Cain: For low-income families, it’ll be 9-0-9

posted at 2:45 pm on October 21, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Huh? After weeks of repeating 9-9-9 and, in the process, making his bold and original tax reform plan common knowledge, Herman Cain today altered his slogan:

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain clarified his much talked-about “9-9-9″ tax plan Friday, saying those who fall at or beneath the poverty level would have a different plan: “9-0-9.”

Cain took heat over his proposal, which replaces the current tax code with a 9% corporate tax, a 9% income tax and a new 9% national sales tax. Opponents have argued the middle part of the plan would increase taxes on the poor, who currently pay little to no taxes.

But Cain fired back Friday, saying in a Detroit speech that those paying no taxes now would continue to pay zero taxes under his plan.

“If you are at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t 9-9-9 it is 9-0-9,” Cain said. “Say amen y’all. 9-0-9.”

Presumably, no income tax for those at or below the poverty level was always a part of Cain’s plan — but that at least was not a commonly known detail of it. Perhaps his new jingle will ease the “political treacherousness” of proposing a flat tax, serving to underscore Cain’s concern for “income inequality” (despite his outspoken opposition to the Occupy Wall Street crowd). But, then, as Ed explained this morning, to propose a flat tax is less a political liability than some would have us think — and Cain’s new cry of “9-0-9″ undoes a little of the magic of the simplicity of his plan.

Cain today also explained his idea to create “opportunity zones.” Under this new element of his plan, in cities facing high unemployment, businesses could deduct a certain amount of payroll expenses (in addition to purchases) from their corporate taxes. That makes sense to me — but Cain’s entire speech this morning in Detroit (a city with the inordinately high unemployment rate of 14.4 percent) suggests 9-9-9, for all that it is emblazoned on the minds of those who have heard it, is subject to change. Political realities have always constrained its possibility (passage would be quite a feat!) — and the fearful prospect opened up by Rick Santorum at the Bloomberg debate a couple weeks ago of a new revenue stream for the federal government to exploit was never its strongest selling point — but nothing hints at its unfeasibility so much as the adjustments Cain seemed to make to it this morning. He’d like those numbers 9-9-9 to be inflexible, but, already, they aren’t. “Say amen y’all. It’s 9-0-9.” “Amen” frequently follows “forever and ever.” That’s clearly not the case here.

Update: A reader e-mailed me to say “opportunity zones” have always been a part of Cain’s plan. Formerly, they were called “empowerment zones.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bunch of Perry apologist on this thread.

Perry supporters.

There’s plenty good about Rick Perry.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM

TheRightMan on October 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM

All hat and no cattle. Can’t wait to see Perry’s tongue get stuck in his piehole at the next debate and for Anita to take her man back to Texas.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Update: A reader e-mailed me to say “opportunity zones” have always been a part of Cain’s plan. Formerly, they were called “empowerment zones.”

Yes. I have been asking if there is a plan to give rural poor an advantage, like inner-cities (which is what “empowerment zones” originally referred to, at least).

I haven’t heard an answer yet – I’m assuming not.

That doesn’t seem at all fair to me.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 3:52 PM

All hat and no cattle. Can’t wait to see Perry’s tongue get stuck in his piehole at the next debate and for Anita to take her man back to Texas.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Texas, where there are plenty of jobs available and the real estate market isn’t in free-fall? That Texas?

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Gingrich & Cain CANNOT be on the ticket together, no matter which order they are in.

U.S. Constitution Amendment XII

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM

All hat and no cattle. Can’t wait to see Perry’s tongue get stuck in his piehole at the next debate and for Anita to take her man back to Texas.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Yeah, Texas is in such a state of disaster – we’d really hate to see the rest of the country having to wrestle with all of these economic problems we Texans seem to have to deal with, eh?

Perry’s got his foibles, but um, let’s not be completely stupid about the situation, shall we?

Midas on October 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Cain is already crumbling under media pressure. He rushed out with a 9-9-9 plan/slogan that is already being revised under pressure.

And yet conservatives want to back him vs. a tried and tested governor (Perry), who is taking his time to develop plans that will work?

TheRightMan on October 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM

How is Cain crumbling under media pressure? He’s gone into tough environments like Meet the Depressed, The Last Turd, and Piers Morgan and done fine. Seriously, watch the entire interviews, not just a 1-minute excerpt about abortion. Dude is good. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen Perry show up on any of these shows.

And spare me the whining about conservatives picking a neophyte like Cain over the “tried and tested” Perry. You know why Cain has surged ahead of Perry? Because that huge lead Rick had evaporated when he flamed out at the 3rd debate by rambling for 2 hours incoherently, calling the base “heartless”, and then pulling a Claude Rains for the next 3 weeks instead of doing much-needed damage control. Perry’s demise is his own doing. Don’t blame conservatives. Don’t blame the media. And certainly don’t blame Cain.

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I continue to ask how Newt is listed as realistic among people who have surged to the lead…when he hasn’t.

MadisonConservative on October 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I respect a lot of your posts but I wouldn’t rule our Newt yet for at least until a major poll after 1 more debate and one week after that.

Facebook likes for candidates:

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 3:57 PM

0-0-0…..

,,,,his chance of beating the beloved one in Nov 2012.

