With the Herman Cain “scandal” breaking and the MSM falling all over themselves, it’s helpful to remember the JournoList membership.
Rich & Cheri Vail have an updated listing. Notice that POLITICO has a number of members.
Posted in Campaign 2012, Media, tagged Anna Palmer, Cheri Vail, Herman Cain, Jonathan Martin, JournoList, Kenneth Vogel, Maggie Haberman, POLITICO, Rich Vail, The Vail Spot on November 2, 2011| Leave a Comment »
The Wall Street Journal reports:
“I’m very, very excited by it,” Mr. Forbes said in a telephone interview. “What Perry is proposing is a radical simplification of the income tax code….It’s finally coming to pass.”
Mr. Perry officially announced his support for the flat tax in a speech on Wednesday. Mr. Forbes, who ran in 1996 and 2000 and now is advising the Perry camp, said that the “concept remains the same” as his own flat tax plan from the 1990s. That plan included a $36,000 exemption for a family of four and a 17% flat rate on income above that level. It also would have eliminated taxes on personal savings and capital gains in order to encourage investment.
In political terms, the Perry proposal appears to be a response to the popularity of candidate Herman Cain’s own radical “9-9-9” tax plan, which combines a flat tax on businesses and individuals with a national sales tax.
Mr. Forbes – like some other political observers – thinks Mr. Perry’s embrace of the flat tax makes it even more likely that tax reform will become a key issue in the 2012 campaign, particularly for Republicans.
“It’ll be a huge tonic politically and economically and make it a huge issue next year,” he said. “And there will be a big mandate for tax simplification.”
The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.
By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we’d allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year (“The 30-Cent Tax Premium,” April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It’s a win-win.
But what about the poor?
A static revenue-neutral tax change requires static winners and losers. And this 9-9-9 plan has made certain that even on static terms those below the poverty line will be better off—period. Once the dynamics take hold, many of those below the poverty line will find good jobs and thus will rise above the poverty line and start paying taxes.
We’ve seen this philosophy before:
While the 9-9-9 plan has captured people’s imaginations at this moment, it’s not all that different from California Gov. Jerry Brown’s 13% flat tax when he ran for president in 1992. As you may recall, he came in second behind Bill Clinton in the Democratic Party primary.
In 1986, President Reagan passed a major tax-reform bill that lowered to 28% from 50% the top marginal personal income tax rate. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 also raised the lowest marginal income tax rate to 15% from 11% and closed many loopholes, making for a flatter tax structure. Reagan’s bill passed the Senate in a landslide 97-to-3 vote. Who says a flat tax can’t be a bipartisan proposal?
But many argue that elected officials can merely raise the 9% sales tax:
What they miss is that any tax could be instituted in the future at a higher rate. If I could figure a way to stop future Congresses from ever raising taxes I’d do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Until then, let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
This is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support. I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Don Surber comments:
My doubts about the efficacy of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan were eased when economist Arthur Laffer wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal vouching for it. The key components are two things I like: eliminating most of the $1 trillion in tax deductions and tax credits. Hooray. The IRS tax code is socialistic and corrupt as politicians use its intricate and Byzantine system of deductions and tax credits to wield power, control the economy and pocket contributions (and even more, do-nothing jobs for relatives) from fatcats. Herman Cain’s plan would flush out the sewers of Congress and the White House.
Conservatives have wanted to simply the tax code for some time. This plan would do so, but it would also turn taxation toward it should be: On consumption and not production. If you tax that which you want to reduce, then why tax income? We should tax consumption. An economy based on consumption is limited. The American economy from the post-Civil War era up until the Great Society was based production. Since then we have done much navel-gazing. It’s time to get back to work, America.
If 9-9-9 is what it takes to do that, let’s get ‘er done.
So says Ann Althouse.
Stacy McCain weighs in with “Althouse on the Cain Train”:
This is an unexpected but really quite welcome development. Professor Althouse has been critical of Cain previously and (like most in academia) is not generally a fan of the populist style.
And then adds:
We can agree that a flat tax will generally be of most benefit to the wealthy (who pay a much higher percentage of their income under the existing progressive system) without assuming, willy-nilly, that others will be impoverished as a result. And the point of “9-9-9″ is not to achieve “social justice,” but rather to unleash capital investment to spur economic growth. It is a supply-side solution to our current economic woes, and as such has been praised by the Club for Growth and by Art Laffer.
Would a man rather be unemployed and paying no taxes, or would he rather have a job and pay taxes? That’s the real choice, and yet David Gregory can’t seem to understand it.
We could update an old joke Ronald Reagan used to tell: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery is when David Gregory loses his job.”
Glenn Reynolds asks if David Gregory is fit for the national stage:
SO LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERMAN CAIN ON MEET THE PRESS, but what I noticed is that David Gregory doesn’t seem to understand the difference between state taxes and federal taxes. Here’s what he said:
MR. CAIN: We replace capital gains tax. We replace the payroll tax. We replace corporate income tax, replace personal income tax, and replace the death tax. It is a replacement tax structure.
MR. GREGORY: But where do state taxes go? You’re saying they’re going to be repealed?
MR. CAIN: If you–with the current structure, you have state taxes, right? So with this new structure, you’re still going to have taxes–state taxes. That is muddying the water.
MR. GREGORY: How so?
MR. CAIN: Because today, under the current tax code, state taxes are there if they have it. If they don’t have a state taxes, they don’t have it. It has nothing to do with this replacement structure for the federal tax code.
MR. GREGORY: But that doesn’t make any sense to me. If I’m already paying state taxes, and I have a new Cain administration national sales tax, I’ve got more state taxes.
No, you don’t have more state taxes, you have the same state taxes — unless, that is, you don’t know the difference between a sales tax and a state tax, which would seem to be the case for Gregory. If Sarah Palin made such an error, it would be seen as proof that she was unfit for the national stage. For Gregory, well . . . draw your own conclusions.
John Hinderaker piles on Gregory:
Reading the transcript, what strikes me is how slow-witted Gregory was. Repeatedly, Cain makes a simple, clear point, but Gregory doesn’t seem to get it. This became almost painful during an exchange about state sales taxes.
I’ll repeat what I said after the last CNN debate:
There are too many in the media that merely pick daily winners and losers, rather than performing serious analysis of candidates’ platforms and leadership history. Newsflash: It’s called “vetting”. And that’s what primary voters want to do during the months that precede an election.
The media should have learned this lesson after their lack of such during the Obama campaign.
Is it any wonder traditional media, including NBC, continue to see their influence diminish? Viewership statistics of the primary debates reflect enormous interest of the electorate. Voters are looking for solutions. Is Herman Cain’s tax plan one of them? With such drivel from the ilk of David Gregory, they’ll have to figure it out without the press.