Pawlenty's Tax Plan

On Tuesday Tim Pawlenty gave a big speech on re-booting the economy.  He talked up tax reform, but was hazy on details.

On the corporate side, he favors both rate reductions and base broadening by the elimination of "special interest handouts — carve-outs — subsidies — and loopholes".

But on the personal (and small business) side, he only talked about his plan for two rates (three, if you cout the zero bracket):

On the individual rates we need a simpler — fairer — and flatter tax system overall. I propose just two rates — 10% — and 25%.

Under my plan — those who currently pay no income tax would stay at a zero rate.        After that — the first fifty-thousand dollars of income or one-hundred thousand for married couples — would be taxed at 10%.

Everything above that would be taxed at 25%.    That’s it.

A one-third cut in the bottom rate.To allow younger — middle — and lower-income families to save and build wealth.  And a  28% cut in the top rate — to spur investment and job creation.

OK, he did say "simpler" as well as flatter.  Normlly that would imply the elimination of some deductions to broaden the tax base.  But Bloomberg has this:

Pawlenty wouldn’t target any of the popular personal tax breaks, such as mortgage interest deductions.

“In the individual tax code, we’re not proposing to change the tax deductions, exemptions or credits,” he told reporters after the speech.

So, a simpler tax that does not include simplification (other than fewer brackets).  Baffling. And annoying - my Official Editorial Opinion is that tax simplification (a worthy goal!) can only be achieved in conjunction with tax cuts, so that people are fighting over how much they win, not whether they win or lose.  Bush lost an opportunity in 2001; I have a hard time believing we can "afford" tax cuts just now, but if we are going to cut them and keep our complicated tax code, well, that will be another wasted opportunity.

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Somehow, God knows how, we've got to figure out how to talk about cutting tax rates versus cutting tax receipts. It's entirely possible to cut tax rates dramatically and still end up with greater tax receipts, even ignoring any stimulative effect on the economy.

[Thomas Collins]

If the LUNed article about TPaw is accurate, he is worthy of consideration regardless of his position on taxes. I'm skeptical, because it is just too good to be true.

[Jack is Back!]

How about we start talking seriously, and I mean seriously, using critical thinking, about the "fair tax". I still have my doubts regarding the operational logistics and infrastructure needed to make that thing work but it needs a full, intelligent vetting and comparitive analysis to all the other options out there.

And no, I am not wearing a Ron Paul button and tin foil hat as I write this.

[Extraneus]

The only fair tax is a flat tax. It's not fair that that bottom 50% pays no income taxes. I believe Forbes proposed around 15% way back when, but he kept "generous" exemptions so that those earning under $50K would still pay no tax. I'm not sure how that was supposed to stay revenue-neutral.

If 50% of the electorate has no stake in it, there's no stopping them from voting to soak the other half to pay their share.

[Thomas Collins]

TM, I agree that reducing the number of brackets doesn't simplify the Internal Revenue Code (except, I suppose, for those responsible for producing the tax tables). But I give TPaw slack on this. Just about every candidate who recommends tax reform uses the "simplify by reducing brackets" talking point.

Color me skeptical on tax simplification. Steve Forbes presented a serious tax simplification plan, and his campaign went nowhere. It would be a major victory to halt the endless stream of credits and special cost recovery provisions, and move to a system of increasingly liberalized year one expensing of business assets, more early year accelerated depreciation, and keeping the Bush cap gains and dividends rules. Doing all of that would be a major victory.

If we really want tax reform, withholding would have to be eliminated, because then the populace would face squarely the burden of taxes. Withholding puts one to sleep. But eliminating withholding is not on the table.

[Jack is Back!]

Ex,

The Fair Tax is not an income tax but a consumption tax. No income tax=no IRS. In other words, it is a total abandonment of the income tax.

[Thomas Collins]

The problem I have with a consumption tax is that if it is enacted with a promise that the federal income tax will be phased out, the federal income tax won't be phased out, and we'll be stuck with both taxes. In addition, consumption taxes are not simple. So we would be adding another complexity to our federal tax system and another way for the Feds to squeeze us.

[Jack is Back!]

TC,

Not if the income tax code is voided in whole as part of passing the consumption tax. I agree with you that we don't want the pols to use the Fair Tax as a means of layering another tax on top of income taxes. But as I have said we need a full intelligent conversation, discussion, analysis, comparative modeling, etc. I just can't believe we are using a tax system begun in the 1900's and cobbled together through congress after congress to what we have today and we can't do better?