PappyD61 on October 21, 2011 at 3:58 PM

There have always been plans to offer exemptions, credits and deductions in the personal income tax portion of the 999 plan. If you’d like to know more, spend some time at FairTAX.org and look at the different proposals of how to move from our current system to the FairTAX.

I also want to point out again that it is obvious that most people haven’t bothered to read anything from Cain himself about the 999 plan and the FairTAX and that goes doubly so for the media and certain bloggers.

999 is a vehicle to get to the FairTAX and spur economic growth in the near term. 999 is not and was never offered as a permanent replacement for the current tax structure.

Demanding that the entirety of 999 be explained in 5 minute interviews and 30 second soundbites is ludicrous, and the media, bloggers and commenters/supporters/opponents should refrain from trying. It’s an impossible standard people are trying to demand, it’s unfair, and it’s dishonest.

Additionally, Cain is well aware that 999 would have to meet Congress and Congress will do it’s best to preserve tax breaks and special interest favors in it’s implementation. By presenting it as 999 makes it VERY EASY to point out who the abusers are and where the discounts and exemptions are being taken. Showing the American people a simple base rate across the board, 999, and highlighting where discounts and exemptions are taken (909, 555, etc) are a step towards educating the public and making the tax policy of the federal government more visible to all.

No one here could describe in a sentence how the tax rates paid by GE are different from the tax rates of Ford, because of the credits, discounts and exemptions they use to avoid taxation. Slap a simpler formula on them and allow it to be presented in comparison to others will point out to the public where the tax avoiders are.

But again, 999 is a device to move America to a FairTAX and dumping the onerous code that currently hides from view what taxation rates are between your neighbors and competing businesses.

Simplicity and transparency are the goals, and 999 is both of those when compared to the current code.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Cain is already crumbling under media pressure. He rushed out with a 9-9-9 plan/slogan that is already being revised under pressure.

And yet conservatives want to back him vs. a tried and tested governor (Perry), who is taking his time to develop plans that will work?

TheRightMan on October 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM

While Rick Perry hides from the media and his poll numbers continue to fall.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM

So it’s the 999 plan for some people, and the 909 plan for other people.

Seems like this simple plan will be really complicated by the time we get to January 2012.

hawksruleva on October 21, 2011 at 4:01 PM

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM

I would read that such that people from GEORGIA could vote for one OR the Other but not both at the same time?

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Gingrich & Cain CANNOT be on the ticket together, no matter which order they are in.

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM

That’s easy to get around. Cheney had the same issue in 2000 and he just “moved” to Wyoming to solve the problem. Newt can do likewise.

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I would read that such that people from GEORGIA could vote for one OR the Other but not both at the same time?

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Newt and Cain could not be on the same ticket i.e. President/Vice President i.e. Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain because they both live in the same state.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I thought this had come up in the past! Thanks. I wonder who SgtSVJones happens to lean towards at this point. I would be willing to bet it is NOT Cain OR Gingrich.

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM

That may be true, but Newt is an academic. He is a thinker, an idea man. All that has it’s place, but absent any strong leadership and management qualities it isn’t enough. I don’t see Newt as a strong manager/executive. I see him as an adviser and that’s pretty much where it ends…

BillyWilly on October 21, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Newt was Speaker of the House. He was third in line to the presidency.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM

All that means is that they would have to forfeit the electors from Georgia…

JohnGalt23 on October 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Newt and Cain could not be on the same ticket i.e. President/Vice President i.e. Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain because they both live in the same state.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Newt lives in Northern Virginia.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

[Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM]

Right-o. That was why Cheney changed his residency from Texas to Wyoming in 2000.

Dusty on October 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Don’t bother trying to make a cogent explanation around here. All the Mitt supporters and many of the Perry supporters decided as soon as Cain became a threat to them that they were going to take him down and being open-minded about his plan are not part of that equation. Ridicule and saying he has no chance are more their speed.

txmomof6 on October 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I would read that such that people from GEORGIA could vote for one OR the Other but not both at the same time?

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:02 PM

No….the ELECTORS (Electoral College still exists remember?) from GA could vote for one or the other, having them BOTH on the ballot renders the votes of the electors from GA null and void according to the Constitution.

Bush & Cheney got around this Amendment in 2000 by having Mr. Cheney (a resident of Texas) switch his legal residence back to Wyoming (where he had once served as a Representative and apparently still owned real property) prior to the General Election.

For most states to become a resident you must have either paid/filed taxes in the prior tax year OR own real property within that State (such as real estate, a business, a charity, etc)

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM

It *should* be quite simple: everyone pays X%, period – no exemptions, no deductions, filed on a postcard-sized form.

Percent to be calculated based on corresponding immediate 50% reduction in federal spending (remember, we just spent 32% more than 2007, and 2007 was too high), with additional 10% cuts (real cuts) every year for at least 10 years thereafter (no, not cumulative – 10% based on previous year).

Midas on October 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Newt was Speaker of the House. He was third in line to the presidency.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM

And he did such a good job at that, that he quit before his term was up among many other issues.

txmomof6 on October 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Newt lives in Northern Virginia.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

He can live on the moon for all I care, he will never win the nomination.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM

He can live on the moon for all I care, he will never win the nomination.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM

I doubt he will too – but I’d vote for him if he got the nomination. I have issues with him, but fewer than I have with Mitt.

