Matters Of Opinion

2012 GOP Field Begins To Take Shape

Both Donald trump and Mike Huckabee have now announced that they will not be seeking the Republican nomination in 2012 for President. They join the “not going to run for President club” with New Jersey Governor Christie and Indiana’s own Mike Pence, to name just a couple.

So who’s running right now, and what are their hang ups (you know, hang ups, things from their past or present that would and could conceivably get in the way of winning)? It’s important for Republican voters to recognize these; not because I want to trash any one candidate or sway people from voting for one person or the other (if I’m going to do that I’ll save it for individual pieces or in private conversation, this isn’t the piece for that) but because it lets us know what we’re getting into. Also, its much better, in my opinion, for our side to recognize these “hang ups” first and address them; not only because it is good for the vetting process and assures the best candidates, but because it allows us to frame the debate and not let the left lead the Independents around by the nose with their takes on the problems with the candidates. Those that aren’t of one party ideology or the other troll the internet for info, and the well informed ones (or rather, those reading this piece) recognize and appreciate the honesty that comes from supporters on our own side not blindly following, but rather proactively criticizing and keeping our own guys in line.

The announced candidates are:

Newt Gingrich: It’ll be hard for him in the primary because so many conservatives are upset about him working with Pelosi and putting out the ad on global warming. Additionally, conservatives, independents, and liberals alike will be sure to skewer him about his infidelity, and the apparent hypocritical gesture of trying to impeach Clinton over his. He did do a good job while Speaker of the House though, at least I think so, so as long as he is able to move past the primary and keep his personal baggage checked he stands a chance, though not necessarily a great one.

Gary E. Johnson- While Johnson has a good track record as former Governor of New Mexico, he doesn’t have much name recognition (which is a bit of a problem with many of the people on this list). He is also a libertarian, which will reek havoc on Ron Paul’s already slim chance of winning the primary.

Ron Paul- As mentioned above, while Paul has a large libertarian following, and probably the best chance of winning the primary this year than any other, Johnson’s candidacy will more than likely file away those better chances of winning. His recent comments about his positions on drugs and that he wouldn’t have ordered Osama Bin Laden’s assassination didn’t sit well with a lot of people (both on the left and right) as well.

Tim Pawlenty- The former Minnesota Governor and self pronounced social conservative has two main hurdles: name recognition and his lack of exciting the grass roots base.

Herman Cain- The former Federal Reserve banker and CEO of Godfathers Pizza stands out as a black Republican, which excites those black conservatives that would like to see themselves better represented. While he certainly can tout business experience, again, lack of name recognition is a problem. Also, with many a person on the right weary of the Fed, he would have some problems getting the vote of farther right fiscally minded people.

Fred Karger- This candidate stands out to many moderate and libertarian candidates because he is an openly gay Republican. Like Cain, he could snag that segment of voters and shows that there is diversity in the party, but he will have trouble winning over social conservatives at the same time.

Mitt Romney- Two words: Romney Care. With the health care debate still glaring in the mind of many a Republican, Romney will have a hard time winning the primary. When it comes to the general election, polls have indicated that he can win over a lot of Independents and moderate Democrats, but I’m not certain there are enough clearly defined differences to energize Republicans and get them to the polls to beat Obama.

These are the officially announced candidates I’ve been able to find; by all means, if I’m leaving somebody out, message me or leave a comment and let me know. As other candidates join the club I’ll be certain to write about them as well.

What Does Bin Ladens Death Mean Politically For Obama?

Well, it’s been over a week since Bin Laden was shot in the head by a Navy Seal. The President did the right thing by ordering the death of Bin Laden, and he deserves kudos for a job well done, even though he’s milking this thing for all it’s worth (not that any other politician, Democrat or Republican, wouldn’t, but it’s still a little aggravating to watch). Over night President Obama’s approval rating shot upward, predictably, until it hovered around fifty five percent, varying, obviously, poll to poll. Immediately many a pundit started asking that inevitable question; how will this play out politically? The President’s numbers were beginning to sink lower and lower as the economy continued to stale and gas prices, so this boost in ratings was a pretty significant amount.

