From Kyle

I had so many comments on my Fair Tax post that I wanted to respond to some of the points made:

First, several people made the point that Europe has a Value Added Tax (VAT) that is more than the 10% figure that I quoted. All of the research that I read made a distinction between the VAT and a national retail sales tax like the Fair Tax. This distinction is based on the mechanics of the tax. The value added tax looks at what a firm adds to the value of a product where a national sales tax is an excise tax levied at the point of sale. The end result looks similar because the VAT is passed on to the consumer. However, the VAT requires firms to report the value added at each stage of production. A national retail sales tax does not require any such reporting other than that the national rate has been applied. The figure I used looked just at those countries using a national retail sales tax and did not include those countries using a VAT.

Second, several readers expressed frustration at the current tax system and argued that we are essentially paying the same rate as what the Fair Tax would impose. That may be true, but I don't understand how that merits scrapping the current system. If the Fair Tax does the exact same thing, why should switch? The tie goes toward stability, does it not? People have planned, not just in the short term, but in the long term for the tax benefits of the current system. Revolutionizing the way we tax would upset the expectations of a millions of Americans and businesses. Thus, doing something that drastic requires not just generalized frustration, but serious injustice. Generally, I think that frustration with the current tax system has made people over-eager to do something else. I don't deny that the current system has its flaws. Indeed, it should be flatter and simpler. However, taking the extreme position of overhauling what we have and disturbing the expectations of those who are paying taxes seems unwise to me.

More rebuttals to come

re: "Rod Dreher"

I agree with Rod Dreher, to a point 

 

But Rod needs to understand a lot of us were freaking out...

 

I thought we were doing "Rudycide", after all our complaining about BIll Clinton's ethics...

 

Rudy would have made Clinton look like Romney, in comparison.

 

The part that I agree with Rod Dreher about is how surprising it was (I know I'm going to sound like Mike Huckabee) that the New York/ Washington DC republicans embraced Rudy!

 

I think I agree with Rod Dreher...

 

But two wrongs don't make a right... Just because the economic conservatives didn't freak out, when some threw the social conservatives under the buss, doesn't mean we should throw the economic conservatives under the buss now...

America's President Deserves Thanks And Respect

Townhall
By Governor Mitt Romney
December 19, 2007

"As Americans prepare for the holidays with their families and loved ones, we have many challenges to face but also many reasons to be thankful. We are thankful we live in a nation that is still a land of freedom, hope and opportunity. And we can be thankful that President Bush has kept us safe. Too often our politicians in Washington and on the campaign trail seem to have forgotten this simple fact.

"It was disheartening when Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questioned the sworn testimony of General David Petraeus, the troop commander of our forces in Iraq, when he reported on the success of the surge. A disbelieving Senator Clinton said reports of progress require 'the willing suspension of disbelief.' We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that Senator Clinton was wrong and General Petraeus was right, and yet to this day she has refused to apologize for her unwarranted attack on the integrity of one of our finest soldiers. Even in my own party, Governor Mike Huckabee criticized President Bush by accusing him of 'an arrogant bunker mentality' in dealing with other nations around the world. Just like Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee has refused to apologize."

...

"In the wake of 9/11, the President took unprecedented steps to keep us safe and defend Americans at home and abroad. We revamped our homeland security apparatus, passed new laws that allowed us to listen in when al-Qaeda was calling, cleared out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

"Far from home, our soldiers, National Guard and Reserves, have overcome early strategic mistakes to make progress in Iraq that is both undeniable and should be welcomed by all. This progress has come as America's heroes and their families have made unequalled sacrifices." 

...

"A half century ago, our mothers and fathers in the Greatest Generation came together to defeat fascism and communism, promote freedom and civil rights, and build a strong and prosperous country that is the envy of the world. They showed that there is no threat that a united America cannot defeat. By remembering their example, we can overcome the challenges that confront us."