Midas on October 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Cain is showing some flexibility here and moving to contain the attacks against him by limiting his 9-9-9 to people above the poverty line. From what I’ve read he’s hiring additional staff and putting foreign policy experts into his inner circle.

He would destroy Obama in a debate. He is already destroying Romney and Perry in the debates, when they let him speak. Cain gets cheers, Perry gets boos, Romney is so despised he can’t get anything more than lukewarm applause.

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

And he did such a good job at that, that he quit before his term was up among many other issues.

txmomof6 on October 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Yeah like cheating on his wife, while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

So it’s the 999 plan for some people, and the 909 plan for other people.

Seems like this simple plan will be really complicated by the time we get to January 2012.

hawksruleva on October 21, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Three simple numbers vs. the 14,000+ pages of current code

Complicated?

Really?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Right-o. That was why Cheney changed his residency from Texas to Wyoming in 2000.

Dusty on October 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

That’s right. I was actually at Phil Romano’s house taping a show about his kitchen and he lives across from Cheney in Dallas (Highland Park). The day the VP announcement was made he was in Dallas and the Secret Service jammed our cellphones. We were pissed but it was cool watching them walk out and all the press.

mrsmwp on October 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Three simple numbers vs. the 14,000+ pages of current code

Complicated?

Really?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

30,000+ products to exempt from tax.
Thousands of business activities to be made deductible.
300,000,000 Americans to find some kind of bribe for votes for.
3 different tax types to use as opposed to the current 2.

yeah, actually more complicated.

astonerii on October 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

go bonnie go. finally some sense!

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM

The most qualified man in both philosophy and record is a woman who isn’t running.

Flippin’ depressing.

pugwriter on October 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM

He can live on the moon for all I care, he will never win the nomination.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Look, I’m sorry the horrifying embarrassment that is Herman Cain’s campaign has you upset, OK? I’m sorry! These things happen to… well, I’m not going to say Cain was a “good” candidate, but it does happen to candidates. I’m sure we will be seeing more of Herman in the future selling more books or running for some other office to line his own pockets.

There is hope after this campaign, Knucklehead — hope for you to buy Herman’s Book at an incredibly low price at your participating Books-A-Million. I’m sure they will make it a combo special with some other washed up politician’s book… maybe Mike Huckabee’s book. Yes, the Cain/Huckabee combo special. You’ll enjoy spending many a day reading the tales of how Cain and Huckabee made a buck selling snake oil. :-)

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:25 PM

My apologies, I was under the impression that Mr. Gingrich was still a resident of Georgia.

Since other commenters here have pointed out he currently resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia no issue should arise.

I’m still supportive of Cain and MIGHT be able to support Gingrich and then (barf) Romney, if I had to in the primary.

I will probably be holding my nose in the general as I pull the lever for either Perry or Romney though the way things are looking.

The various issues with all the front runner candidates are rounded up very well HERE by the founder of this site, Michelle Malkin

SgtSVJones on October 21, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Yeah like cheating on his wife, while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Not trying to split hairs here, but I think it was the perjury and obstruction of justice, not the cheating that brought about the impeachment proceedings.

I agree that Newt has some serious issues. Unforunately so does everyone else.

Meh on October 21, 2011 at 4:26 PM

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

It is the Presidency, it is not something we just give away. He either earns it, or he does not. It is not up to me to help him win the nomination, it is up to him to show me he is worthy of being supported by me for the nomination.

He had potential, that potential has been severely damaged this week. Now, does he keep digging, or does he man up and conservative up and actually lead?

astonerii on October 21, 2011 at 4:27 PM

“Opportunity Zones”?

“Economic Empowerment Zones”?

Does he only care about urban areas? Cities?

What about rural areas that are suffering from high unemployment?

I believe in Economic Opportunity Zones – but not like this.

The way I’d do it – and let’s take Rick Perry’s plan to transform America into an energy producing nation …

Well, in that case – Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama … Alaska … The Dakotas – they become “Economic Opportunity Zones” – because we want industry moving into those areas to expand energy production – and those industries ought to be rewarded for the effort.

Those areas that don’t produce energy – or are UNWILLING to produce energy because their state populations are too lilly assed liberal to allow drilling – can find another alternative.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2011 at 4:28 PM

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

No thanks. Next.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:28 PM

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

It’s Cain based on what? His money? Na-da. His organization? Na-da. His ability to campaign? He isn’t – not realy in the early states. His political experience? Na-da. His government experience? Na-da.

In fact – Herman Cain has only led in the polls for a couple of weeks and he was essentially tied with Mittens for a couple before that. He won a Florida STRAW POLL – which is by no means scientific nor relevent – since Bachmann won the IOWA straw poll and we see where her numbers are right now.

I don’t like Cain. I think Cain is liar. I think Cain is a doofus who doesn’t understand his own “999″ plan, doesn’t understand foreign affairs – and can’t articulate his own belief and policies concerning abortion. Why would I back Cain? Give me one good reason besides the POLLS (which mean NOTHING) and a fluke Florida Straw Poll.

Give me one good reason.

HondaV65 on October 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM

3 different tax types to use as opposed to the current 2.

astonerii on October 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM

What “2″ are you referring to?

