Friday, December 28, 2007
Is Huckabee's 'FairTax'plan a good idea?
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
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.
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
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
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