut-throat, the debates could improve the GOP prospects in the general, especially in the face of an MSM whose motto is “if you can’t say something dirty, it’s best to say nothing at all.”
I like Huckabee on a personal level. His show on Foxnews is a bit corny at times but reasonably watchable. I have read his book, “A SIMPLE GOVERNMENT,” which pretty much lays out his philosphy of governing and dealing with the issues of the day. I found many things in there I did not agree with, particluarly his acceptance of the conventional wisdom about AGW and the environmment. But my greatest beef with him is the fair tax. I know a lot of people believe it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Neal Boortz, the biggest promoter of the Fair Tax, is a smart liberatarian, but his analysis of what would happen with a Fair Tax is, IMO, way off. It would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar. I have personally witnessed this in Washington state where the state tax on cigarettes is very high. This has led to cigarette smuggling, and has been a boon to the Indian reservations where they are selling cigarettes without state taxes. The cigarette market is small, but is a sample of what happens when you put large sales taxes on products.
We must have taxes to support the government, but to dream up a tax system that will theoretically painlessly provide all the revenue the government needs is backwards. Cut goverment, cut spending, and never increase taxes because increasing taxes is the equivalent to giving more booze to an alcoholic. If I had my druthers, all taxes would be paid on a quarterly basis. The withholding tax makes taxes too painless and out of sight. When you have to write a check every three months, you begin to ask yourself what the heck you are getting in return for the money paid in. That is a good thing. More people need to think that way.
What we need is tax simplification. Phase out over ten years many of the deductions and preferences and make the system much flatter – 10, 15, 20% brackets after a single deduction of $18,000 per person or some such arrangement. Sorry for going off topic so far.
Phew… Thank goodness. I like him well enough but Presidential he’s not.
Fine with me as well. Regretably, I would say that about any of the potential candidates as well as those who have officially thrown their hat into the ring. The field of candidates is truly distressing. we need the likes of Allen West and John Bolton. Smart, serious men with a grasp of the full range of challenges facing our nation. Our prospects do not look good. Not good at all.
What ever happened to the old “favorite son” system where a state tied its convention votes up with the local governor or senator? This tied up the convention and gave the states bargaining power. Ideally, the horse trading resulted in a strong candidate.
Mr. Frank:
I think I agree with you. The “old system” of selecting candidates in smoke filled rooms seems to have produced candidates who were every bit as good (maybe better) than the ones we are getting via primaries where the ill informed get to vote on them.
Which leads me to tell a story that is sorta’ consistent with what I just said.
“A man was going to have a brain transplant which was the only thing that could save his life. He asked his doctor about the cost of the operation. The doctor told him the cost would be his usual surgical fee plus the cost of the brain. The brain from a Democrat would cost $5,000. The cost of one from a Republican would be only $500.
The man asked why there was such a big difference between the two brains. The surgeon replied that the Republican brain had been used extensively while the Democrat brain was almost new..scarcely used at all.”
Mr. Frank: one of the things that happened was this.
Neo,
Too much democracy can be a bad thing. I suspect you agree.
Palin, Cain, West, Bolton. Any of those would be a bracing, biting wind.
Huckabee is good on some issues, and a very smart guy, but he’s too much of a nanny-stater for my liking.
Beverly Says:
May 15th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“Palin, Cain, West, Bolton. Any of those would be a bracing, biting wind. Huckabee is good on some issues, and a very smart guy, but he’s too much of a nanny-stater for my liking.”
My sole interest is electing a fiscal realist-conservative who will talk straight to the American people and tell them we are at the proverbial fork in the road. We can continue to ignore our dilemma and collapse, or we can take the painful steps towards fiscal responsibility.
Cain, West, Rubio, Palin, Christie…. these are the ones with the ability to talk straight and the ones with the temperament to deal with this single issue. Nothing else matters at this moment. The window of opportunity is closing.
Far worse than either primaries or the old convention system of nomination are the caucuses. Combined with the shallow and inane horse-race mentality of the MSM they enable insubstantial candidates to vault to the front of the pack. Caucuses gave us Carter and Obama, and greatly exaggerate the popularity of the crackpot Ron Paul.