There are quite a few more than 2 different taxes in the current structure. Quite a few more.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM

He would destroy Obama in a debate. He is already destroying Romney and Perry in the debates, when they let him speak. Cain gets cheers, Perry gets boos, Romney is so despised he can’t get anything more than lukewarm applause.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I like many things about Cain, but I think this is quite an overstatement. He has not done all the great in the debates really. In one debate he pretty much answered 9-9-9 to every question, in another he blew the gitmo issue, he got in some difficulty with the border questions, he does not sound competent in foreign policy, and in my opinion he has not demonstrated much depth in any area so far. I think he has a lot of work to do before he goes against Obama. I think he is a solid Conservative, although with the continuous gaffes I am starting to not feel that sure anymore.

neuquenguy on October 21, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Yeah like cheating on his wife, while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I hate to say this but your statement is…er…ignorant? What Newt did was morally wrong but going after Clinton was NOT (as our progrssive friends would say…) for Clinton’s affair…it was for LYING under oath…or in other words perjury…the same thing they got Scooter Libby for, yet Scooters amounted to a poor recollection of conversations not LYING about one’s actions and then spawing such memorable qoutes as “what is the definition of “is”? Don’t let the MSM Liberal propaganda machine taint you friend…a little more research on your part and you’ll be able to combat their attempts at assimulating you to their BORG mentality. (written, truly, with the greatest of charity).

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM

“Opportunity Zones”?

“Economic Empowerment Zones”?

Does he only care about urban areas? Cities?

What about rural areas that are suffering from high unemployment?

Why do you assume it’s only urban areas which would be eligible. It’s not.

Rebuilding the areas in N.Central Alabama where the April Tornadoes rolled through has been cited as a possible example for their use.

Tuscaloosa and Forestdale are hardly urban areas.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Cain should bring up a real, and thought through fiscal policy instead of some jive jingo.

bayview on October 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Fair Tax!

FloatingRock on October 21, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Second that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 21, 2011 at 4:43 PM

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM

It depends on what your definition of is… is.

– President William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Thanks for correcting my “paraphrase”

RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:47 PM

What “2″ are you referring to?

There are quite a few more than 2 different taxes in the current structure. Quite a few more.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Income and Corporate. are the two. What other ones are there? Inheritance? JOKE! That is pretty much about it.

astonerii on October 21, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I hate to say this but your statement is…er…ignorant?
RedLizard64 on October 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Not nearly as creepy or ignorant as someone who keeps lists of who’s supporting who here at HA.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Texas, where there are plenty of jobs available and the real estate market isn’t in free-fall? That Texas?

capitalist piglet

Texas has an 8.5% unemployment rate, with over 1 million unemployed. That doesn’t exactly say jobs hotbed to me.

xblade on October 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Not nearly as creepy or ignorant as someone who keeps lists of who’s supporting who here at HA.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:49 PM

LOL. Not as creepy as someone who keeps a list of threads of those who are keeping a list.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Texas has an 8.5% unemployment rate, with over 1 million unemployed. That doesn’t exactly say jobs hotbed to me.

xblade on October 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM

That’s below the national average. And that’s with illegals and people from other states pouring in. I’ve heard that criticism from the left and it’s frankly laughable. Obama would give his left nut to have a 8.5% unemployment rate next November.

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Not nearly as creepy or ignorant as someone who keeps lists of who’s supporting who here at HA.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Why do you have a problem with that?

I don’t think its creepy, or ignorant. It makes it easier to keep track of those who only bash other candidates.

cozmo on October 21, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Dumb idea period -Wait until the states and cities add their own %9% to every purchase, The great depression will appear as the good times.

Look Herman and other GOP wannabees-the problem is but one major one and it ain’t the crewed up tax code.

Big government spending to buy votes and interfering in the market place to gain power (GM?GE) while getting rich. Taxation will solve itself. One rule on taxes -everyone pays something.

Sarah’s right -both party’s support crony capitalism and a corrupt government suit them fine.

Don L on October 21, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Like I said before…Hotair has been in the tank for that bumbling moron, Rick Perry. Not surprised in the way they attack other candidates and give perry a pass.

Chudi on October 21, 2011 at 5:15 PM

911 plan coming next.

Kermit on October 21, 2011 at 5:18 PM

That’s below the national average. And that’s with illegals and people from other states pouring in. I’ve heard that criticism from the left and it’s frankly laughable. Obama would give his left nut to have a 8.5% unemployment rate next November.

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM

The problem is that half of the new Texas jobs are minimum wage service sector or energy sector jobs. There’s no new middle class being created. One full time job that allows a father to feed his family and have a chance for advancement is worth 10 minimum wage, no benefit jobs. Texas doesn’t have any.

And the problem with the plan is using the poverty level as the metric. In coastal states, families that aren’t at the poverty level still live like they are thanks to the relative cost of everything else. His plan is still completely negative for them.

Also, I find it interesting that Tina leaves out the whole “abolishing minimum wage in empowerment zones” thing. Honestly, I’m sure Obama is praying that Cain gets the nod. I can’t even imagine the blood bath that a debate between the two of them would look like.

Rainsford on October 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Say what you want about Perry in the debates, but many people appreciated the fact that he’s the one guy who’s been able to rattle Mitt. (Rush Limbaugh being one of those people, by the way.)