We can innovate in science, medicine, technology but not when it comes to the tax code? That is plain BS. And we only have ourselves to blame for electing people who just aren't strong enough to see something like that completed.

[Thomas Collins]

JiB, I agree with you that the problem is failure to elect the right leaders and not any insurmountable technical transition issues. My concern is that if we support the add the consumption tax/croak the income tax train, the consumption tax engine will leave the station with the income tax cars still attached.

[Extraneus]

The Fair Tax is not an income tax but a consumption tax. No income tax=no IRS. In other words, it is a total abandonment of the income tax.

Thanks. That's even better. At a basic level, I've always wondered how the Founders could possibly agree that the gov't should have a right to know how much a person earns.

[jimmyk]

tax simplification (a worthy goal!) can only be achieved in conjunction with tax cuts, so that people are fighting over how much they win, not whether they win or lose.

The only way to truly cut taces is to cut spending. Otherwise we're just replacing present taxes with future taxes to pay the interest on the higher debt.

I wish spending cuts could be successfully depicted as tax cuts (which they are), and people would fight over how much they "win" with spending cuts. Language is important.

[Jack is Back!]

Ex,

They didn't - the income tax wasn't even introduced until 1913 with the passing of the 16th amendment. And even then it was only to effect the top 1% or earners IIRC. It is the poster boy for passing laws that say one thing and then turn out to be a Frankenstein monster.

[jimmyk]

taces=taxes

[Extraneus]

I know, but I can't see how they would have agreed with the level of intrusion required to implement an income tax.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

If 50% of the electorate has no stake in it, there's no stopping them from voting to soak the other half to pay their share.

I have very low income, actually below the national poverty line, but I still have tax to pay on April 15.

When I sit down to do my taxes, I start to get sick, because even the smallest amount to pay is very difficult for me to come up with since I never have any money left at the end of a month. But one thing I do not do is sit down and scheme how I can soak the other half to pay my share.

I understand the frustration as for close to 20 years, I was in the highest tax bracket. I wasn't happy about the huge taxes we paid every year, but to now be in a position of having people I respect make it sound as if I'm a deadbeat who wants to soak my fellow countrymen, is not only hurtful and offensive, it makes me feel even more of a failure than I already feel.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Extraneus, I think that's the point: they didn't. They explicitly wrote the possibility out of the Constitution. Then Woodrow Wilson wrote it back in.

[jimmyk]

reducing the number of brackets doesn't simplify the Internal Revenue Code

It does if the number is reduced to one. That eliminates the benefit of shifting income between years, for example. Yes, reducing deductions and all the other gimmicks is more important, but the two usually go hand-in-hand.

[Jack is Back!]

I didn't know Iowahawk was such a "romantic" [in poetry that is]. LUN

[Extraneus]

I've used a local reference point to explain taxes to my son. I've asked, "If we have to pay the town to get the road plowed in the winter, what's the fairest way to do it? Should we make the people with the biggest houses, or those who have pools, pay more than everybody else? And should those with the smallest houses pay nothing while the rest of us pay it all? Or should everyone have to chip in?"

Seems to generate the right thought process, IMHO.

[Extraneus]

I've also gone with, "Do you think it's fair that almost half of Americans pay no income taxes, while we pay big bucks to fund the government?"

I wonder how many kids would agree with the current tax system.

[Don Trumpet]

"..hazy on the details"

How coy !

[Extraneus]

College bans national anthem at sporting events

The song glorifies war.

[Extraneus]

Napolitano: No "Logic" In Profiling Muslim Men Under The Age Of 35

"You're not using good logic there. You've got to use actual intelligence that you received. And, so, you might -- all you've given me is a kind of status. You have not given me a technique for tactic or behavior. Something that would suggest somebody is not Muslim, but Islamic, that has actually moved into the category of violent extremists," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said at a forum on U.S. security and preventing terrorist attacks.

Yeah, those Islamic non-Muslims are a real problem, Sis.

[Rob Crawford]

No income tax=no IRS.

Not really. The IRS would just shift to enforcing the consumption tax. Which means businesses would be just as much under the scope as wage-earners are now.

[Extraneus]

Weiner’s Constituents Want Him to Stay: Poll

Woot!

