The New Cain's-eyenism: 9-9-9 = No, No, No

I suspect that all you Cain-eyaks are in for a lot of disappointment in the coming months because plain taking and simple to understand is going to be easily attacked by both sides for lacking in experience and too simplistic to provide a real fix for the issues we are facing.

9% Corporate Tax, depending on how it's actually written will either unfairly reward companies with very few employees or provide further incentive to off-shore jobs. And perhaps a corporate flat tax will not in and of itself cause downward pressure but it will fail to fix the real issues of regulatory burdens and the ever-increasing cost on employers to fund their portion of entitlement programs (Obamacare). GE is paying Zero Corporate Tax this year, is off-shoring its workforce in the tens of thousands and the per share price is 1/3 of where it was less than 5 years ago. At least Rick Santorum's proposal to zero out manufacturer's tax addresses one of the issues behind joblessness and trade deficits directly by taking on a specific symptom head-on. I also like it because it is small and specific.
Cain may not realize that his 9-9-9 proposal is still big government, runs the risk of many unintended consequences and just peanut butter spreads the pain. In the end be mindful of the fact that you, the consumer will be paying this 9%. Corporations don't pay tax. They incorporate taxes into the cost of goods sold, passing that cost on to you and/or look for ways to save in the other line items of their business, ultimately spending less on tangible assets, quality materials and labor. This is why 9-9-9 really adds up to 24-27% Federal Tax (not including Social Security and Medicare) on middle-class, middle aged income earners who are spending the majority of their paychecks to make ends meet right now and who are the fuel in the engine of economic growth. That's a tax that is still too high and the economic tide will not rise if this downward pressure remains that high.

9% Income Tax is a non-starter. It raises tax on a bunch of people who currently pay little or nothing of "their fair share" while simultaneously lowering the taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" which is to say it will lower it on the many "thousandaires" who are really the ones in the crosshairs of this despicable liberal rhetoric. So short of a super-majority and probably even with a super-majority, this will never pass. Democrats will never vote to raise taxes on their core constituency: the Dependency Class. Republicans are too cowardly to face the likely attacks of cronyism and racism for lowering taxes on their core constituency of wealth earners and job creators while simultaneously increasing the burden on so-called minorities. So although I would personally benefit by seeing my Federal income tax go down, it is the least likely of the three to get any traction in tax reform legislation. But even before Cain get's that far let's review the fate of the last Republican who favored tax increases ("Read my lips"). Obama will demonize Cain into unelectability.

9% Federal Sales Tax is the worst of the three. Let me count the ways. 1) The last thing we want to do in the current climate is give the Federal government more control over our lives and add an entirely new method of raising taxes. This is the camels nose under the tent. 9% becomes 9.5 or 9.9% very quickly when the Federal government finds itself in a bind to pay for something that was under-budgeted and overspent. And just because the Pizza Tycoon is in the White House don't think that all too common problem goes away. It's in the DNA of government to do such things. Bad fiscal practice is not a recessive gene in the Federal government. Until that species of politician and bureaucrat is extinct, that very real risk remains. 2) I feel that there is even greater risk that the tax will not merely go up but that the structure will change to a European style VAT. Argue for VAT as you may I personally want to emulate Europe less not more and VAT equals big government on steroids. If I ran a business the first thing I'd do to keep my VAT burden in check would be to buy less and build less. Over time this equals a lack of surplus in all things and I can't think of anything more anti-Capitalist except maybe Obama himself. 3) Regardless of whether you give credence to #1 and 2. the rule that still applies is: If you want less of something, have government tax it. I already pay a 9% State Sales tax which is only acceptable because I (just like every other Texan) pay Zero State Income Tax. At the point where I am having to pay roughly 20 cents on top of every dollar spent . . . let's just say that my family will be getting even more creative in our ways to exist and have fun without unholstering the wallet.

As much as the Tax Code needs reform, the proposals in the Primary and General Election seasons need much more thoughtful branding. The Tea Party wants to hear how you are going to starve the beast of Big Government, not how you are going to change it's diet yet keep on feeding it a rich source of our tax dollars.

So it starts striking me as a little naive that Pizza Man and Head of the National Restaurant Association would propose a tax structure that would certainly lead to a whole lot fewer of us eating out. Just think what happens to that $6 burger when it shrinks by anywhere from 9-27% due to all these taxes. You and I will surely be saying, "where's the beef?"