To read the full op-ed, please see: http://www.townhall.com/

Former White House Adviser Pete Wehner

 

MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

December 19, 2007

To watch, please see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC0PRgnAF4Y

Former White House Adviser Pete Wehner Discusses Huckabee's Attacks On Bush Foreign Policy:

MSNBC's JOE SCARBOROUGH: "Welcome back. We got Jim Cramer to stay because he's mad. He's mad for life brother and he's number one with a bullet.  Let's bring in right now Pete Wehner. He's former deputy assistant to the President, senior fellow right now at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Pete, thanks so much for being with us."

PETE WEHNER: "Nice to be with you. Thanks for inviting me, Joe."

SCARBOROUGH: "You have written and we're a little shocked and stunned and deeply saddened because the guy that loves Jesus, generally loves Jesus, Mike Huckabee was on our show earlier. We're friends with Mike. He likes Hendrix. I mean, he's got all the bases covered. But you have gone after him in a National Review article and you say that his Foreign Affairs article where he attacked President Bush for being arrogant and having a bunker mentality was misguided, and you said it was stunningly silly and deeply revealing. In what way?"

WEHNER: "Well, it was revealing because the criticisms that he made were with the kind that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore would make, not that usually conservative Republicans would make. He said that the President was at war with the world, which is not true. He spoke about the 'arrogant bunker mentality.' He said that the President really should deal with Iran like you deal with miscommunications between parents and friends. And that's actually not how you deal with Iran. It's not that he criticized the President. I've criticized our policy on Iraq. But the grounds of the criticism, I thought were wrong and, as I said, silly and I think for a Republican running in a Republican primary you don't want to sound like Jimmy Carter or Al Gore or the Daily Kos."

SCARBOROUGH: "Do you think, though, that a lot of Republicans are concerned with let's say what Paul Bremer did with the de-Baath-ification plan or what Donald Rumsfeld did by not giving the generals all the troops they wanted. I mean, Republicans, I know you've heard from other Republicans. There are similar concerns about missteps after we got into Baghdad."

WEHNER: "I acknowledge those and I accept them, actually. I've got some of the same complaints. Clearly the post-war situation wasn't handled well. We didn't have enough troops. We didn't have the right counter insurgency strategy. We have it now with David Petraeus. That wasn't the grounds of my criticism for the Foreign Affairs article. As I said, it was the nature of his criticisms as they related to this 'arrogant bunker mentality' that we really weren't, that we were having a problem in communications with dictators in the world. Well, sometimes it's actually the nature of the regimes that cause the problems. Its not that you're not being nice enough to them. He was making the argument that if you dominate the world you're going to illicit opposition. We're not dominating the world. We're actually trying to liberate some countries. And sometimes that elicits opposition."

CNBC's JIM CRAMER: "Peter, this is Jim Cramer, it seems like that Huckabee is also implying that we are a stingy nation that doesn't do a lot around the world. Isn't it true that we're the most, by far, the most generous nation in the world towards both friend and foe?"

WEHNER: "Yeah. That was another criticism that bothered me. Implicit in his argument is that it wasn't a generous nation. If we were generous we'd be well-loved. The reality is that we are generous. We give a huge amount in foreign aid. The President's global AIDS initiative which increased the amount of money to combat global AIDS by five times over the Clinton Administration is one of the great, generous, humane foreign policy achievements ever. And the reality is that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most despotic and cruel regimes in modern history and that was an act of generosity. It's come at a lot of cost to us in terms of human lives and in terms of money. It's cost more in lives and money than it should have. But the reality is that the impulse was generous and I think when all is said and done we'll look back on in history as having done the right thing and the generous thing."

MSNBC's MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "Peter, pertaining to the Foreign Affairs article written by Governor Huckabee and the words that he used, isn't it also true that we're dealing with an administration that led us into war on faulty intelligence and an administration that brought up the possibility of World War III which appears to be on intelligence that is still sort of hard to decipher at this point. I mean, isn't there something to be said for the 'arrogant bunker mentality' and why can't Republican candidates say that? Is there some rule against it?"