[JackisBack!]

Rob,

Not necessarily so. The existing IRS would bre decimated (literally) since there is no filings by individuals. Go to fairtax.org. I am not pushong this but want it to be pert of the damn discussion on how we can really bring our national needs, budgets and taxes into modern times.

[Carol.Herman]

It ain't gonna be Palenty.

As to "weiner poles" ... the one in his grey underpants sticks. All the others are manufactured.

[Rob Crawford]

The existing IRS would bre decimated (literally) since there is no filings by individuals.

There would be precisely the same number of agents. There would be ten times the number of audits.

The IRS is a bureaucracy. The amount of "work" would expand to exceed the number of people available, so as to ensure the expansion of the bureaucracy -- and nothing forces bureaucratic growth as much as reducing its power.

[JackisBack!]

Rob,

I know your feeling on this and I just want to see if as a nation we can disaasemble all these people have done who brought us to this point in time. Doing nothing and letting the current status quo believe they can survive due to some kind of political immortality will only make it worse.

Time to go way, way outside the envelope.

[Rob Crawford]

JiB -- it would take a major sea change to be able to eliminate the IRS. I suspect the Department of Education or EPA would be easier. The marginal enslavement of the people (politely called "redistribution of wealth") is too central to the Marxist religion, and that pernicious faith is too engrained in too much of our population.

[JackisBack!]

Rob,

You look in the easten carib and I'll look in the western sector. We cpmpare notes, pull our money out and get out before the SWAT team comes for us. That's plan A, you can have plan B.

[JackisBack!]

Wade is out - looks like a hip pointer. Which is poetic justice since an obvious charge. I can't believe I live in Florida and pulling for Dallas.

[wholesale jerseys]

I still have my doubts regarding the operational logistics and infrastructure needed to make that thing work but it needs a full, intelligent vetting and comparitive analysis to all the other options out there.

[daddy]

I have looked at this Post on Tim Pawlenty all day long with writers block.

I have been unable to think of a single thing that is vaguely exciting or interesting or funny or anything regarding Tim Pawlenty's campaign that I can comment on.

It has finally struck me here at 3 AM your guys time that that perfectly describes my honest current feelings towards Tim Pawlenty's run for the presidency. He....

whatever....

Hey, how 'bout 'dem Mav's!

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I'll say one thing for Palin's organization, they are quick, paying attention, and immediately respond to the many falsehoods spread about Sarah. Somehow, as well, she or they never miss the opening to give a the liar a dig. Sarah is a master of telling it like it is, much to the media's dismay most of the time. Here is the perfect example:

Politico wrote:

Will Sarah Palin’s intensifying rivalry with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) cause the former Alaska governor to run for president?

The first female Republican vice presidential nominee clearly believes she is the one who has paid the heavy dues by bearing the brunt of the “liberal elite” attacks to help build the tea party, social conservative wing of the GOP.

Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: “I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else,” she said. Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.

Palin’s camp responded:

An absurd opinion piece in Politico includes a quote attributed to Governor Palin that is a total fabrication and yet is deliberately written to appear as if it is a legitimate direct quote. By any standard this is unacceptable even for an opinion piece. This puts us in mind of a real quote of something Governor Palin actually did once say to the media: “Quit making stuff up.”

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Daddy: I call him Ichabod Milquetoast Pawlenty.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

UPDATED on Darrell Issa's committee (via Insty):

Justice Officials in ‘Panic Mode’ as Hearing Nears on Failed Anti-Gun Trafficking Program.

Officials at the Department of Justice are in “panic mode,” according to multiple sources, as word spreads that congressional testimony next week will paint a bleak and humiliating picture of Operation Fast and Furious, the botched undercover operation that left a trail of blood from Mexico to Washington, D.C.

The operation was supposed to stem the flow of weapons from the U.S. to Mexico by allowing so-called straw buyers to purchase guns legally in the U.S. and later sell them in Mexico, usually to drug cartels.

Instead, ATF documents show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms knowingly and deliberately flooded Mexico with assault rifles. Their intent was to expose the entire smuggling organization, from top to bottom, but the operation spun out of control and supervisors refused pleas from field agents to stop it.

[daddy]

Good links this AM Sara.