I definitely see your point, Parker. But I hope that if one of those gets elected he or she chooses Bolton as Secretary of State.
Mr. Frank said:
“Too much democracy can be a bad thing. I suspect you agree.”
Amen, Mr. Frank. Especially with a low quality electorate. Our founding fathers wisely didn’t want just anybody voting and they were right.
What’s a better system? Not sure but a multiple vote system in which a person can have multiple votes based on achievements, education, etc. sounds intriguing to me. Read about it in a novel by Nevil Shute (wrote “On the Beach”) – “In the Wet”.
How about readers on Neo’s blog get 5 votes each as a base?
Here’s a short summary of Nevil Shute’s multiple vote system:
“Perhaps the most interesting, and enduring, feature of the book is the “multiple vote”, seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one’s living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to Nigger for his heroism, is only given at the Queen’s discretion by Royal Charter.
Multiple votes have been known in history. Until the late 1940s, the graduates of Oxford University and Cambridge University sent representatives to Parliament. The graduates of the National University of Ireland and of Trinity College are still represented in the upper house of Ireland’s parliament. Part of the Reform Act 1885, as originally proposed, would have granted some Britons a second vote. That part of the Act was never enacted.”
“”It (fair tax) would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar.””
J.J.
Which all sounds pretty darn reasonable compared to a million pages of rules resulting in ten billion man hours wasted on tax calculation in a country that already has major problems in the selling of big ticket items.
I think it was Mark Steyn who said it so succinctly…”Baseball is supposed to have a season. That taxes have a season is absurd.”
“”It (fair tax) would destroy the market for new autos, housing, and other big ticket items. It would create a black market for the sale/barter of taxable items below the tax radar.”” J.J.
Surely we don’t want a market to exist for a product or service because the government subsidizes it via the tax code. That’s one of the things wrong about the current system. Special interests are subsidized by exemptions (aka “buying votes”).
Why not Paul Ryan?
“Ryan is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party on the most critical issues of the day,” says Jennifer Rubin…
“I’m at a loss to think of another Republican who can bring together Tea Partyers, wonks, social conservatives, hawks, libertarians, Wall Street and Main Street Republicans and connect with a new generation of Republicans.”
Stuff happened in the past
stuff is happening now
stuff will happen until a frozen steady state, collapse, or infinite expansion makes it too cold (or crushes everything) for stuff to happen any more.
i finally found a way to summarize everything short enough…
Steve H. “Which all sounds pretty darn reasonable compared to a million pages of rules resulting in ten billion man hours wasted on tax calculation in a country that already has major problems in the selling of big ticket items.”
texexec. “Surely we don’t want a market to exist for a product or service because the government subsidizes it via the tax code. That’s one of the things wrong about the current system. Special interests are subsidized by exemptions (aka “buying votes”).”
That is why I mentioned the idea of phasing out the exemptions and deductions over a period of time. Right now our tax code is written to steer fiscal behavior in all kinds of directions. Many people, I’m one, have arranged their financial lives to pay the least taxes possible. Is that bad? No, it’s what humans do. To abruptly change the rules would result in major financial dislocations for a large part of the population. And so it would be with a national sales tax. People would seek to lower their tax burden by no longer buying new and big ticket items or seek ways to purchase them in other tax venues or in the black market. I mentioned the small example of cigarettes. The same is true of hard liquor here in Washington State. The state sells liquor through state run stores and the taxes are exhorbitant. As a result bulk liquor sales are way down and much liquor is bootlegged into the state from Oregon and Idaho. It does probably accomplish the goal of reducing drinking somewhat. It has also goosed the consumption of wine and beer. But it has not helped the state aka tax revenue nor even with fewer DUIs.
