The Questions I Want to Ask

Tonight is (another) Republican Presidential Candidate debate, produced by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and will air on CNN. The debate is to focus on national security and foreign policy, but will necessarily branch into other topics such as the "super committee" failure.

For each of the eight candidates who will be in the debate, these are the one, single question I'd like each of them to respond to, listed alphabetically (some may have a follow-up, too):

For Representative Michele Bachmann:

Mrs. Bachmann, since you took your seat with the 110th Congress in 2007, not one single piece of original legislation that you have authored, or were the primary sponsor of, has been brought to the floor of the House for a vote, much less passed. This includes the time you have spent to date with the 112th Congress, under the leadership of your own party. What does this say to your abilities to shepherd legislation through Congress - for foreign, domestic, or national security issues - whether your party is in control or not?

For Mr. Herman Cain:

Mr. Cain, in New Hampshire on November 17th, you were quoted as saying, "Who knows every detail of every country or every situation on the planet? Nobody! We need a leader, not a reader," and, "Forget the facts, forget history, just lead!" Without a strong perspective on world and regional histories, the ability to rapidly digest the written intelligence reports you would receive as President, and contextualizing that intelligence into historical context, exactly how do you propose to lead with a consistent strategy for foreign policy?

Cain's Amateur Hour

I'm a big fan of non-politicians seeking political office. I'd love to support Herman Cain. If he winds up being the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. But, I'm troubled - no, make that VERY troubled - about what his campaign could indicate about a Cain Presidency:

First, there's the problems with and false characterizations of Mr. Cain's 999 Plan.

Second, there's Mr. Cain's lack of cohesion in answering questions regarding his pro-life beliefs.

Now, we've got the sexual harassment kerfuffle. POLITICO, as I'm sure you know by now, broke the story that Mr. Cain was accused by at least two women of inappropriate behavior.

Since then, Mr. Cain has offered a variety of denials and a variety of details that are, at times, contradictory. Then his campaign chief of staff, Mark "Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em" Block, last night came out on Fox News and blamed - by name - current Rick Perry staffer Curt Anderson for leaking the story. Mr. Anderson was a former staffer for Cain during his 2004 Senate campaign. Then today, Mr. Block - also on Fox News - backed away from the accusation of Mr. Anderson. Now just within the last hour or so, I heard with my own ears, Herman Cain himself accuse Curt Anderson again on the Sean Hannity radio program.

Does anybody in the Cain camp know what they're doing, or for that matter, what anybody else in the camp is doing?

Right now, the best argument against Mr. Cain is that his campaign has shown abysmal crisis management skills. How can this do anything but reflect poorly on Mr. Cain's own characterizations of himself as a "problem solver"? I find myself wondering how he managed to be a success in business when:

He hasn't been able to handle questions succinctly - particularly on issues he had to have known that he'd be asked about, like abortion.

His campaign had ten days forewarning from the POLITICO reporters on the sexual harassment story and they couldn't even come up with a consistent "no comment" or "baseless accusation" reply that the candidate himself could stick to, much less have a consistent message from the campaign as a whole.

He's made verbal missteps such as characterizing the People's Republic of China as "trying to develop nuclear capability", when they've had nuclear weapons since the mid-1960s.

I think Herman Cain has a great life story. I am wholly inclined to call the sexual harassment charges a load of BS until there's some actual evidence or eyewitnesses on the table. If he expects to actually contend to be President of the United States though, he's got a whole lot of work to do.

And he doesn't have much time to get ready; the one-on-one debate "Lincoln/Douglas"-style with Newt Gingrich on Saturday could finish him.

Why the Troops Can't Come Home

Recently, many people - notably Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters - have questioned the wisdom and/or necessity of maintaining forward deployed US military units in foreign countries such as South Korea. Removing these forces as a "cost savings" measure is problematic to say the least. I think it is completely irresponsible and would be disastrous to the United States as a Nation. Let's use South Korea as an example.

On October 1, 1953, the United States of America and the Republic of Korea entered into a mutual defense treaty. The treaty took effect on November 14, 1954. Article 2 of treaty reads as follows:

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self-help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes.

Part of the United States' obligation to South Korea under this treaty is our forward deployed forces on the Korean peninsula. The main ground combat force we currently have there today is the 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the US Army's 2nd Infantry Division. But, what if they weren't there? What if South Korea came under attack, or even an increased threat of an attack, by the Communist tyrants to the north and we had to quickly redeploy forces from the continental USA?

Rick Perry: Cut, Balance & Grow

GOP Presidential Candidate Governor Rick Perry of Texas released his tax and budget plan today, entitled "Cut, Balance & Grow".  I encourage all my readers to download the PDF from Gov. Perry's website and read the full plan. I'll be citing page numbers from the document below.