This story tells us that a Big Campaign donor to Joe Biden just pled guilty to violating Federal Election Laws:

Joe Biden donor Tigani pleads guilty to illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion

Will be surprised if this story is not completely ignored by the MSM.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I just cannot get my head around how the ATF came to the conclusion that giving assault weapons to drug cartels would curb gun violence and smuggling. You don't have to get as far as the escalating screwups, I want to know whose looney idea it was in the first place, with a full explanation of his/her logic.

[matt]

Sara, part of is the old "too clever by half" mentality of the drones in DC. I'm sure someone thought it was a good idea. The other part was just plain stupidity and arrogance.

Then comes Gauleiter Napolitano's complete idiocy regarding Musilm men of a certain age. Surely she must be joking.

The whole policy viz drugs, terrorism, immigration, and border control would be a laugh out loud joke if it wasn't so tragic.

I am convinced there are those somewhere involved who are making billions on our incoherent policies. How could thinking adults conceive such idiotic policy?

[rse]

matt-

When my youngest was 5 I homeschooled for a year so we could travel.

It was the 5 year old who was repeatedly pulled aside for extra security scrutiny.

It was as if there was a memo out there that insisted on pulling aside the least likely to prove there was no profiling.

[Jack is Back!]

daddy,

Isn't Pawlenty still playing ice hockey? if its a "no check" league that is still a workout and not for the faint of heart. So, you could say, "get the puck out of here".

[Tom Bowler]

Let me float my 20-20 tax plan:

With a clear majority of adults in favor a flat tax, now is the time for tax reform. I propose a 20-20 tax plan -- 20% with a $20,000 exemption. The first $20,000 of taxable income would be exempted, with taxable income being total income minus any actual expenses incurred earning it. A 20% tax rate would apply to the what's left. So, taxable income of $20,000 or under would result in $0 income tax due. A taxable income of $25,000 would result in a net of $5,000 subject to the 20% rate and $1,000 due in income taxes, which equates to an actual tax burden of 4.00% of total taxable income.

Under that formula the tax bill for a someone with $100,000 of total taxable income would come to 16.00% of income. At $150,000 the percentage of taxes paid would be 17.33%. As income rises the percentage of taxes paid rises, always getting closer but never reaching the maximum 20%.

It's a flat tax, but the exemption makes the effective rate progressive.

[bunkerbuster]

jimmy's right on this one. All the talk about the feng shui of deck chairs on the tax titanic is irrelevant to the nation's fiscal health, which instead depends entirely on getting spending under control.
I'd like to ban all discussion of tax rates and collection methods until there is a clear consensus on how and where to cut spending.
The tax talk is all about politicians fooling some of the people all of the time by promising them more for less. Charlie, for example, gobbles it hook, line and sinker:

``It's entirely possible to cut tax rates dramatically and still end up with greater tax receipts..''

Yes. And you too can eat more and still lose weight! Get washboard abs in minutes with this secret! Make higher returns, while lowering risk, get 100 miles to the gallon with this secret the oil companies don't want you to know about, take down armed thugs with a paper clip and, yes, indeed, pay for wars with tax cuts!!!

[sbw]

College "bans" national anthem?

Many options: Don't go. Don't play their teams. Don't contribute. Sing it anyway.

[Janet]

How much money should the Fed. govt. really need? If it was scaled back to handling only it's Constitutional duties, then it shouldn't need so much money.
It seems like FIRST the Fed. govt. "business" needs to be defined, prioritized, & pruned back.
Politicians seem unable to stop funding stuff in their districts & all their "great idea" projects...so their power & oversight in certain areas should just be removed. It is not their business.

It's like we're worried about how to get the money to an organization that is just burning the money up. We've got to shut down the bonfire first.

[sbw]

The anthem glorifies that even under assault, those who believe in freedom -- including religious freedom -- stood up for it. Sounds like strength of character even pacifist Christians could accept.

Both generals and pacifists agree that war is a nasty place to be. They simply disagree about how to obtain lasting peace.

[sbw]

I want to see everyone contribute to the cost of government. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

After paying taxes, I don't mind rebates for certain things to those at the lowest income level. But the government has to know the cost of those rebates so it will have the incentive to enable the least among us to earn enough wealth to support themselves.

--
Adam Smith believed in progressive taxes because those who have more wealth have more to lose if good government fails. However much Smith supported government for defense, justice, and infrastructure to encourage commerce (supporting schools and roads), he was deadly against rent seeking that powers politics today.

[Extraneus]

NYP: He's hanging tough.