Certainly one can’t argue that the death of Bin Laden will be a non factor in the 2012 elections; Obama will have this as part of his platform, as he rightly should, and it will probably sway some of the moderates that are very much foreign policy hawks. After all, this combined with the numerous drone attacks shows that Obama hasn’t ended up being weak when it comes to the wars overseas. Also, he hasn’t shut down GITMO yet (and probably won’t, at least by the next elections) and though he has declared that the Iraq War is pretty much “over”, we still have a lot of young men in that area training their troops. Aside from Obama not being willing to speak out about Attorney General Holder’s plans to go after those that water boarded and interrogated terrorists (which, it has been said, got us the information to Bin Laden in the first place), he has pretty much followed Bush’s game plans.

Ultimately, there will be two main factors in 2012 that will either make or break an Obama reelection. The first is the economy. If things don’t begin looking up soon (and there are very few indications that they will), many a fiscally conservative Democrat and Independent will be voting against him, and it was the Independents and younger adults (who are having a hard time finding work after high school and college) who pushed him over the edge last election. The second main factor is who the GOP fields as a Presidential contender. Again, the economy will be a major factor with the primary race, and fiscal issues will take precedence over social ones; as long as the GOP focuses on this more than anything, and puts forth proactive ideas and policy options, an Obama reelection will be tough to achieve.

Are Progressive Tax Rates Really “Ethical”? And what are the other options?

The progressive tax rate (named for the progressing of the percentage that people owe in taxes as the amount of money increases) is lauded by its supporters as the “great equalizer”. Their reasoning is that those that make more money should pay a higher percentage amount in taxes in order to fund the government programs that they are more often than not against. This may seem fine for those that are favor of the progressive tax rate as a “more ethical” system and “more fair” way of dispersing wealth, but those that are on the opposite side don’t necessarily see what is “ethical” about taking hard earned money from one person at an unevenly distributed tax rate. Wouldn’t it, rather, be more ethical to have a flat tax rate across the board, in the spirit of fairness? What is ethical about a person who doesn’t go to college and gets a job working at McDonald’s flipping burgers for minimum wage and doesn’t end up paying anything at all in taxes because at the end of the year he gets a refund check being supported by a person who goes to school for 8 years, starts his own business, and is taxed out the nose and made to subsidize those that didn’t work hard to make something of themselves?

The biggest problem with the progressive income tax is that it actually stifles progress in general. Rather, it could be said that we have a “regressive income tax”, in that the higher taxes on those that make more money creates less money that works through our economy. For example, if a person that makes five hundred thousand is taxed at the higher “progressive” rate, then he/she isn’t going to spend that extra money to, say, purchase a new car. That new car would help out that car company, which in turn would need to hire more people, which would come from the lower income pool, supplying jobs and livelihoods. Additionally, service jobs in that region would benefit from having more people stop off to fill up their gas tanks, purchase everyday commodities like food and drink in that area, etc., etc. It’s a never ending cycle that benefits those that are on the bottom just as much if not more than those on the top.

On a similar, yet different example, the taking of more funds from those that make larger sums of money doesn’t allow those funds to be in savings accounts in banks. This is important because the banks need those pools of money to lend out to people who are starting their own businesses. Without the money to lend out capital to budding entrepreneurs (that inevitably end up competing with those that put their savings into the bank), the progressive tax rate that is supposed to save the livelihoods of the less fortunate ends up putting up an obstacle course for those that want to make their lives better on their own.

One would think that those that want to see the business realm become more “progressive” and “fair” would want to make sure that that competition is there to keep the larger corporations in check, as well. Without the ability to lend out capital to the small businesses, only major conglomerations would exist. This is not the way that it is supposed to work in a free market; there is supposed to be competition in order to make sure that there is no price gouging and to make sure that there is a “fairness” factor in every aspect of the market. The only way that real monopolies are able to happen is if the government enables them to happen.