Speaking of tax preferences how about the so-called “subsidies” for oil companies? Those are actually known as depletion allowances and have been in effect almost since the beginning of the oil industry. They are meant to encourage new exploration for new oil with the taxes saved. Do they accomplish that? For many of the operators they undoubtedly do. So, are they good or bad? Depends on where you stand on the “evil” oil companies. Another is the depreciation alllowance for buildings, equipment, vehicles, tools, and other means of earning a profit. Meant for companies to set aside money to replace worn out or outmoded parts of their businesses just like the depletion allowance. Is that good for business? IMO, yes, but when you want to collect more taxes from the “greedy” businesses it all becomes a bad thing.
My answer is to phase out the preferences and deductions over time and simplify the tax code to make it flatter. ie Steve Forbes’s postcard 1040. Then tell the government to quit doing all the extra constitutional things (Charity, education, housing, energy, agriculture, labor relations, etc. etc). Get them back to defense, law enforcement/courts, and regulation of interstate commerce, period.
The Flat Tax proposals I’ve seen elimate all income taxes, payroll taxes (Medicare and Social Security), dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. They also elimiate all the “tax expenditures”, things like mortgage interest deduction and all the other subsidies the K-Street lobbyists are paid to extract from the Treasury so their cleints can pig out at the public trough.
So, under the fair tax, you keep every penny you earn. You’re only taxed when you spend it. To me, that creates all the right incentives for people to save, invest and generate capital formation for productive economic activity. Similarly, it also provides disincentives to engage in “conspicous consumption”. You can build a McMansion if you want, but you will no longer get the tax subsidy on your mortgage interest.
I’m not saying J.J. formerly Jimmy J is wrong in his analysis. A revolutionary change like switching to the Fair Tax will undoubtedly cause some serious dislocations for a couple of years. We’re going to experience a few years of pain to get the budget deficits fixed, so this might be the time to ask “if not now, when?”
It just seems to me the incentives/disincentives line up more naturally with a tax system based on consumption rather than one based on income.
Scott, I agree with you (no big surprise). Why tax production instead of consumption. Many of the things we consume aren’t needed anyway.
J.J., all the problems you mention about elimination of depletion allowances and depreciation allowances simply disappear if the companies paid no income tax and were allowed to spend and invest as they see fit instead of being guided by the government.
And quite frankly, we NEED a sudden dislocation in the economy now…in the direction of less consumption. Excessive consumption that we haven’t been able to afford is what got us where we are now.
The government maxed out its credit card just today.
J.J. :
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about this:
“Then tell the government to quit doing all the extra constitutional things (Charity, education, housing, energy, agriculture, labor relations, etc. etc). Get them back to defense, law enforcement/courts, and regulation of interstate commerce, period.”
But that has nothing to do with how we pay for the things we DO need government to do.
Hope you agree that we also need to pay attention to what government does these things best…federal? State? Local?
texexec: “Hope you agree that we also need to pay attention to what government does these things best…federal? State? Local.”
Exactly. The closer to the people that actually see the money spent, the better. That was the genius of the Founders. They saw it was better to reserve to the states and localities those things that affected the people at those levels most directly.
Education is a great example. I remember when Sputnik went up was the beginning of a serious push by the Feds to get involved in education. It started slowly but soon the snowball effect began and now it is a major avalanche. It has, over the years, morphed from a desire to improve math and science education into an affirmative action program for all with a resultant inflation of costs. I cannot believe what a college degree costs today. I matriculated from 1950-1954. Between a summer job where my mother allowed me to live at home rent free so I could save my wages and working as a waiter, house cleaner, and yard man I got through college on my own dime. (Probably $8000[includes board, room, tuition, books, and incidentals] for the four years) That was a common story in those days. College has become so expensive that it is very difficult to do that today. Like Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) and Victor Davis Hanson I blame it primarily on Fed involvement and student loans. I think it’s also pretty well understood that the overall quality of education has declined except in the hard sciences.
I attend city council meetings occasionallly and it astounds me that fifty% of the issues taken up involve trying to conform to Federal regulations or applying for Federal grants. It was never supposed to be this way! Their tentacles are everywhere. Changing it is going to be a long struggle. I don’t expect to live long enough to see huge changes, but we have to start and 2010 was a beginning.
On to 2012.