Friday, December 28, 2007

Is Huckabee's 'FairTax'plan a good idea?

Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee has been rising in the polls in recent weeks, and has now assumed the front-runner status in Iowa. Much of his rise can be credited to his advocacy of the 'FairTax'. The FairTax is a plan to do away with the IRS and every other federal tax including Social Security, capital gains, and Medicare and replace them with a 23% national sales tax.

This proposal is drawing big crowds at Huckabee's campaign events and, along with his appeal to Evangelical Christians, is one of the driving forces behind Huckabee's campaign. The idea is very popular because of its simplicity and the fact that people would no longer have to deal with the IRS and filing annual tax returns every April. It is a very emotional issue for many Republican voters.

But is this FairTax plan really a good idea? The popularity of the idea is understandable. After all, who doesn't want to get rid of the IRS? Many people dread having to file their taxes and worrying about being audited, etc. The current tax code is so complicated that very few can understand it. Even most accountants and tax attorneys don't have a grasp of every aspect of the tax law. How can the average American understand it? Isn't it time to get rid of the whole thing?

Well, the idea definitely sounds attractive. At first glance, I have to admit that I also liked the concept of doing away with the IRS and simplifying the tax code. Also, this would encourage people in America to save more money, which is desperately needed in this country. Also, to ease the burden on the poor, Gov Huckabee proposes to send a monthly check to most Americans to cover the tax on basic needs like food and clothing.

As it was with the Huckabee candidacy itself, upon closer examination, this FairTax plan has alot of potential problems. First of all, with no IRS and a 23% tax on all goods and services, the creation of a black market would seem inevitable. In the service industry, it would be particularly easy to take cash payments and not charge the 23% tax.

The Huckabee campaign's response is that Gov Huckabee will address issues of compliance when he becomes president. My question is, why not address them now, while campaigning for president? Could it be that the solution is another intrusive government agency perhaps even worse than the IRS? Of course, he wouldn't want to discuss that now, because conservative Republicans wouldn't like that idea very much.

Another potential issue with the FairTax is that federal, state and local governments would have to pay an additional 23% on all of their services. On the federal level, that may cause a yearly deficit, increasing the need for revenue. The obvious next step would be for an increase in the percentage of sales tax, thus putting more pressure on governments and individuals.

For state and local governments, this will almost certainly mean higher taxes. We know that they will not reduce their spending, so there will be no other way to collect the revenue needed to pay the increased costs of goods and services.

Another possible unintended consequence of the FairTax could be an economic downturn. We know that consumer spending is a major driver of a strong economy. Maybe our savings rate would go up under the FairTax, but another result could be that Americans save to the point where they hardly spend money outside the basic necessities. If this were to happen, our economy could suffer, causing recession and the loss of many jobs.

I realize that these concerns over the FairTax are only possible outcomes if it is ever implemented. We know that things don't always turn out the way people predict and maybe the FairTax would end of having no major downsides. With all the aforementioned issues, I have a hard time imagining that this would not end up overall damaging to our economy and our country.

The question Republican voters must ask themselves is are we willing to risk our future on Gov. Huckabee and his very risky tax scheme?

Searching for Ronald Reagan (Part Two)


I have a lot of respect for the resilience of Senator John Mccain’s campaign. He was left for dead this summer after being a leading voice for an unpopular war and being in favor of a very unpopular immigration reform bill. He’s still fighting an uphill battle, but he has come back and is making a real push to win in
New Hampshire.

I respect Senator Mccain for his service to our country as a war hero and prisoner of war in Vietnam. I also respect his willingness to speak his mind even when he knows it’s unpopular. He was a leading advocate of the troop surge in Iraq that has turned out to be a very successful strategy. Senator Mccain is also a budget hawk who would certainly fight, as he has as senator, against all the wasteful spending by our government.

Although Mccain is also technically pro-life, his commitment to fighting the battles of the culture war is suspect. He has often been at odds with evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Dr James Dobson. He also opposed the federal marriage amendment that failed to win two thirds majority in the Senate in 2006.

Senator Mccain has taken some other strange stances over the years. He co-authored the Mccain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which did nothing to clean up the corruption in politics. He also opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were first proposed, although he now favors extending them. These combined with his support of a horrible immigration reform bill earlier this year make him a risky candidate to get behind. His judgment has often been proven wrong over the years, so it’s hard to predict what kind of president he would be.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is the hot candidate lately. He was considered a second-tier candidate until just a couple months ago, but now has a legitimate chance to win the nomination. I remember watching him in the debates last summer thinking he would be a good president, but he has no chance. Now that he has a chance, I’m not sure he would be such a good president.

Mike Huckabee is a former Baptist preacher and a very strong evangelical Christian. He is also very charming and has a humility about him that many people find attractive. I love his stance on the culture war. I believe like he does that our nation is morally near bankruptcy and needs to be cleaned up. I think he’s a very likable guy, so I really wanted to believe that he was the guy to get behind.

Now that he is a serious contender, people are taking a closer look at him, and they don’t like a lot of what they see. This guy is 100% with us as a culture warrior, but, otherwise, it’s hard to find other areas where he’s actually a conservative. Looking at his record in Arkansas, he raised taxes far more often than he cut them, he supported in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, he furloughed many prisoners, some of whom committed more crimes after being released from prison.