All of the above scenarios are built around one concept: the economy is invariably tied together, and the government cannot take from one without affecting the lives of all others. This is the basic idea behind Adam Smith’s invisible hand; that people individually pursue their own selfish goals and end up helping out the whole. For example, a man needs to eat, and so he visits the butcher, helping to keep a job from disappearing. A man needs to have a place to rest his head, hence the housing industry, and etc. and etc. for innumerable amounts of goods. When a man has to limit his resources, it ultimately leads to a limitation on the resources of every other person that benefit from another man’s resources.

The argument for the progressive tax rates that refutes this thought process is that those people that may be hurt in a small way will still reap a higher benefit, or at the very least break even, by receiving the tax refunds and claiming the multiple deductions. However, this ultimately will lead to a downward spiral of sorts, with those that benefit from the rate needing more and more benefits, which drain resources from those that subsidize those benefits, and the spiral goes down and down. The ways to stop this spiral are jarring, unfortunately, for those that have been the benefits of the progressive tax system, but it is an inevitability that the system will have to be reformed in a major way in order to keep the entire system from failing.

On a different level, one looks at how ethical it is to each individual (rather than from a macroeconomic standpoint) to have a progressive tax system. What it comes down to is the issue of fairness. Those that are in favor of progressive tax rates use this word often to describe their support, and they justify it by using the usual points; it isn’t fair for the few to have so much while the many have so little, it is for the good of all society (which in the previous articles I’ve dissected and proved to be untrue), etc., etc. They believe that economic equality is an essential right that the people have, and that governments job is to step in and make sure that everything is “fair” (at least to their standards of what is fair).

Certainly it cannot be argued that the free market doesn’t have losers; it inevitably has losers because it is based on individuals work and effort more than anything (although there is a fair amount of luck that is always factored in). Most people don’t have an issue with helping out those that have lost under this system because they have been unlucky, also; though those that have lost based on their own negligence is a completely different story. The progressive tax system was put in place as a way to amend these losses, though hindsight being twenty twenty, as it always is, those on the lower wrung would benefit as much if not more under a flat tax or a Fair Tax than a “progressive” tax system that does not naturally enable them to help themselves.

Those that are against the progressive tax also think that it is unfair though based on a very different principle. They argue that it is not fair that people that succeed should be punished unequally for that success. One of the most pronounced voices over the years has been Ayn Rand, using fictional satire mixed with articles and expert opinion (some from the likes of former Federal Reserve Chairman Allan Greenspan). This group of people call themselves “collectivists” and argue that that it is indeed unethical to punish success and want of material goods and monies; people work hard for their wealth, and for the government to steal from them is not unlike any individual stealing any other good.

Really, from an ethical point, what is the difference? It is a bit of the “Robin Hood” theory; Robin Hood was justified because he was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, in the opinion of many, but why is that right? What makes this stealing any more right than if the stealing is done the other way around?

For these reasons, many that are against the progressive tax are in favor of different tax systems. There are really three main schools of thought regarding replacement systems, and the first and most unrealistic is the complete abolition of the Sixteenth Amendment (which is the one that states that the government can impose a federal income tax) with the replacement of taxes on exports and imports (which is how America originally obtained it’s revenue) only. This is the most unrealistic, in my mind, because there is no possible way that enough could be made to make up not only our deficit, but our national debt. Granted, America has become a country that imports just about all of its finalized goods (like televisions, stereos, etc.), and so one would think that these tax revenues would and could be enough if governmental spending were reduced to minimal levels. However, the reality of this is that those spending levels would have to be reduced first, and everyone knows how hard it is to get the government to cut down on spending. I’m not saying that a reduction in spending isn’t needed, just that the amount that would be needed is more than is possible with this replacement option, particularly since there are so many other things that have to be taken into account that didn’t need to be back in 1913, when the Amendment was ratified. The positive side of going back to such a method, however, is that it would essentially FORCE politicians into reducing spending levels in a major way. Again, this is unlikely, but it is a fact none the less.

