Huckabee:
I like his demeanor. I really don't like that he has no stronger position than "vote for me because I'm an evangelical." I like his stance on immigration as Governor, but not as a candidate. I'm neutral on his pardons, torn between a desire for mercy and not knowing the specifics. I'm fine with his budget reputation in Arkansas, which is to say that an increasing budget, as a standalone fact, is not enough for me to dismiss a candidate. The "Fair Tax" proposal is silly as you are trying to sell it, and would be profoundly regressive. I don't believe in magic, but I think it would take magic to make what you are trying to sell work.
McCain:
I like the fact that he was a primary supporter of the immigration bill. (On immigration, I realize I'm about as far from the base position of the party as you can imagine, because I consider the base position to be fear-mongering and xenophobic nonsense.) I really don't like the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill - not because I don't think there's a need for such reform, but because I think the way it was implemented did nothing while claiming to do a lot. See this year's massive monetary component as proof nothing has changed. I'm neutral on his voting against tax cuts. I like that he's more "chummy" with Democrats than other Republicans. I'm wary of the sort of judges he would appoint.
Romney:
I like his experience in the private sector, and as a governor. I'm a big fan of executive experience in the Executive branch of the government. I like his educational credentials. I don't like his record on pardons, because I find it reasonable that there was at least one person who was well-suited to get a pardon. (I'm trying to dance around saying "deserved" a pardon, because a pardon is, in essence, an act of mercy - something one cannot "deserve"). I haven't personally seen any of his political ads, but either (1) the media is uniformly biased against him, trying always to reinforce the line that he's more negative, or (2) he is more negative, taking well-calculated jabs at his opponents. I'm trying not to judge him on it, but I often hear sound-bytes I don't like, such as his recent line at a debate disagreeing with McCain's "Michigan has lost some jobs that aren't coming back." He simply disagreed, but McCain's statement was profoundly obvious, and it's not the politically convinient thing to say (Romney's disagreement, however, was the politically predictable attitude). Because I don't know, I'm trying not to hold it against him, but in general it's a marginally negative thing in my book. I like that he's been a successful Governor of a liberal state.
Giuliani:
Rudy, I'm sure you're a smart guy. But I'm not convinced that being mayor of New York City qualifies you to be President of the United States. Flagrant adultery is a serious breach of a profoundly serious trust, and I can't support that, either.
Ron Paul:
Pull all troops home around the world (personally, I would support pulling out of Europe entirely, except as a rapid-deployment staging area for work in Africa and the Middle East) and abolish the Federal Reserve? Ummmm.... no.
End result: I know, and like, more about McCain's positions. I really like Romney's qualifications. Those are the two horses I'm watching most closely right now.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I pretty much agree with your read of the candidates.
I saw an interesting article defending Huckabee's tax plan:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181833/nav/tap3/
As for Romney, I just think he shows himself to be a consistent phony. He's probably a good executive, but I don't think he can answer the question "good for what?"
I'm interested in why you're suspicious of the judges McCain would appoint.
Mostly because I have vague memories of him trying to wrangle various guarantees out of then-Judge Roberts during the confirmation hearings.
It's only a suspicion, because I don't have much firm footing. And I think he eventually voted to confirm Roberts. But my impression was that he was needlessly antagonistic to someone that seemed a good candidate.
Perhaps it was just a careful vetting. Prehaps it was something more. And perhaps it is but a false memory.
But that's why.
The FAIR Tax:
The reason it won't work as promised:
(Note, in the following, progressive taxes mean that richer people pay more. Regressive means poorer people pay more. It's a technical, not a moral term here)
The current tax system is rather progrssive. The richest people int he country pay, depending on how you slice it, 60-90% of all taxes.
The top 10% of income taxpayers pay about 2/3 of income taxes, the top 40% about 85% of income taxes. Further, as corporations are double-taxed (corporation income is taxed, and then the income of the managers / owners / stockholders is taxed), capital-gains are taxed, large estates are taxed, etc.