The quick hit - what would this do for or to me and my family?

The first evaluation of Gov. Perry's plan I did was how it would have altered my 2010 taxes had the plan already been in force and we opted to file under his 20% flat tax with the simplified tax form. In 2010, we paid taxes with a net effective rate of 14% after all deductions, exemptions, and credits. Under the Perry plan, our taxable income would have been reduced by 41.3% and our federal tax due would have dropped by 16.7%, even with the net higher tax rate of 20% on taxable income. In real dollars and cents, this would have put just over $2,000 back in my family's wallet. On that, I have no complaints whatsoever and just from my own personal financial perspective, the plan looks good.

Nevertheless, my own personal situation does not make this a winner for the Nation. For now, I'm going to mainly analyze the tax provisions. The larger issues such as balancing the budget and entitlement reforms  deserve more attention than I can give now. So, let's look at the nuts and bolts.

999: Right but Mostly Wrong

GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain is to be commended for issuing his "999 Plan". Mr. Cain's plan is "Right" in that he is the only candidate who is - so far - beginning the discussion of tax reform with a complete scrapping of the current tax code. I agree with him. The current system is completely broken and, whether it can be fixed or not, should not be fixed but replaced.

Several prominent economists, notably Dr. Arthur Laffer, have come out in favor of 999. I have come to the conclusion however that the 999 Plan is not the solution. My main problem with the plan centers around the second "9", which Mr. Cain characterizes in his public statements and on the plan's page as a "9% Business Flat Tax" on "gross income less all purchases from U.S. located businesses", or simply as a "9% business income tax". Trouble is, it isn't. It's a value-added tax (VAT), and therefore I have to judge it as "wrong".

In an op-ed published today by Dr. Laffer in the Wall Street Journal, the mis-characterization of 999 as a "9% flat-rate tax on net business profits" persists.

I encourage everybody to look at the supporting documents for 999, both the "9-9-9 Scoring Report" and the "9-9-9 Scoring Tables". I'll be citing page numbers from the report below.

In the scoring report, the business tax is properly called a "Business Transactions Tax" (page 7).

Each business would pay tax on gross receipts less payments to other businesses. Allowing the subtraction of payments for intermediate goods yields the value added by the company. Subtracting investment as well yields a subtraction method value-added tax." (my emphasis)

So, there it is in black and white, a VAT. It is not what I'll call a compound VAT since business purchases of materials and resources for production are deducted, but there is one important cost of production that is not deductible from revenue: labor costs.

10/18 GOP Debate Reactions

Running down my reaction the candidates' performances in the October 18th debate, in alphabetical order:

Michele Bachmann - Desperately trying to regain some traction and visibility. Bachmann shark jump of the week: looking and sounding like she was about to cry when she was going through the whole "mom" exposition. Time to go back to Minnesota and make sure we get you back in the House.

Herman Cain - Plus: when the barrages against his 9-9-9 plan started coming from all directions he was smart and stopped parroting "9-9-9" as the panacea for all things economic. Minus: if he can't respond "9-9-9" to every issue, there really doesn't seem to be whole lot of substance there. More to come on my 9-9-9 and tax program thoughts later today.

Newt Gingrich - Once again, clearly the smartest guy in the room. Bad moment when he had to own up for the individual mandate; was surprised he didn't just shoot the whole thing down by saying it was wrong to have supported it when he did. Otherwise, I admire his ability to gently attack his nomination competitors while trashing both President Obama and the media. He's gaining traction with me on substance.

Jon Huntsman - Remember him? This was the best debate yet, since he wasn't there.

Ron Paul - Difficult to dislike him on economic issues. On everything else, he might as well be Code Pink's spokesperson. It's hard to believe, but he may actually be more liberal than President Obama when it comes to defense and foreign policy. I shudder to think of him in the White House, but the Treasury Department next door? You could convince me.

Rick Perry - Finally brought his debate "A" game, unfortunately his "A" is still a "B-" to most observers. The three weeks to the next debate should help by way of prep. I think he helped himself, as well as the other candidates, because he fired the first salvo in the Romney pile-on. If he can successfully strike Romney and Obama simultaneously, it won't be long before he's back up in the polls. Lot less stumbling over his own words. He's back on the radar.

Mitt Romney - Easily his worst debate performance. He was completely unprepared for the attacks launched upon him directly by the other six. I thought by halftime he was completely flustered, which of course meant that the other candidates let him get back into the game by laying off. One of Romney's weaknesses is similar to Obama's: he doesn't handle criticism and attacks well.

Rick Santorum - Running on your Pennsylvania electoral record? Really?!?!? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?! You lost to a candidate by 17.4% whose only credential on the positive side was that he shares his Daddy's name! If you were re-running against Casey this cycle, I bet you'd be at least 10 points down right now, and Casey is completely beatable. Game over.