The second option, and much more possible, is the elimination of the progressive tax and the instatement of the flat tax. The flat tax is pretty much exactly how it sounds; it is an across the board tax of some percentage (many countries vary anywhere from 9 to 15%) for every person, regardless of income. This is the fairest way of distributing the tax, on an ethical level, because it does not discriminate in any way, shape, or form. Basically, whatever one makes, regardless of income, regardless of whether or not one has children, or has purchased a new car, or has kept all of his/hers receipts from work (if you haven’t caught on yet I’m talking about all of the deductions that are a part of the progressive income tax), they will still pay x amount of dollars. This will actually make those in the top one percent pay as much if not more than what they are already paying in income taxes, while not hurting the middle class people nearly as much as the progressive tax system does. Granted, this will mean that the lower wrung of people (on a scale with income, not personally) will actually have to pay taxes; this may be hard for many of them to swallow, but it is an inevitability if America is to ever get out of the debt that it is in.

The only problem with a flat tax is that it is primarily a Republican owned idea, which creates political struggles. Even if it is the best idea, Democrats more than likely would not allow it to become our countries new tax code because of simple politics. This means that a super majority would be needed in Congress, as well as a Republican President, and the odds of it passing, even then, are very slim. Most politicians (particularly of the conservative mind) don’t want to pass sweeping legislation that affects so many people.

The third, and probably most likely (from a political standpoint), is the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is basically a replacement system of taxation, though instead of replacing it with a flat percent like the flat tax does, it collects its tax revenue at the retail level. This means that every person will receive 100% of their paycheck, except for state taxes. All taxes will be wiped clean on a federal level; Medicare tax, Social Security tax, Income tax, etc. Those will be replaced with a tax, at the retail level, of goods and services (a national sales tax of sorts). This tax replacement system has the highest likelihood of actually going through Congress and being signed by the President for a number of reasons. First, there is a built in “prebate” with this tax system that ensures that those that are on the lower wrung will receive a check in the mail that is about the amount that they would be paying in goods and services for normal everyday living. This tax replacement idea also puts a tax on all imports to help supplement any losses and to help promote growth in industries within the United States, which has been lacking because of the “progressive” tax system.

The first question many have about this tax replacement system is: How does this actually LOWER my taxes? It doesn’t, really. It is a replacement system, and what it basically does is bring in the exact same amount of income that is brought in right now, but it does it fairly (hence the name Fair Tax) per individual. If one doesn’t want to pay any more taxes, then, they wouldn’t buy any extra commodities that they don’t need. It puts the power of the tax into the hands of those BEING taxed. Sure, one could do that by not working as many hours under the tax code now, but that would punish that individual as much as it would punish the government; this way, that person could still make the money, they just don’t have to SPEND the money, if they so choose.

Additionally, since it does away with the current tax code (which harbors a LOT of taxes on businesses that actually trickle down to the consumer, since businesses don’t pay taxes, they only transfer the costs onto the people that purchase the goods and services) it ensures that businesses wouldn’t take advantage of this tax and gouge the consumer. Any individual who is remotely educated in this replacement system would know that all goods and services SHOULD go down due to the lack of extra taxes; therefore, they could gauge this fact when purchasing anything and make sure that the retailer that is offering the more reduced price (or the price that reflects the lack of excess taxes) is afforded their business. This competition is not only healthy for the economy, but it keeps each business honest with their prices. The only downside to the Fair Tax is that it would not, ultimately, lower taxation levels, which is a major issue with many a person who would ultimately support the plan otherwise.

There a lot of pros and cons with each alternative, but the end result would still be the same; it would make a more ethical taxation system become a reality, arguably. Taxation isn’t something that American’s (or human beings, in particular) much care for, but a system can and should be put in place to ensure that people aren’t asked to bear more than their fair brunt of the burden. Additionally, it should be a priority of the government to stop hurting those that want to help make this country more economically stable anymore than they are hurting any other group or sub group with the Draconian tax laws that are in place currently.