Between putting the finishing touches on a completely meaningless report at work, and transcribing the minutes of a meeting this evening, I’m mostly spent. All I can offer at the moment is random links and snark pithy commentary. Mike Huckabee……

6%.

To amend or repeal a constitutional amendment, you not only need to achieve a 2/3 majority in BOTH Houses of Congress, but you also need to have at least 2/3 of the 50 state legislatures ratify the amendment also.

As I’d mentioned earlier, with a humongous proportion of the populace being Baby Boomer retirees or near-retirees (and I myself am at the very late part of that boom…about 10 years to go for me)…people are gonna be demanding to have the numbers shown and proved, just like I did, to prove their own retirement and medical care won’t be put in jeopardy. Politically, people will have to be SOLD with more than just enthusiasm and empty promises.

Huck will have to put up or shut up regarding this tax plan, for him to be able to push it through.

I’m not rejecting your idea. Simply saying I’m not convinced.

1. Entitlement programs are covered by fair tax revenue
2. Consumer spending will not be effected under fair tax because you’re not taking into account the lack of an income tax or the lack of embedded taxation of retail products.
HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Harald,

I’m gratified you read my explanation. You clearly understood it.

But you also missed a couple of my concerns.

First, OK, so you say the Fair Tax would cover the entitlement programs. But…they’re HUGE. And growing. FAST. They’ve already reached the point where federal agencies want to increase their budgets to invest in improving their operations but CAN’T because Congress (and the Bush Administration) is afraid it won’t have the cash to pay for the operations AND the entitlements.

My point was: To cover all that, I want to see NUMBERS…solid, hard NUMBERS…of just HOW MUCH of a percent of every purchase I’d have to add to my total purchase.

And, I actually disagree with your point about the impact of not having an income tax. I disagree for two reasons:

1. People have a limited monthly budget, usually, when they spend. (At least, if they’re SMART, they do.) And they can’t afford to go over it. Granted, there might not be the bite out of every paycheck in payroll, federal income, and other taxes. The question is, yet again, what are the numbers? Which costs a taxpayer less? I haven’t seen Huck give the people any hard numbers yet and want’em.

Show me the money. I wanna see the math and crunch it for myself.

The point I was trying to make here is that depending on which scenario takes more $$ out of one’s pocket, if it’s the Fair tax, that actually WOULD drive down consumption IF it eats into people’s monthly spending budget.

2. Another really key point: People who make up to or under a certain Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) typically get federal and state tax REFUNDS every year. People don’t often think about how their consumption purchases affect their taxes. For many folks, the two aren’t immediately linked. Under the Fair Tax, it’d be on everybody’s mind every day. People would ALWAYS be thinking about their taxes everytime they make a purchase.

Until reliable numbers come out, it’s hard to make a decision about the Fair Tax, at least for me. Until Huck shows me numbers, and they look reliable, and I can crunch ‘em for myself, for now I have no choice but to consider it all a bunch of Hocus-Pocus.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Just like Huckleberry, I could bring up all the mother’s basement/get off the library computer cuz others are waiting jokes, but I won’t because I am above that. Less just say, you should listen to your elders, junior about all things conservative and constitutional.

Yes! Repeal the 16th amendment!

1. Entitlement programs are covered by fair tax revenue

2. Consumer spending will not be effected under fair tax because you’re not taking into account the lack of an income tax or the lack of embedded taxation of retail products.

Eww. No thanks. Wrong sex and too expensive!

Tzetzes,

You mean Huck the squirrel eater? Or me?

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Huck, of course. Huck the sciurophage. (If he were a metaxohippophage, he would be an eater of silky ponies.)

You mean Huck the squirrel eater? Or me?

I’ve (fortunately) never eaten squirrel. Nor do I ever intend to unless I’m truly starving.

I did have a NEIGHBOR when I was a boy, who ate squirrel.
Then again, his family was originally from West Virginia.
Am NOT kidding about this.

Fry up a squirrel?

I thought he WAS a squirrel….!!!

(Hmmm…more good nickname fodder.)

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I think we should call him the “squirrel-eater”, the Sciurophage.

Constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion and outlawing gay marriage? You really belong in Saudi Arabia are a brilliant conservative.

Harald, you really are nuts. Neither of those things ought to be outlawed by our Federal Gov’t. Those are issues to be decided on at the state level. The federal gov’t doesn’t issue marriage licenses; states do. And before Roe v. Wade the abortion issue was dealt with by the states as it should always have been.

Why you Huckanuts want constitutional amendments to address these issues is beyond me. How can you call yourselves conservatives if you are calling for an expansion of the reach of the federal gov’t? That’s not conservatism. That’s insanity.