If Cain wanted to, maybe he could. But I don’t think he wants to.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 3:48 PM

No one but Perry wants to jump on Romney because they all want to be his VP. Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, they have been doing Romney’s bidding throughout all the debates. Note: they are all Conservative, so they feel they are competing with Perry for the same voters.

I believe Perry would just do just fine in a one on one debate, with Romney or whoever, and if he got the nomination, with Obama. Most of these debates have been Perry against everyone else, and the other night when it was Romney and Cain that got ganged up on, they didn’t do so well either did they?

Susanboo on October 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM

So you want to bash Cain because aspects of 9-9-9 seem unfair to the poor and when he does (or at least belatedly explains how the poor would be addressed) you want to bash him pretty much on that, too.

He’s the only one who’s at least thinking about how to simplify the Byzantine tax code, reduce the astoundingly dollar and opportunity costs lost each year complying with the code (or devising strategies for avoidance), and most important: taking the cronyism out of our tax system. We all know it will be revised when it hits “reality” (e.g., DC politics), but at least it puts a bold stake in the ground.

I think Cain should focus more on how political favors are doled out through the tax code, one of the reasons it’s so reviled and so complex – and so tilted in favor of large, monied interests. Amen!

redfoxbluestate on October 21, 2011 at 5:35 PM

I heard a little bird say that ALL of Bachmann’s NH staff has quit and Santorum is going pheasant hunting with another candidate and Steve King this weekend.

Kermit on October 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I think Cain should focus more on how political favors are doled out through the tax code, one of the reasons it’s so reviled and so complex – and so tilted in favor of large, monied interests. Amen!

redfoxbluestate on October 21, 2011 at 5:35 PM

That is a function of monied interests lobbying. It will never be cured. As long as lobbying exists, favors will be granted and corruption will be part of the process.

a capella on October 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Cain’s Campaign Theme Song!

profitsbeard on October 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM

9-0-9 is valid, because if you make less income than a certain threshold, then you won’t be subject to the 9% income tax.

But what is not good about his plan is that the poorest people will be hit with a regressive sales tax (the less money they make, the bigger % of their money is spent on taxes).

Some states have less than 9% sales tax, so in those states it will be a tax raise, and the poorest will be the hardest hit. For them it’ll be a net tax increase.

AlexB on October 21, 2011 at 6:08 PM

He was having a hard time explaining his positions before (999, gitmo release, life). I hope this doesn’t make it that much harder for him.

kerrhome on October 21, 2011 at 6:24 PM

But what is not good about his plan is that the poorest people will be hit with a regressive sales tax (the less money they make, the bigger % of their money is spent on taxes).

Some states have less than 9% sales tax, so in those states it will be a tax raise, and the poorest will be the hardest hit. For them it’ll be a net tax increase.

AlexB on October 21, 2011 at 6:08 PM

So you believe those people should pay nothing into the federal government? Currently they at least pay payroll taxes. The State sales tax is a straw man argument, because they pay that now and will pay it under the new system. That does not go into the calculation of what they should pay the federal government.

txmomof6 on October 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Cain’s plan is still has rates of 999, but includes a personal and likely a dependent deduction for the personal income tax. I do not think this was a change since his consulting economists appeared to assume those deduction in their reviews. Cain should have explained this better up from the start.

Cain should apply a similar prebate to his sales tax like that provided by the FAIR tax 999 is transitioning to.

Bart DePalma on October 21, 2011 at 6:51 PM

But don’t expect Perry to miraculously become a skilled debater and don’t expect Newt to suddenly become a beloved figure in American politics among independents and moderate Democrats.

Doughboy on October 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM

True, but we can expect Romney to become a rock ribbed conservative! lol

csdeven on October 21, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Anyone ready to get off the Cain train? Perry is waiting for you with open arms…

TheRightMan on October 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Exactly why would they go back to Perry? The support Cain has came from Perry’s meltdown. And Perry is still melting down by using the Forbes plan at the last minute instead of having some idea of his own before he decided to run.

You’re wrong dude…..everyone who leaves Cain goes to Gingrich. And when Gingrich melts down, Romney gets them all and wins the nomination.

csdeven on October 21, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Cain seems to be telling people what they want to hear–first the Piers Morgan interview, now the adjusted 9-0-9. Which makes him the perfect running mate for Romney.

I’m down to Gingrich or Perry.

BTW, how much additional bureaucracy would be required to implement a new national sales tax?

PS–I’m 100% anti-slavery but don’t believe it’s the place of government to interfere with the decisions of slave-holding families regarding their property–that’s a personal decision.

jazz_piano on October 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM

The poverty level exemption has been part of the proposal from the begining, too. That’s why it is 9-9-9 rather than 7-7-7, which is what the rates would be if the poor were not exempt. Here is the detailed report that is the basis for the calculations (look at page 6 for the brief discussion of the poverty exemption) and here are the tables that show the actual numbers (table 10b shows the combined rates at 7.3% without the poverty exemption and table 10c shows 9.1% with the exemption).

JackOfClubs on October 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Interesting “dynamic” scoring. All you have to do to achieve revenue neutrality in scoring for 9-9-9 is posit a 15% overnight rise in GDP. Sure, I’ll buy that…

AngusMc on October 21, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Interesting “dynamic” scoring. All you have to do to achieve revenue neutrality in scoring for 9-9-9 is posit a 15% overnight rise in GDP. Sure, I’ll buy that…

AngusMc on October 21, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Are you working off this document?

http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Tables.pdf

Or some other.