[Donald]

I guess Rob's been reading Hugh Hewitts dishonest assault on the fair tax.

As formulated by John Linder (And others) the fair tax would not exist until the IRS was eliminated and the 16th amendment was repealed. It is the key to the whole thing and it's probably the most exciting element to me. No elimnation of the IRS, no repal of the income tax, no fair tax.

I listened to Hewitt on Michael Medved's show one day discussing his book and was amazed that Medved, a supporter of the fair tax wouldn't challenge Hewitt on anything he was saying. I was disgusted, and lost any respect for Hewitt (And Medved for his pussiness, or was it helping a Salem brother out?)

If I'm missing something Rob, I apologize, but being a local guy (In Atlanta) and listening to Neal Boortz discuss this (And discussing it with Neal), I'm all in because I do understand it. If nothing else.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the federal income tax and the IRS were eliminated tomorrow, our government would immediately start to take the shape of something resembling the original concept.

[Extraneus]

Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance

Brussels – America's military alliance with Europe -- the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades -- faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a

U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

[Extraneus]

NYP: Weiner can't afford to quit the DC day job

[Janet]

Was Weiner involved with underage girls...
Part 3

It is an embarrassment that he hasn't stepped down. Weiner, Waters, Rangel, Frank, Dodd, Geithner,...
That these people are "leaders" in our country, says something about how sick we've become.
Nothing new I guess. That Kevin Jennings working as our Safe School Czar was the limit for me...

[Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)]

I want to know whose looney idea it was in the first place, with a full explanation of his/her logic.

IIRC, and I may not, it was George Bush. His plan was to sell fake guns so they could be tracked, Obama decided to use the real thing.

Then again, my steel trap memory lost its door recently.

[Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign]

This site http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/ follows gunwalker pretty closely. The "gunwalking" (allowing thousands of guns to cross the border) started with Zeros maladministration.

[Melinda Romanoff]

The ATF pumped and dumped it's data last night. Now saying 70% of Mexican arms come from US, instead of the original 90% statements, back in the '08 campaign blarfs by Hil & Co. It's on the front of the WSJ today, and would be the beginning of the pushback by the administration. Getting the false data out first as the "new" benchmark, thereby cutting off the Issa investigation before the gavel.

Here's the WSJ story (might be behind paywall).

[jimmyk]

Weiner, Waters, Rangel, Frank, Dodd, Geithner,...

...Studds, Kennedy. The sad thing is you hear people cite these as precedent for why he shouldn't step down. After all, they didn't, he's no worse. That's the level we've fallen to.

[centralcal]

It's Friday morning and maybe my brain is only functioning on half a cylinder, but I am rather flummoxed by the latest CW that Newt's problems are "the wife."

First, I hate putting "the" in front of wife. How about "his wife."

Second, maybe Newt's problems all stem from Newt?

The few times I have seen Calista on TV she has come across as almost a "Stepford" type wife. Look stylish, every hair in place, adore your man, support his every project, be the "perfect" partner, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Suddenly she's Hilda the horrible, derailing his career with her demands?

I need more coffee or something.

[DebinNC]

Politico:
Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else. Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.

Does Politico's not putting the bolded words in quotation marks absolve them of literally putting never uttered words in SP's mouth? I can't believe that's allowed outside of obvious parody pieces.

[Melinda Romanoff]

New twist in the war on pollution by Lisa Jackson, no electricity for you.

I'm relieved that will reduce the stress on the grid, of course (eyeroll). And the administration is going to shove WV and parts of Va into the GOP camp, permanently.

[Extraneus]

All they did was remove the quotation marks?

[narciso]

This is Politico, we're talking about, for the people who didn't think the Post was hacktastic enough, the periscope of the Journalist.

[DebinNC]

This is the way it appears at Politico now:

Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else. Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.

Sara's 3:30 post had that quote in quotation marks. I'd be interested in knowing if Politico changed it since then, and whether the Politico/MSM think they can put imaginary words in any Republican's mouth as long as the ".." are missing.

[narciso]

SarahPac, called them on it, just as with the bogus 'quotes' in 'Game Change', with the slight suggestion of possible legal action,

[centralcal]

Well, of course they think they can, Deb and they do. What's to stop them? The are on a mission.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 9 at Raz today.

[MarkO]

"Minus 9 at Raz today." For this not be minus 20 we are missing something. Something important. What is it?