MSM Trash the GOP Candidates Bingo

This article (good quick read)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/new-luddites/

reminded me not only that John Holdren is Obama's (psuedo)-science Czar (read more here)* but also reminded me of the likelihood that the Main Stream Media will predictably use this attack-line. You are bound to see this one once the primary race tightens up a bit and these shills for Obama start launching a whole array of "new" editorial memes.

Feel free to add this one to your Bingo Board:



*

science czar

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Holdren, John[126]

2009–present

President nominated, Senate confirmed

Barack Obama

✓

How Was The Debate Last Night?

People are saying that the Republican Primary is now at a whole new level and proof of that to me is what we saw during the debate Thursday night. Ron Paul's sputtering and muttering captured some attention and a few positive lines of press in the South Carolina debate earlier this year but Thursday night he just looked small and continued to shrink every time he spoke.

I know there are Paul-iaks/Paulistas/Ronulins out there (used to work with one of them) that are holding out hope that this is the year for their guy to win the Republican primary. First and foremost, Ron Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian and that is a zebra of a different stripe.

Set aside the fact that most of his answers are far too wonky for most voters to get excited about them. In U.S. elections over the last two centuries the winners are able to encapsulate their platforms in a few pithy campaign slogans. Any idea coming from Ron Paul requires a college degree, a 15-page thesis and a liberal dose of footnotes and other reference material to really understand.

Set aside the fact that he's about as eloquent as a Mister Magoo on Novacaine. A recipe for abject failure in a debate against Obama.

Set aside the fact that he says things like "bad scene" which makes him sound like he time-traveled out of the 70's (from his first Congressional term - ironic for a guy proposing term limits). Set aside that his "thin silver dime" reference to illustrate some point about monetary policy made him sound like a homeless loon, off his meds accosting someone at a bus stop.

Set all that aside and then look down at the incredible shrinking man; the man who looks less and less presidential, the only one on stage on Thursday who was taking the NBC bait and going after his fellow Republicans without hesitation and with a little too much zeal; take a look down at that isolationist Lilliputian and ask him how he'd run the country and it would sound an awful lot like we'd be living in log cabins wearing tri-corner hats and carrying muskets to hunt for food in the vast absence of supermarkets.

So all of the Ronulins need to go back to their Revolutionary War reenactments and stop flash mobbing the non-scientific polls with your overenthusiastic votes for Paul, thinking you are going to attract enough Republicans to your cause. The longer Paul stands on stage, the taller he makes the rest of the real candidates appear. Eventually this sideshow distraction must go because he doesn't appear to be embodying the one absolute fact of this primary so eloquently articulated by Newt Gingrich when he said,

"I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us are committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack Obama."
***

MSM GOP Primary Whole Card BINGO

It's hard watching the Main Stream Media report on anything purely political. The bias is so extreme that it is predictable. But it's useful to know what these idiots are saying because it is likely to come up in cocktail conversation with your "moderate" or "apolitical" friends and family who actually really on this as a source of news.

So to make it interesting and even entertaining I've concocted a game.
Play with me. Watch carefully for all these tired tropes by the liberal attack dogs.
Shout out BINGO!!! when you can cover the whole card. Now that the Iowa Straw Poll is over and we are entering the true Primary Season, the media that has been bridling against the clock to come in and start swinging, . . . well, it appears to be in full swing.

Click the picture for the whole card.

Ron Paul Presidential Candidate Dolls on Sale Now

Act Now to Order Your
VERY LIMITED
Edition
Talking
Isolationist
Anti-Federal Reserve
Ron Paul
Doll

With Hypno-Vision to stun and mesmerize your Liberterian friends
(who will then willingly follow this doll off of a cliff)

Amaze & Entertain Your Friends By Pulling the Neck String to Hear Two Patented Life like Catch-Phrases

"Close the Federal Reserve. The Fed is at the heart of all America's economic problems. When you understand business cycles and you understand the gold standard and Ben Bernanke equals Woodrow Wilson. I should know, I voted for both of them. Did I mention pi R squared? Follow the Yellow Brick Road or be at peril of attack by flying monkeys."