WEHNER: "No, there's no rule against it. He said it. But there's no rule against criticizing him for saying it. In terms of the faulty intelligence, I don't dispute that. Of course we went in with faulty intelligence and it was a huge, huge failure. The rest of the world had faulty intelligence. Countries that even opposed our actions in Iraq had faulty intelligence. They believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I would say, that it would be nice if, once in a while, people pointed out that there was a burden of proof on Saddam Hussein to meet the obligations that he had agreed to. He didn't. He intentionally kept the inspectors out, and based on his history we drew conclusions. They were the wrong ones. Again, I don't dispute the idea that the Bush Administration can be criticized or even if it should be criticized. In eight years, you're going to make mistakes. This administration has made some; we've made some big ones. My objection was the nature of the criticisms. I just think Governor Huckabee who is a very smooth and talented fellow – you saw that in your interview with him. He's the best debater in the field. He's a terrific speaker. But, I think on foreign policy, his views are wrong, and he's pretty inexperienced and it's showing."

SCARBOROUGH: "Alright, Pete, thank you so much for renewing this. Pete Wehner. He's with The Ethics and Public Policy Center. You can read Pete's critique on the National Review Online and you can also see Governor Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs."

Gilchrist discovers candidate favors giving status to illegals within days

---

---

ELECTION 2008
Minuteman reconsiders Huckabee endorsement
Gilchrist discovers candidate favors giving status to illegals within days

---

Posted: December 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in the moments following the Values Voter Debate Sept. 17, 2007, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (WND photo)

Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist says he will have to reconsider his endorsement of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee after learning the Republican presidential candidate favors allowing illegal aliens to wait only days to receive documents allowing re-entry into the U.S.

In a Dec. 9 Fox News interview, just two days before Gilchrist's endorsement, Huckabee was questioned by host Chris Wallace about an apparent contradiction between statements last year that he preferred a pathway to citizenship and his current plan. On his campaign website, Huckabee outlines a proposal that would require illegal aliens to repatriate and get on the back of the line, which could mean years for re-entry into the United States.

Huckabee insisted there is no discrepancy, specifying that "the pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce."

Asked by WND to respond, Gilchrist backtracked, admitting he may have been mistaken in his initial assumptions about the repatriation provisions of Huckabee's "Secure America Plan."

"I'm going to have to follow up on this," Gilchrist said. "I had not seen before anything in Governor Huckabee's plan where repatriation and touch-back could involve only days, not years.

"I personally need to talk to Governor Huckabee about this," he added. "This issue needs to be between Governor Huckabee and me."

 

Huckabee's admission to Fox News directly contradicted a condition Gilchrist stated was a sine qua non of his endorsement.

As previously reported, Gilchrist told WND, "Nothing I can find in Huckabee's plan indicates he is going to let the illegal immigrants back into the country the next day after they go home.

"The illegal aliens, once they are back home, will have to stand in line with everybody else and apply for legal entry at the end of the line," Gilchrist insisted, representing what he thought was the Huckabee plan.

Gilchrist further stated at the time, "If, in fact, there is no standing in line and waiting for legal entry, I would have a serious reservation about endorsing Huckabee."

Despite the new information about Huckabee's plan, Gilchrist declined to withdraw immediately his endorsement.

"I need to get answers from Huckabee himself about this discrepancy," Gilchrist said. "I want a valid explanation and I want it published.

"Plus, I have some other questions too that you're not aware of that I have already queried Governor Huckabee's staff about yesterday and again this morning," he continued. "But it's going to take about 72 hours to get responses."

Gilchrist declined to specify the additional questions.

In the Fox News interview, Wallace asked Huckabee about the apparent inconsistency.

"Well, I don't think there's an inconsistency," Huckabee said. "When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was.

"I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept – and frankly, the only thing that really makes sense – is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point," Huckabee continued.

"But this idea of the waiting years – no, I don't agree with that," he stressed. "In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously – it's our government that has failed and is dysfunctional."

Huckabee went on to say, "It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce."

He further specified, "But the pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce."

That repatriation provisions in Huckabee's "Secure America Plan" apparently are supported by Point 9 of his plan, which calls for an increase in the number of visas available for highly skilled and highly educated applicants.

Theocratic?

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

 

From a friend: "...While a lot of people talk about the "Christian Leader" ad he ran . . . not many are using this "Faith, Family, Freedom" line to support the "Theocratic" theme to his whole campaign."