I’ll try to clear up what could possibly be some confusion.

Are sure you aren’t reading a 15% increase in C in this equasion:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M) as a 15% increase in GDP? That would be incorrect.

Other useful documents to bring everyone to the same frame of reference.

http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Report.pdf
http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999-for-web-10-12.pdf

If you’re working off some other document, toss up a link so we can talk about it with a common frame of reference.

Can’t get back to it until later, but I’ll be happy to come back to it.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Are you working off this document?

http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Tables.pdf

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Yes, table 11 uses 2008 as the year for comparison. Under the existing tax structure it shows a GDP of $14.369 trillion. Under 999, GDP magically becomes $16.455 trillion.

AngusMc on October 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Yes, table 11 uses 2008 as the year for comparison. Under the existing tax structure it shows a GDP of $14.369 trillion. Under 999, GDP magically becomes $16.455 trillion.

AngusMc on October 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Wow, that represents a 14.5% increase in GDP.

Powerful tonic you’re feeding your pet economy there, sir…

JohnGalt23 on October 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM

9-0-9 is valid, because if you make less income than a certain threshold, then you won’t be subject to the 9% income tax.
But what is not good about his plan is that the poorest people will be hit with a regressive sales tax (the less money they make, the bigger % of their money is spent on taxes).
AlexB on October 21, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I heard someone, I believe it was Cain, say that all 3 rates were variable. To get businesses to open in opportunity zones, the business tax could be set lower than 9. Same with sales tax. If you wanted to drive customers to shop in an opportunity zone, you could lower the sales tax.

Not publishing this information was a big mistake.

huckleberryfriend on October 21, 2011 at 11:31 PM

AngusMc on October 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM

JohnGalt23 on October 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Ok, well I guess the first question would be, which do you want to use.

You can use the Static Scoring which will run projections the same way the government does, not taking into account any growth from any tax reform activity with adjustments entered at the end of 2nd Quarter only.

Or you can use dynamic scoring which takes into account the effects of tax reform and adds them to the projections monthly over the course of the year.

In static scoring Cain’s 999 plan is revenue neutral.

In dynamic scoring, tax reform has economic effects over the course of the year that compound. For instance, real take home pay increases with the elimination of the payroll tax. That translates into an increase in personal consumption, which adds jobs to the economy. The elimination of the capital gains spurs investment resulting in capital stock growth, adding more jobs. The additional jobs increase consumption and GDP rises to meet demand.

Don’t like Dynamic Scoring, that’s fine, stick with static scoring and the plan is still basically revenue neutral.

HOWEVER. . . should dynamic scoring be accurate, even somewhat, we see large gains in federal revenues without raising taxes, depending on the makeup of Congress and if the public is paying attention, this could translate into either A) lowering the rates(Yea!), or B)more government spending (Boo!).

———————————

I’ll note that dynamic scoring is something that we conservatives have been using quite successfully for some time. While the models aren’t completely accurate, they’ve got a much better track record than the static scoring the CBO uses.

The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001, the ones everyone wants to keep because of their positive results, were pretty accurately defined with this dynamic scoring model, additionally Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity also uses this dynamic scoring model.

But again. . . don’t like Dynamic Scoring? not a fan of supply-side economics? That’s fine, stick with the static scoring model and we either see federal revenues hold steady or we might get a pleasant little to big surplus**** over projections at the end of the fiscal year.

That’s exactly what happened when in 2002 and subsequent years, after the Bush tax cuts, when federal revenues far exceeded the predictions of the CBO.

****I’m not referring to a budgetary surplus here, we know that Congress vastly overspent, I’m only referring to a surplus over projections, which did happen.

————————-

Don’t want to trust Ryan’s or Cain’s suggestions of dynamic scoring, need more information on dynamic scoring, that’s Ok, try Newt’s take on it, or perhaps look at some of these resources from the Tax Foundation and then decide which you’d like to use.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 12:25 AM

It’s Cain, people. Either we start helping this fine man, or we’re helping Obama to reelection. I want this wrapped up quickly so we can get to attacking the real enemy — Obama and the Democrats.

bonnie_ on October 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

We’re only helping Obama to re-election by not supporting Cain if Cain were the nominee.

At this point…and I’ll just copy/paste what I put over at Gretawire:

My gut tells me that it will be Romney versus NOT Romney. The Not-Romney will be either Gingrich or Cain. I’m leaning Gingrich because Cain is showing IMHO that he’s not up to speed on enough issues across the board.

Newt, flaws and all, has shown to have an exceptional grasp on the issues and has presented cogent, coherent and conservative solutions.

So … Newt versus Romney. And at that point, it’ll be up to conservatives to fight for Newt to ensure he’s the one facing Obama.

My two cents, for what it’s worth.

powerpro on October 22, 2011 at 1:55 AM

powerpro on October 22, 2011 at 1:55 AM

I’m willing to work my heart out for Newt. His return to the center stage will cause a lot of Beltway stooges to gnash their teeth in rage.