- and -

"America needs to get out of all wars everywhere. War scares me. War is bad and most of all it costs money the Federal reserve should not be printing. Our Founding Fathers had muskets and a Navy of a handful of ships that would take weeks, nay months to cross the oceans. We need to return to those simpler times so we don't feel compelled to fight wars with our fast jet powered military that reminds me of Buck Rogers that I use to see at the picture show for a nickel when I was in my twenties. Did I mention that we should pull our troops out of everywhere including our own domestic bases? If I were President I'd be so anti-war that the movie Star Wars would be illegal."

Restorative

Listening to Mark Steyn today and between him, Stuart Varney and a English Lit professor at UCLA, it seems like British ex-pats are determined to teach and remind us everything we should already know about our country and ourselves as Americans.

American Liberty is not easy. It is, however, completely worth the effort and the price . . . particularly when you consider the alternatives.

Thinking even more about how aptly named the Tea Party is, the candidates who wear that monicker as a badge of honor are willing to sacrifice the little bit of political power they've gained along with reputation and wealth to defend the American ideal. They are surrounded on the Hill by so many others that embody the descriptor "turncoat".

By the very nature of our nation's founding and the dynamic created by The Constitution, it seems the American Revolution is bound to be played out again and again and again.

A Week of "I Told You So's"

I've been told that people don't like the guy who says, "I told you so." Of course not. We live in a culture of ever-increasing zero accountability. People want to make bad decisions and they also want to avoid responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. What we need is a renaissance of "I told you so" and the requisite shame.

The Tea Party members of congress who refused to vote for this mangy dog of a debt deal could, if they wanted, say I told you so. Perhaps they won't. On their behalf, I will.

While they were being chided by all the "experts" who wanted them to close ranks with the rest of the Republicans and vote yes for the watered down compromise struck by Boehner, instead they held firm on their principles. Many said that their reasoning was this bill didn't go far enough to avert the impending credit downgrade and guess what, S&P just confirmed they were right. Standard & Poor's is telling all of us, "I told you so" or perhaps S&P just said, "Mr Obama, don't call our bluff."

What is really unforgivable about the way the pundits and political careerists acted is they all set aside their own logic to embrace this deal. They showed a willingness to violate the following principles that many of them espoused over the past two years.

1. Q: When is it ever a good idea to respond to an Obama imposed, arbitrary deadline for legislative action? A: Never. -- I submit to you that the only thing that would have happened on August 3rd if we didn't pass some piece of debt limit legislation is that Obama would have looked like an even bigger $hit-heel having a birthday party with an unresolved, self-inflicted crisis.
2. Weren't we supposed to have the chance to read all bills for five days before a vote? I believe the new Republican controlled House even made a commitment to this notion and proposed legislation or at least rules changes. And before they make the rationalization with themselves that this was a case of special circumstances; that a crisis was looming and time would not permit the nicety of a 5 day waiting period, see #1. Arbitrary, meaningless deadline and the clock was ticking months ago when they did the first debt limit extension in April.
   
3. When did it become a good idea to write bills behind closed doors with Harry Reid or pass a bill so we could find out what was in the bill? The super committee selection process is a big mystery. Some were even speculating that non-elected persons could be members of the committee. Perhaps the rules are in there but see #2 and then tell me where it was posted for 5 days or even 2 days where any of us would have time to read it.
   
4. When is it NOT a good idea to put automatic defense spending cuts on the table? I wasn't a General when I was in the Army but I am guessing that one of those times is probably when you are in the midst of an ongoing global war against terrorists and fighting intense conflicts with large military deployments in not 1, not 2 but 3 separate countries. This is tantamount to setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Our enemies have to be giddily awaiting the trigger option to be pulled so they can launch new attacks when the Pentagon loses it's check book and has to budget their response to the threat matrix.
5. When is it a conservative or even Republican (see definition of "republic" below) idea to cede, consolidate and fundamentally alter Constitutional power? The super committee in effect does all three of these. The Republicans who voted for this bill have essentially abdicated their authority and representative powers. If they are so willing to do so and so reluctant to govern, perhaps they should just leave political office.

So in this case, it's not even me saying, "I told you so." It is all of you pundits and politicians who should look yourselves in the mirror and say, "I told myself so . . . and I didn't listen."

***

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik]

noun

a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

***