As a non-conservative, my advice to the Republican party is to drop the social wedge issues and push fiscal conservatism as their main value. The problem is thatr it is very to say that we need to cut spending, but nobody likes it when you cut "their" money. They should go back to the notions of fiscal responsibnility and play it up as if they are guardians of our children's futures. I am by no means a business guy, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of the flat tax, and I can see a good bit of the general population being in favor of simplification of the tax code. The other ticket to success is to present themselves as out-of-Washington reformists. To do this, they will need to latch onto a popular, moderate governor. Mike Huckabee was a guy I was impressed with in the primaries as he offers up conservatism is a more pragmatic, "awe shucks" way. I think McCain's chance to take hold of the party leadership has passed.
Very nice post moonnumack But you sort of contradict yourself. First you call for republicans to move away from “social wedge issues” and then you suggest the one person who was most closely aligned to those issues in last year’s campaign. Mike Huckabee was the most social conservative candidate of the whole field last year (well except for basso's girlfriend).
I agree with the general premise - but a flat tax is the wrong way to go. It's an issue they can never deliver, because there are too many reasons that a flat tax wouldn't work and too many people who will fight it. It's an idea that sounds better in concept than in application. Everyone loses their mortgage deductions with a flat tax, so you piss off all the homeowners. Anyone in school loses their education deduction, so you piss off all of them. Anyone who donates to charity loses that deduction, etc. So if they make the flat tax the core of the platform, they will ultimately fail to deliver and it will become a losing issue over time.
I hate the obsession with itemized deductions. It only adds to false reporting, and is overall ridiculous to me. I think charities would suffer the most from losing itemized deductions. I would tend to favor a flat rate with a higher standard deduction, but I would still have tax credits such as the education credits and child care credits.
The latter is the problem. Everyone thinks their tax credits are the important ones, so there's going to be a fight. At the end of the day, you're going to end up with the same problem - a tax with a bunch of individual deductions and credits, which totally corrupts the idea of the simple flat tax. For example, taking away the mortgage deduction is an instant 1-2% increase in people's mortgage interest rates. You'll have a massive constituency fighting against taking that out. Same with the education and child care credits you mentioned, and all the other big ones out there. You also have an entire multi-billion dollar accounting industry built on a complex tax code - they will fight any major simplification because that puts them out of a job.
This is a tangent but my opinion of a flat tax has been changing a lot lately. I used to hate the idea but especially after filing a long @ss tax return I think a flat tax has a lot to offer interms of simplicity. I have no stats but just speculation on my part is that a flat tax might lead to increased tax revenues as so many deductions and loopholes are closed while their would be greater savings from having to spend money on accountants, tax software and etc.. Also with a flat tax there will be less confusion and misfiling of taxes. I agree there are a ton of problems with implementing a flat tax and at the moment its very unlikely to happen but I think its definately something worth considering.
You would be amazed. I'm discussing simplifying the tax code. I'm a public accountant who specializes in tax. There is a lot more to this job than income tax. Its also amazing how many people pay us $400 to file simple tax returns that could be prepared with the free version of turbotax.
Doesn't the complexity of the tax code involve deductions more than the 3-4 tax rates? Get rid of or reduce the deductions and 99% of the complexity is eliminated. The hard part is figuring out what your taxable income is. After that, calculating your tax is easy. IMO, the people who have long-championed a flat tax have just been trying to reduce taxes on the wealthy more than simplify the tax code because they are focusing on the minor instead of the major (and the know it).
I really have always liked Specter, being a former Philadelphia resident. I have always liked him so much more then the greasy Chuck Schumer. I think I feel validated in abandoning the republican party now.
Specter's likely main primary opponent, Joe Sestak, was on CNN this morning. It looks like Specter is going to get the same treatment from establishment Democrats as he did the establishment Republicans. Obama, Rendell, the DNC, the DSCC, and the PA Democratic Party have already fully committed to Specter, just like Bush and the RNC did for Specter against Toomey. And it's a shame. Sestak is retired three-star admiral who reminds me of Pat Moynihan. He's a smart, seemingly honest, seemingly principled liberal that would raise the level of debate in the Senate.
exactly. get X number of rates. have no deductions. to help the disadvantaged just have EITC of sorts dependent on family size and income level. tax capital gains/dividends/interest income at the same rates.
Looks like the Dems are lining up behind Arlen Specter to continue on as Senator in Pennsylvania: [RQUOTER]Specter Wins Pennsylvania Democrat Party Backing Democrats endorsed him over Sestak for Senate. For governor, Wagner led but fell short of endorsement. When U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter switched from a Republican to a Democrat last year, some Democratic loyalists in Pennsylvania said hell would freeze over before they'd embrace an old foe they had been battling in statewide elections for 30 years. Yesterday, amid the deep freeze and howling winds of the worst winter storm in years, the Democratic State Committee met in a snowbound hotel in Amish country to consider endorsements in this year's races for the U.S. Senate, governor, and lieutenant governor. Despite the reservations of some party members, who challenged him for what they considered pro-Republican sins of the past, Specter, of Philadelphia, beat U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, of Delaware County, gaining the two-thirds majority required for endorsement by the party rules. With chants of "Arlen! Arlen! Arlen!" from some of his supporters, Specter, who will turn 80 on Friday, practically bounded to a microphone in front of several hundred Democrats at the Lancaster Host Resort. "I have been involved in many, many elections, but never one quite as thrilling as this," he said. "It almost feels like a presidential nominating convention." ....[/RQUOTER] Personally, I think it would be very exciting to see Specter win the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, and then lose in the general election to whoever wins the Republican primary. And if the current polls are any indication, that is looking like a very likely outcome: Early Pa. Senate Poll There are so many intriguing Senate races shaping up this year, it is hard to pick which is potentially the most interesting or most enjoyable. Certainly this race has to be somewhere near the top of the list.
Yes it's going to be fun watching the GOP establishment get picked off in the primaries by the crazies in the tea party only to lose in the general.