Punchenko on October 22, 2011 at 2:08 AM

tired of this guy and his 9-9-9 (or is it 9-0-9???) already….I guess the only really important thing right now is to win enough Senate seats to make O’s second term impossible….As pathetic as the Rep field looks, he’s in for 4 more years :-(…hopefully the Rep Senate and Congress will tie both his hands…he’ll have a veto here and there but he won’t be able to use it forever without undermining his own (lame duck) second term…

jimver on October 22, 2011 at 2:52 AM

Unless Newt’s daughter is willing to go back into the lion’s den and defend her dad and unfortunately tarnish her mom, Newt’s going to have a very hard time getting traction.

The media know they have that on him and she knows they’ll tear her and her mom apart. Not sure she’s ready to open that can of whoop ass, she looked in it before and retreated.

Newt would make a great VP and an even better Sec State, and he wouldn’t have to put his daughter through hell for it.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 2:53 AM

If the lower class will pay no tax, wouldn’t that be 9-0-0?

But what about the middle class? Do we get a tax cut or tax hike under your plan?

Frank T.J Mackey on October 22, 2011 at 9:22 AM

No, Herman Cain didn’t channel Jack Kemp.

Empowerment Zones were Mr. Cain’s creation all along. He worked for Jack Kemp and it was Herman’s plan, not Mr. Kemp’s. Jack Kemp is the one that worked to get it passed under Bill Clinton in 1993.

They are a huge failure. And they are still in use today.

Also, Cain did exactly what Democrats do. When something is bad, has a bad reputation. or will have a hard time flying with a constituency, just change the name, thereby we now have opportunity zones.

The problem is a turd by any other name is still a turd.

Please do your research on Empowerment Zones. Like Glenn Beck says don’t believe me. Look for yourself. There are numerous studies where the cities Empowerment Zones were used in, reported results.

The billions spent on Empowerment Zones already were not used to create jobs. They created additional Federal and State bureaucracies and social programs. They were used as political pork to pick winners and losers and to get support for Democrat elections. Who do you think runs the districts these zones are in?

About 60% of the funds were used for Administrative costs. Most of the rest were used to pay for day care, homeless shelters, drug treatment centers, etc.

Very few jobs were created and none were sustained. As a matter of fact, of the few businesses that received funds to hire people, 90% are either out of business today or have fewer employees than before they were in the program. But not to worry, Charlie Rangel and others pocketed millions from it and refused to adhere to accountability. (There’s articles galore on Rangel’s windfall with Empowerment Zones)

Empowerment Zones are still in use today except Bush riled Democrats when if they couldn’t prove it would create jobs or improve economic development, he cut down their funds. Or if they were receiving funds and wouldn’t show accountability and transparency on where the funds went, used for the wrong purpose, or show improvements in business or unemployment, he cut funds further. Some altogether. Who knows what Obama is doing with the zones. I bet losts of money is channeling into Democrat districts from HUD, etc.

Cain’s plan also interjects into and tramples all over States rights and state and local laws. He doesn’t want to have a law to stop abortion but he wants one to rule over states and local municipalities? What happened to Government’s role and the protection of States’ rights?

The idea in this election is to get Government out of the way. Not to enlarge it for another huge social program to prop up one segment of the population nor is it to pick winners and losers. Nor is it to give funds to Democrats to enrich their lives and political fortunes.

Empowerment Zones or Opportunity Zones, whatever you want to call them are Big Government. Plain and simple.

TriciaNC on October 22, 2011 at 9:32 AM

The idea in this election is to get Government out of the way. Not to enlarge it for another huge social program to prop up one segment of the population nor is it to pick winners and losers. Nor is it to give funds to Democrats to enrich their lives and political fortunes.
TriciaNC on October 22, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Now now, you know that is not true. Every election has been about doing all of those things, ever since the 16th Amendment made wealth transfers constitutional and the 17th amendment made it impossible for the states to exert their 10th amendment rights.

astonerii on October 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM

powerpro on October 22, 2011 at 1:55 AM

I’m willing to work my heart out for Newt. His return to the center stage will cause a lot of Beltway stooges to gnash their teeth in rage.

Punchenko on October 22, 2011 at 2:08 AM

You guys/gals make me laugh. Are you being purposefully naive? Haven’t you figured out how the primary is shaping up?

- Bachmann rose and fell when she came under scrutiny.
- Perry rose and fell when he came under scrutiny
- Cain rose and will fall as his 9-9-9 plan comes apart. He is still under scrutiny.
- If Newt is hypes as the next Not-Romney, I predict he will fall faster than Bachmann/Perry/Cain.

Everything will boil down to what pluses the candidates have and whether we can live with their negatives.

- Bachmann has little pluses – simply rhetoric and no record to back it up. Her refusal to attack Romney has also eaten into her credibility.

- Cain is a nice guy. But his lack of a political record will do him in. No one seriously believes he can beat Romney or Obama.

- Gingrich has too much baggage. I dare say his negatives trumps the rest of the field. Everybody knows that Gingrich is brilliant and has a grasp of policy than none other. That is not the issue. His problem is he is bad at managing and an extremely poor Executive. Recall how his campaign fell apart and his staffers resigned en masse?