[narciso]

I guess, gas has to 'naturally skyrocket' for folks to pay attention, Gallup has been more
consistent recently.

[jimmyk]

Sorry to go back to Weiner, but I learned this from Coulter:
Weiner used a negative Jewish sexual stereotype in facebook sexting. It just keeps getting better.

[Danube of Thought]

we are missing something. Something important. What is it?

Sure beats me.

[Cecil Turner]

Was Weiner involved with underage girls...

Yep; as with the dubiousness of the "no physical contact" meme (despite uncritical acceptance from friends and foes alike), the likelihood of this was obvious from the get-go.

[narciso]

Did you read that, right, Danube, because it didn't feel right:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[Melinda Romanoff]

Rumor: IMF and World Bank sell 50 metric tons of gold, in euros.

Must be expecting to do some shopping on the continent this weekend.

[Old Lurker]

"And the administration is going to shove WV and parts of Va into the GOP camp, permanently."

...which is going to be fun to watch, Mel, since the default frame of reference in WV is Marxist.

[Cecil Turner]

As to the tax "plan," I think we've covered all the major problems above:

• Reducing rates dramatically whilst maintaining current exemptions will result in significantly less revenue;
• Doesn't address the real problem (i.e., spending); and,
• Continues the problem of 50% of the electorate with no skin in the game.

I don't see how he can even make a plausible claim that it can work. I saw one of his interviews where he touts a growth rate of 5%, but with precious little on how we'd get there. I seriously doubt a tax cut alone would do the trick (at least in time to save the ship of state currently foundering on the shoals of serial spending sprees).

[Melinda Romanoff]

Nah, OL, they just have the early version of Chicagoitis, aka "Where's mine?".

[Rick Ballard]

"we are missing something."

Perhaps it's today's rating of -15?

Be sure and add the RCP average to your daily review. The graphic is very nice and you will see the SS Obama slide beneath the waves within days. Unless he kills Bin Laden again, of course. That was really a fine bounce.

[Danube of Thought]

Wow. Thanks so much, Narciso. As soon as the posted it I clicked on it, and didn't realize they were still showing yesterday's results.

This is the biggest day-to-day drops I can ever recall. Maybe Hit will know.

Minus 15--now we're getting somewhere.

[Melinda Romanoff]

EPA sends back State Department report on Keystone pipeline as "inadequate", does not account for "social cost of carbon" in report. This pipeline would supply Canadian tar sand bitumin to west coast refineries. The EPA, and the admin, are under a lot of pressure from the greens to shut it down.

Uh-oh, here comes Bill Dudley...

[Janet]

Chris Matthews says GOP rubes who didn't attend college hate science.

I attended college & I don't believe in AGW. I think it's a scam.

[rse]

mel-

The World Bank is involved with what I am up to.

And the EU.

And Australia, Hong Kong, and South Africa.

And Russia. And Singapore. And those are the official ones.

Now we know whose been keeping intl first class full.

It really does seem that the takeaway for the elite from the fall of USSR is that the fascist, regulatory model is preferable to outright elimination of private property.

An appearance of economic liberty without any basis in fact will fool many for quite a while.

[Old Lurker]

Today WaPo writes about the how the Obama guy running the nuclear agency is abusing his authority to kill Yucca Mountain with Harry Reid. Yesterday Rush reported how Obama two years out of three has simply ignored a law that requires the President to submit a plan within a time frame following a negative finding by the SS Trustees. And of course we are approaching 800 days without a budget.

The rules are so much easier if one simply pretends they do not exist.

One does wonder how a society founded on the rule of law can long survive ignoring most such laws.

[narciso]

Is that like the 'crop report' Melinda,

[Danube of Thought]

Keep your eye on this one. From Fox News:

Officials at the Department of Justice are in "panic mode," according to multiple sources, as word spreads that congressional testimony next week will paint a bleak and humiliating picture of Operation Fast and Furious, the botched undercover operation that left a trail of blood from Mexico to Washington, D.C.

The operation was supposed to stem the flow of weapons from the U.S. to Mexico by allowing so-called straw buyers to purchase guns legally in the U.S. and later sell them in Mexico, usually to drug cartels.

Instead, ATF documents show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms knowingly and deliberately flooded Mexico with assault rifles. Their intent was to expose the entire smuggling organization, from top to bottom, but the operation spun out of control and supervisors refused pleas from field agents to stop it.