Hey: Talk to me when your guy actually beats Ron Paul for once!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Fred beat Paul in Iowa and Wyoming.

Rollins and the other Sith lords at Team Huckabee are fast with the cute but disingenuous sound bite. But not even Steve Jobs can maintain his Reality Distortion Field forever. Eventually, the truth comes out.

Please tell me.. why we can’t get a 2/3rds republican majority again? Because dem congress has an 11% approval rating? Because dem congress has done nothing but name post office’s since they got the majority? Because the dem congress has done nothing but try to force us to lose the global war with islam? There’s got to be a reason.
HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM”

Harald, you asked for a reason, I’ll give you a reason.
Please. Read and Learn.

Before I give you that reason, I need to ask you a question: When you mention the 16th, you ARE talking about INCOME TAXES and NOT Abortion, correct? Just looking to confirm.

Because the text of the 16th doesn’t deal with abortion, it deals with Income Taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Lifted from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

OK, now, as for the Fair Tax, which is described as:

“The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.” Lifted from:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Harald, I’m not sure why the decription of the FairTax plan above, in light of the wording of the 16th, requires a 100%, absolute, TOTAL REPEAL as opposed to a simply revision…meaning, an amendment to an amendment. The only part of that text I can see that might need to be amended would be the part about “apportionment among the several states”. Otherwise, whether it’s the Fair Tax plan versus the current collection of federal income, payroll, estate, excise, etc. taxes versus a national federal retail sales tax, Congress would still be the one to “lay and collect taxes”. And since Congress likely wouldn’t be doing the actual collecting, instead of the IRS (which simply enforces federal tax law, they don’t MAKE it, Congress does that) each individual state’s department of revenue would have to do the same thing. I’m not sure what the difference is?

Why would the 16th need to be repealed? To implement Huckabee-nejad’s fair tax plan, all that’s required is a slight change in wording.

There’s a whole OTHER point you’re missing, Harald.
PAYROLL Taxes. Medicare, Medicaid, OASDI (i.e., Social Security). If payroll taxes are taken away, SOMETHING’S got to fund Medicare and Social Security. Correct?

I have yet to see anybody report understandable and defensible numbers as to SPECIFICALLY HOW the fair tax plan would be an effective replacement for the current tax system (as convoluted and F***KED up as it is) in terms of funding:

-The operations of the Federal Government, i.e., what’s called the “Discretionary Budget” of the Federal government, whether Defense, Social service programs, cost of operations, Intelligence, etc. This part is calle discretionary because Congress votes on its spending levels every year.

-The Entitlement programs such as OASDI, Medicare, and Medicaid (called the “Non-Discretionary” Budget) since the receipients of these are ENTITLED and Congress has no right to bump them down, Congress can NOT vote to reduce these. The only thing that can happen is Congress can vote to increase the national debt cap so Treasury can borrow enough money to fund the Entitlement program’s cash needs.

The non-discretionary portion of the Federal Budget is HUMONGOUS. It is, in fact, starting to crowd out the discretionary portion. Federal agencies across the US Government are having their budgets SQUEEZED by the Entitlement programs. TRUST ME, I KNOW because this is the field I WORK IN EVERYDAY.

My point, Harald, is this: If the 16th were repealed, what would cover the entitlements? I’d like to see the federal sales tax percentage required to COVER the rapidly exploding non-discretionary entitlement expenses of the Federal Government as the Baby Boom generation just starts beginning a humongous wave of retirement starting this year.

My main points, Harald, are these, which have NOTHING to do with an 11% congressional approval rating for the current moment in time.

1) I really WANT to see Huck’s numbers. How much in sales tax % am I going to have to pay for my purchases?

2) Any added sales tax discourages consumer spending. The US Economy is HEAVILY dependent on consumer spending and I doubt, politically, that crushing that would fly with a 2/3 majority.

3) What would the impact of the fair tax plan be on covering the entitlement programs, and what impact would that have on our national debt (and the interest we have to pay on it, since we’re barely able to pay that interest alone. Forget about paying back principal. It ain’t even happening NOW, let alone later with the boomers in retirement.

4) With the boomers one of the largest voting blocs in the US, I have a hard time seeing support for 2/3 majority repeal of the 16th yet again, but for a slightly different reason. The first one was about crushing consumer spending and the economy long-term. This is about whether the boomers would be nervous about the survival of the entitlements…and thus THEIR OWN survival.

THAT’S why I have a hard time seeing the 16th getting repealed, Harald. Has NOTHING to do with Congress’ approval rating.