- That leaves Perry by elimination. He comes to the race with a solid conservative governing record that he can match against Obama’s poor record and ability to raise funds that is equally crucial. He had a couple of bad debates but has been improving as his campaign starts to shift into top gear. Also face it, Gardasil and the Texas Dream Act were overblown issues that his rivals used to smear him. Their criticism doesn’t stand up to the facts.

TheRightMan on October 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM

You’ve contradicted yourself in the same post.

If Perry rose and fell already. How is he the last man standing.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Cain’s entire speech this morning in Detroit (a city with the inordinately high unemployment rate of 14.4 percent) suggests 9-9-9, for all that it is emblazoned on the minds of those who have heard it, is subject to change.

Cain would have to be mentally ill or beyond stupid to propose a radical change in the system and not have the plan be subject to change. Details have to be hashed out. Maybe it should be 10-9-8? Or 15-7-7? Who knows?

thuja on October 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM

That leaves Perry by elimination. He comes to the race with a solid conservative governing record that he can match against Obama’s poor record and ability to raise funds that is equally crucial. He had a couple of bad debates but has been improving as his campaign starts to shift into top gear. Also face it, Gardasil and the Texas Dream Act were overblown issues that his rivals used to smear him. Their criticism doesn’t stand up to the facts.

TheRightMan on October 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Perry’s stance on immigration is not a minor issue. We’ve already had one GOP president attempt to shove amnesty down our throats. If Perry were to be the nominee, I’ll vote for Obama in hope of a 2016 GOP nominee who supports the Republican position on illegal aliens.

thuja on October 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM

U.S. Constitution Amendment XII

they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The emphasis above is mine.

Now I ask you….Where is the amendment that says the president AND the vice-president will be voted for together as one? Why have (WE) the american people let the congress (and the national parties) pervert the constitution to always ensure both are from the same party? If we are going to follow the US Constitution, then we MUST ALWAYS follow the Constitution.

Doughboy: you are correct that Cain has always had the poverty clause in his 9-9-9 plan. (Keep in mind that the poverty level is around $12,000 for one person.) When he first mentioned 9-9-9 in an interview, I went to his website and read it. All the rest of you better quit listening to only the media and investigate the candidates on your own before spouting liberal talking points about them.

Hammie on October 22, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Hammie on October 22, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Twelth Amendment

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I quoted the Twelfth Amendment. It says

they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each

What part of DISTINCT did you not understand?

Dictionary.com

dis·tinct   [dih-stingkt]
adjective
1.
distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate (sometimes followed by from): His private and public lives are distinct.

Hammie on October 22, 2011 at 3:10 PM

You asked where in the Constitution the current system is found.

That’s where it’s found.

You can run to dictionary.com all you want, but the law of the United States is not found in dictionary.com. Distinct as a legal term in Constitutional context is not the same as distinct in dictionary.com.

The amendment was ratified in 1803-4 and was hashed out again in 1880. No one has successfully challenged it since. If you’d like to challenge it, write yourself a suit and present it to you district court, appeal it to your circuit court and then try to appeal it to the SCOTUS.

Sincerely, if you’d like to challenge it, be my guest. . . set up a fund for it, and I might even kick you a few bones to to help you along.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Distinct as a legal term in Constitutional context is not the same as distinct in dictionary.com.

I think you’re telling a tall tale. Cite your proof that the word distinct has two different meanings. Each office according to the twelfth amendment is supposed be a separate vote.

Hammie on October 23, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Yes, Hammie, a separate and distinct vote, of electors.

We must first recognize first there is no right to for you and I to vote directly for President or Vice President at all that can be found in the US Constitution.

The word distinct, in the case of the twelfth amendment does not apply to us (citizens) and our votes at all. The “distinct” lists are the constructs of a list of Presidential Candidates, and a list of Vice Presidential Candidates, upon which the electors record their votes.

In the case of the Twelfth, the word distinct really just refers to “two lists” will be kept.

That is what I mean by “legal term in Constitutional context“. I don’t mean that once you introduce the term in a court of law, that it suddenly has a different meaning, but just that in this Constitutional context, it just means two columns of names.

As I understand your actual question, it’s “Where in the Constitution is the Amendment that says (WE) have to vote for a ticket?” Simple answer, it doesn’t. There is no right to vote for President or Vice President reserved for the citizens, just for “the People” to select electors. What you are looking for would be found at the State level where the indirect election for President and Vice President takes place through the selection of electors.

As early as 1880, the SCOTUS affirmed by denial of Certiorari (sp?) that Presidential tickets were acceptable under the twelfth.

Actual review of the practice was affirmed by SCOTUS in MCPHERSON v. BLACKER.

**This is a bit above my pay grade, but I’ll give it a shot**

Michigan’s printing of a ballot with electors for “president and vice president” (combined) was upheld, basically setting the practice of a ticket into established precedent.

The electors will maintain two lists (distinct) but the electors are elected to represent the ticket and both candidates together.

The Political Parties like this system, and since usually the office of Secretary of State (at the state level) is usually a Partisan Democrat or Republican, the practice has been solidified into near universal usage.

————————-

Now I do believe that should a state choose to put separate electors for President and Vice President on their ballots, they could, and it’s my understanding that some sates do this technically but not practically.

That is why every cycle, we usually hear of a few crackpot types (usually radio hosts) who say “I’m running for Vice-President”, because in some states that is actually possible, but not practical.

Jason Coleman on October 24, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2