Winners on my scorecard: Gingrich, Perry
Losers: Cain, Paul, Romney
Time to go home: Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum.

Hedging PA's Presidential Bet

Recent polls have shifted Pennsylvania into the competitive column for whoever winds up being the 2012 GOP nominee. I have my doubts. This is, after all, the state that went for Al Gore in 2000 with 50.6 percent (46.4% for Bush) while at the same time reelecting Rick Santorum to the US Senate with 52.4 percent. 2004 was closer, with John Kerry only winning with 50.4 percent over Bush's 48.4 - a two-point margin narrowing. 2004 also featured a flip-flop Senate election (appropriate since Kerry was the Dem's POTUS candidate) where then-Republican Arlen Specter was returned with 52.6 percent of the vote.

John McCain was supposed to be a stronger candidate than Bush here - and was supposedly competitive down to the wire - because he's a "moderate"... and got absolutely demolished by Barack Obama, 54.5-44.2. In other words, given PA's electoral schizophrenia I'm not going to hold my breath for us to wind up in the GOP column next year.

Pennsylvania should certainly be strongly contested by the GOP in this cycle, but it's going to take a lot of work if the game for the Electoral College is winner takes all. This story from yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette gives we conservatives something to rally behind.

Quick Thoughts on 9/7 GOP Debate

Here's my takeaways from last night's Republican Presidential Candidate debate at the Reagan Library:

Michele Bachmann - on the way down. I like her a lot, and certainly the amount of time given to her during the debate reflects her falling star. While I think the $2/gallon gas price is attainable, she's foolhardy to promise it.

Herman Cain - I like his 9-9-9 plan. That's 9% personal income tax, 9% corporate income tax, 9% national sales tax as a complete redo of the entire tax code. It's really too bad Cain can't get more play.

Newt Gingrich - great job blasting the media. I think he knows he's not going to be the nominee. We do need him though as an educator for the electorate. He was as articulate as ever.

Jon Huntsman - as if I didn't know I'd never vote for him to be the nominee, last night just reemphasized that. Who picked that tie? He looked awful. The media will try, but he'll never get above 1%. If we needed a designated loser, he'd be perfect.

Ron Paul - same as Huntsman, he just confirmed why I'd never vote for him. Mark Levin is right; Ron Paul would like to have the Articles of Confederation back instead of the Constitution we have.

Rick Perry - grand slam home run with the response to the query on capital punishment. Disappointed at some of his waffles, particularly when global warming/climate change came up. I also think it's a grand slam to call Social Security for what it is: a Ponzi scheme and a fraud. Liked him before the debate, and don't see any reason yet to stop liking him.

Mitt Romney - no gaffes, surprised he came out as much on the attack against Rick Perry as he did. Don't think he'll be gaining any ground back. He's also done nothing to soften my one main gripe against him: he lost to McCain, King of the RINOs, four years ago.

Rick Santorum - it's not a social issues election, Rick. Your campaign to be Attorney General though looks to be on the rise.

Next out of the race will come from Bachmann, Huntsman, or Santorum. Huntsman is banking entirely on making a splash in New Hampshire, so he's more likely to stick around. Plus, I assume he's got a lot of the non-Romney establishment donors. Santorum is running out of cash, and Bachmann's donations are probably way down now that Perry is in.

It's still a Perry/Romney race.

Rick Perry on the Mark Levin Show

If you're not a regular listener to the Mark Levin Show (as I am), I encourage you to get a copy of the podcast for last night's (9/1) broadcast and listen to his interview with Texas Governor Rick Perry. The interview starts at 1:31:58.

Don't believe the conventional wisdom on Rick Perry from the MSM. I don't hear a single tinge of W listening to him, and there's no way a reasonable person can come away from listening to him being down on his intelligence or competency.

I also think he did a great job of answering Texas' passing of in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants vs. the Federal government doing the same thing via the DREAM act. He's very strong in where he draws the Federalist boundary between the role of the States and the role of Uncle Sam.

I'm not ready to stick a Perry bumper sticker on my Colorado yet, but he's rapidly gotten to the top of the heap, and IMO, deservedly so.

I suggest you check out his book too.

2012 Republican POTUS Candidates

In the right sidebar, you'll find links to all of the current, declared 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. My personal opinion is that, at this stage, it is absurd to discount any candidate from the selection process including the media-sponsored debates. Who knows, Representative Thaddeus McCotter could be the best candidate, but good luck to him getting any exposure to build his campaign. In this link list, I'll be all equal time.

The candidates are listed alphabetically; no preference should be inferred from their order. I have my preferences, which will come clear from future posts, and certainly there's one on the list who I don't support and never will.