Under a pure flat-sales tax system, you are only taxed when you buy something. This is where the Slate article gets it painfully wrong. It equates the rates - "20% on sales or 20% on income, it's all the same." WRONG! It's all the same if, and only if, you spend everything you make. There's good reason to think that the rich choose, instead to reinvest and increase their wealth. If that activity is untaxed, it is a boon for them. But this boon must be paid for, if it is a revenue-neutral change. This burden falls on those who generally spend up to, and over, 100% of their income - the poor and middle class.
Further, the suggested tax rate is below the current marginal rate for income taxes. If the proposal were a change to a flat income tax rate, instead of a flat sales tax rate, it would be immediately apparent that this is a tax increase for low wage earners, and a tax decrease for the wealthy - a significantly regressive change. That it's a sales tax makes it MORE regressive, because the rich have less need to spend 100% of their income.
I'm not opposed to a flat tax on the basis of "fairness." But I do think that to make up for the HUGE loss in revenue from the wealthy, you either (1) have to accept that you are laying this burden on those with less or no disposable income, or (2) reduce spending accordingly. I think the proposed rate, as suggested (where it's a marginal change at best for the poorer and a boon for the wealthy) is a pie-in-the-sky.
The best thing that can be said about a sales tax is that it encourages savings. That's strongly needed. But there are a great many more things to suggest that it's a poor, poor choice in the current environment.
I thought the article addressed spending, by noting that eventually all a persons money gets spent. Even if the rich person holds onto it til death, their next of kin spends it.
Isn't the general idea to incentive work - on the theory that any income tax discourages work? And by doing so creating a stronger economy overall that would benefit everyone? I'm not sure it would work, but I think that's how the plan would purport to make up for lost tax revenue.
As for the judges, I basically share your sentiment. I think McCain is not Bush when it comes to appointments; on the other hand, I think he's essentially promised the Christian conservatives that he'd appoint anti-Roe judges, which for me is enough to count as a victory.
All money may eventually get spent, but:
1) It removes currently-generated revenue from the stream of government revenue, especially in the case of the wealthy (there's a big gap between revenue generated by Brintey Spears in her prime and when she'll spend the last of it some time from now... or money that I earn and invest and spend in retirement);
2) It's spent in a much more cyclical way (another beef with the consumption tax is that it would be, I think, much harder to forecast),
3) It's only taxed once. This seems fairer, but it means that any instances of double-taxation have to me accounted for up front (like the corporate/personal income tax).
4) There's an interesting case for "what about Americans that purchase things abroad?" How am I to be taxed if I blow 6 months' salary on a vacation in Europe?
All money might get spent, but there can be a long delay, and there's good reason to believe it won't all get spent here, and much of it might get spent abroad just to avoid a "tax penalty" here.
The tax will be very regressive. Wealthy families will now have much more discretionary income (since they are in the highest income tax brackets to begin with). They will be the ones that benefit the most and they are also the one that can afford to save thus avoiding paying taxes for a number of years.
Time-Value of money says that the government would rather have $1 today than $1 20-years from now when the kids spend the money.
I also don't understand the point where FairTax supporters claim that it will save the companies money. Say you have a $50K salary. Right now the company pays you $35K and then $15K goes to the government. With FairTax, they will be giving you the whole $50K. I don't see how this saves the company money leading to the reduction in prices as they claim.
Also, building on Dave's point about me blowing 6-mo pay on a trip to Europe. What would happen to our tourism economy if now foreign tourists have to pay a 23% tax on everything they buy in the US?
I don't think the idea is simply that you always pay tax at the cash register. I think the gov't somehow figures out how much you spent in a year, and taxes you.
I think the regressive point is important; I just think the question is whether the possible benefits of increased work and increased savings could off-set it.
According to the FairTax website they will try to collect the tax at the point-of-sale.
However, if not then it begs the question about whether or not they could truly eliminate the IRS and increases the probability of tax evasion.
If we self-report consumption then how many people will lie? I mean, I wonder how many people truthfully claim on their state tax forms how much thy purchased over the internet.
All in all, I think the Fair Tax argument is a mute point because I don't see it being passed (and especially implemented) in the next decade.
Post a Comment