I have some hope that when these hearings start seeping into the national consciousness RickB's forecast will be realized.

[MarkO]

Wow. I ask, you deliver. That's much better and reflects what I think should be a general feeling in this run-down economy.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Perhaps, but I don't know who's playing Beeks today.

[fdcol63]

We'll never correct the problems in this country as long as lying and obfuscating liberals in the MSM, academia, Hollyweird, and labor unions continue to have the power and influence they do in disseminating information and shaping public opinion.

The revolution needs to start by ridding ourselves of them. Peacefully, if possible ..... otherwise, if not.

At a certain point, our self-interest in the basic survival of the country ... and our own welfare ... will dictate the method.

[jimmyk]

Reducing rates dramatically whilst maintaining current exemptions will result in significantly less revenue;

I would add: "in the near term." If rates can be permanently lowered, revenue might eventually be higher. But the only way they can be permanently lowered is if spending is cut too.

I'll qualify my earlier comments about spending mattering more than taxes to make Reagan's argument ("take away their allowance") that cutting taxes can force lower spending down the road.

[Army of Davids]

9.1% unemployment...it's so much worse. What are we down on the Labor Force Participation Rate? some 2%. never mind the partially employed.

Thomas Donahue, Chamber of Commerce, on the mandates,uncertainties, new taxes and regulations put on main street business by ObamaCare..."it's a job killer"

[narciso]

Apparently, some of their 'best men' have been noticing, what we have, in the LUN

[narciso]

Herein is ths subject for another thread, TM

[Danube of Thought]

Milton Friedman's idea was that spending is all that matters: every dollar spent is a dollar that must be taken in taxes or borrowed, and the debt incurred by the borrowing must ultimately be repaid from tax revenues.

[Clarice]

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/10/eat-organic-and-die/

Turns out the ecoli killing Europeans was from organically farmed sprouts. Keep paying more will you, for stuff grown in rotted dung rather than--ew--chemical fertilizers.

[Extraneus]

Wouldn't a balanced budget amendment be the best way to force the issue? Here's the most recent proposal, from 2005:

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2010.

[Rob Crawford]

I guess Rob's been reading Hugh Hewitts dishonest assault on the fair tax.

No, Rob is just living in a world where a tax intended to fund the Spanish-American War lasted a century and it was controversial to end it.

I don't think we'll ever be rid of the IRS, barring a concerted legislative effort to do just that. Shifting the primary method of tax collecting from withholding to a sales/consumption tax will simply shift who the IRS looks at, not whether they will.

And, hey, if there's (say) a national sales tax, and I sell you some tomatoes from my garden, do I owe sales tax? What if I make something as a hobby and sell them? You don't think the IRS will be keeping their eyes open for ways to expand?

Finally, you're mistaking cynicism for opposition. I have no issue with wanting to simplify or radically alter the way we fund the government. I just don't believe anyone when they say "and we'll be rid of the IRS", because I think bureaucrats are a more pervasive species than kudzu.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ex-

Not with current Congressional rules that define what "is" is, every second Tuesday of the week.

[Danube of Thought]

I'm so disappointed in Pawlenty's offering that it's hard even to discuss it--CecilT's analysis is indisputably correct.

My hope would be for revenues to be maintained, or even increased, with reduced rates but a dramatic reduction in the exemptions, deductions, exclusions and credits that are now handed out to favored constituencies in order to induce behaviors favored by the government. I haven't figured out how the mortgage interest deduction could be eliminated without severe dislocations, but I think most of the rest could be got rid of without much difficulty.

But I don't expect ever to see it happen.

[jimmyk]

DoT, the 1986 reform went pretty far in that direction, but all the exemptions started creeping back in. What we need is a kind of
"equal protection" amendment that prevents the government from favoring one activity over another.

I don't worry about the mortgage interest deduction because I think all interest payments should be deductible as long as interest and dividend income is taxed.

[glasater]

Perhaps some rational thinking will start seeping into Europeans minds after this horrible outbreak of illness.
I've never understood their abhorrence to bio engineered grain/corn and preference for expensive organic grown food.

[Danube of Thought]

all the exemptions started creeping back in

And the rates started creeping back up.

I take your point about interest deductions. Of course, under the current code I can deduct the interest on my ski condo while the poor guy making car payments can't deduct that interest.