He’s also made some very disturbing remarks about Iran, implying that if we just talked to them we could find a way to get along with them peacefully. This combined with criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy make you wonder if he really understands the scope and magnitude of the threat our country faces and if he’s up for the challenge of taking on the evils in this world.

That leaves us with former Mass governor Mitt Romney. Mitt was only governor for four years, but he has a ton of experience in the business world. He is very well-organized and has a history of turning companies around and making them profitable. He also is known for his work fixing up the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.

As president, I have every confidence that he has a great understanding of economic policy and what it takes to keep our economy strong. I also think he would do a lot toward cleaning up all the waste and pork spending done by our Congress. He is a strong supporter of Bush’s foreign policy and would continue going after the terrorists and keeping our country safe. Mitt also has a strong stand of securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.

Mitt has two drawbacks in my book. The most important is that he has flip-flopped on some issues like abortion and gay marriage at very convenient times for a presidential run. He now says he’s pro-life and pro-family, but one must wonder how committed he is to those causes.

I hate to admit it, but the second drawback for me is his Mormonism. It’s not a huge deal, but it is a little bit of a problem. As a Christian, I do indeed believe that Mormonism is a cult. Mormons will argue differently, but one bottom line thing they don’t believe is that Jesus is God. They only believe that He is God’s son and brother of Lucifer. This is a fundamental disagreement with Christian theology. One that I would say disqualifies Mormonism as a Christian religion.

That said, I don’t believe that Mitt’s Mormon faith is enough to disqualify him from being president. Many of our founding fathers were not theologically on the same page with orthodox Christians. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, meaning he believed in a God that created the universe, then left it alone and never intervened into human events. This did not stop Jefferson from being a good president.

The bottom line for Romney and his Mormon faith is whether or not he will be on our side in the culture war. Will he appoint good justices and fight for the causes that all of us as people of faith believe in? This is a question that has yet to be answered. I suspect that Romney is on our side. His personal life shows a man of faith and character that is loyal to his wife and family.

After examining the five candidates, the search for Ronald Reagan continues. None of the five candidates have stolen my heart up until now. Of course, even if we can’t find our Ronald Reagan, in order to prevent Hillary Clinton and Co. from getting into the White House, I will enthusiastically support whichever of the five wins the nomination.




Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Searching for Ronald Reagan (Part One)

If you’re like me, you’ve been looking at this current field of Republican candidates wondering where the next Ronald Reagan is going to come from. With the race essentially down to five candidates, I think it’s important to take a hard look at each one as we prepare to make our choices in the upcoming primaries.

Before we examine the five contenders, it would be helpful to define what a “Reagan conservative” would look like. Every Republican (probably even Ron Paul) would like to claim the Reagan mantle, but let’s look at what Ronald Reagan really stood for.

In his 1980 presidential campaign, he ran primarily on three issues; cut taxes, dramatically increase defense spending, and balance the budget. He also promised to fight for pro-life causes and endorsed a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary prayer in public schools. In addition to these issues, he had a greater vision of “making America great again.”

Ronald Reagan was always optimistic about the future of this country and the greatness of the American people. He believed we could accomplish anything and that our best days were always ahead of us. He called this great vision the “shining city on a hill” and he believed that conservative principles and the conservative movement would be what made our country greater.

Like 1980, our world faces many dangers and we need a strong leader who is willing to stand up to and confront the evil that threatens us. We need a president who can secure our borders and put a stop to the flow of illegals coming into our country. We also need a president that understands economic policy and will extend the Bush tax cuts and keep our economy growing, while at the same time taking on Congress and its wasteful spending.

So who of the five contenders is best equipped to lead our country the way Ronald Reagan would? All of them have their strengths, but, unfortunately, none has shown us yet that they have the complete package. I know it’s asking a lot to be like Ronald Reagan, but I think we need someone with that kind of boldness to lead us in these uncertain times.

Let’s first look at Rudy Guliani. I love this guy on leadership. No denying what he did for the City of New York during his eight years as mayor, topped off by his outstanding leadership after 9/11. He is also very strong on economic issues. He seems to understand the principle that low taxes keep more money in people’s pockets leading to stronger economic growth.

The problem of course is his pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control stands. These are three major strikes against him. I could live with maybe one of these three, but to be wrong on all three of these issues is a lot to overcome, especially the issue of life. Being a Catholic, one would think he would support the pro-life cause.

Also his infidelity in his marriage says a lot about his character. All these lead me to wonder if Rudy would be on our side at all in the culture war, and what would happen to our party if the presidential nominee was opposed to three of the pillars of our party platform.

Fred Thompson is a guy that I must admit I don’t know enough about. From everything I know about him, he has all the conservative credentials. His voting record in the Senate indicates that he’s right on all the issues. He would keep our country safe and he would be on our side in the culture war. The biggest question is how hard would he fight for these causes?

Thompson has of course been labeled fairly or unfairly as the “lazy” candidate. No fire in the belly, no energy on the campaign trail. I wonder if that could just be because the media has nothing else on this guy. The good thing about Thompson’s campaign is that he has the opportunity to prove his critics wrong. If he comes back from a big deficit to win the Iowa primary and goes on to win South Carolina, his candidacy is likely to catch fire and it will be hard for the media to keep calling him lazy.