Santorum: Time to get rid of the IRS

posted at 2:41 pm on June 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

“It is just inherently corrupt,” Rick Santorum told a live audience this weekend in Charleston, South Carolina this weekend.  The former Senator and GOP presidential candidate said that the latest scandal shows the danger of handing so much power over the lives of Americans to the federal government, and that repealing the Sixteenth Amendment was the only real solution to unwinding that intrusive power.

Rick Santorum became the latest Republican to call for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment in light of the ongoing IRS controversy. “We have to get rid of this income tax — that is the source of the problem — and do something to replace it,” the former Pennsylvania senator said on Fox News over the weekend.

Santorum called the agency “hopeless” and “inherently corrupt” and warned that its role in Obamacare’s implementation will make matters even worse. “It’s hopeless because we’ve given enormous power to the government over every single person in America,” he said.

Santorum has been trying to raise his profile recently on economic issues.  On Saturday, he authored an essay at USA Today pushing the Republican Party to focus more on middle-class policies rather than corporate interests, saying that the disconnect cost them the election in 2012:

2012 exit polling tells us that 21% of voters thought that the most important Presidential quality was that the candidate “cares about people like me” – and President Obama won these voters 81 to 18. This fact rekindled the discussion over the increasing “empathy gap.”

The “gap” should come as no surprise. Republican rhetoric focuses on business creators without making the connection to the average American. Furthermore, the establishment Republicans policies have cooperated with Democrats to use the government to reward big businesses and big banks at the expense of these job creators. But Republicans often don’t even talk about those who work in those businesses: the cooks, technicians, welders, truck drivers, administrative assistants, middle managers, laborers, and all the other good and honorable jobs that are the foundations of these companies. These employees also make the American economy run, and there are a lot more of them than employers.

We need to talk with them – and to them. Plus our policies must address their interests – and I don’t mean just economic interests. True empathy is conveyed by message, messenger, and action. …

In the future, Republicans must have the message and the policies that truly level the playing field, get government out of picking winners and losers, and lift up both owners and workers. We need to look to leaders in our party to emerge and solidify around this message.

Getting rid of the IRS and the current tax code would be one big step in that direction.  The tax code (for both personal and corporate income) is where lobbyists win favorable treatment, and where politicians attempt to tilt playing fields for ideological or political gain.  A flat tax would fix that problem, but only if it stayed flat.  I’d prefer that system if only to prevent the depressive impact a national sales tax or VAT [see update] would have on purchasing.  Unfortunately, it would be impossible to trust Congress to keep income tax flat without a constitutional amendment, and that would be less popular than full repeal, I suspect — especially since it would keep the IRS in business, if effectively emasculated.

Santorum’s on the right path here, as are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and other more popular Republicans. Bobby Jindal has been hitting the same points on economic policy, if not on the IRS yet. The IRS abuses give a rare and clear example of just how the government can abuse its power to create political cover for an entrenched governing class, and that gives Republicans a chance to make a case for smaller government and working-class focused economic policies. Let’s hope they take the opportunity.

Update: I erred in using VAT, national sales tax, and Fair Tax interchangeably. There are differences between all three, as well as many similarities.  I was thinking more of the Fair Tax as the alternative.

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

Great, but he’s still a big government conservative. Next.

Chris of Rights on June 24, 2013 at 2:42 PM

It isn’t necessary to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Just because it says Congress HAS the power to tax incomes does not mean Congress MUST use that power. You don’t see them granting letters of marquis and reprisal these days, do you?

radjah shelduck on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Hmmm, now there’s a platform I can get behind. I hate to say it, but if Cruz or Paul don’t run, Santorum would almost have my support by default based on this alone(well, this and the mere fact he’s not CRISTie or Rubio).

Doughboy on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I’ll pass on Santorum but welcome the Overton Window shift.

crrr6 on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

next up:

free beer for the dads,
free ponies for the kiddies.

Joe Mama on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Go back to 2012

DarkCurrent on June 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM

On Saturday, he authored an essay at USA Today pushing the Republican Party to focus more on middle-class policies rather than corporate interests, saying that the disconnect cost them the election in 2012

Hey dummy, without corporate interests half the middle class would be out of work.

fogw on June 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Unfortunately, our entire legal system has turned English Common Law on its head. I can’t think of many situations anymore where “innocent until proven guilty” still stands, even in principle.

Someone can make an anonymous phone call to your local police department and suddenly you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time proving your innocence. And yet, the anonymous call itself is never called into question.

Ace ODale on June 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I’ll pass on Santorum but welcome the Overton Window shift.

crrr6 on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Same here. The last thing the GOP needs is this sweater-vested dim bumb running for President again.

DRayRaven on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Richard John Santorum should start working on his Google problems now to get a jump on 2016.

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

We are starting to get a look at what a third party would look like…Palin, Cruz, Paul, Santorum, Lee, just to name a few. I think a lot of Republicans are rethinking their party affiliation. Even Rush and Laura Ingraham are moving away from the GOP.

fight like a girl on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

whoops, typo—”dim bulb”

DRayRaven on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Government: Amendment? What Amendment? Don’t we ignore those already?

Turtle317 on June 24, 2013 at 2:48 PM

How can you suggest such a thing?
We CAN’T get rid of the WONDERFUL people at the IRS……
They’re all just the bestest most helpful people evahhhh!!

(just in case the NCA and IRS are scanning for people to audit)

dentarthurdent on June 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM

They are your masters not your servants.

“Civil servants” is the biggest oxymoron.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM

(just in case the NCANSA and IRS are scanning for people to audit)

dentarthurdent on June 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM

darn fat fingers….

dentarthurdent on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Why can’t Santorum just get a job?

rdbrewer on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

If you really hate crony capitalism and ‘the evil 1%,’ the absolute best way to neuter them would be to abolish the IRS. In fact, repeal the income tax and institute a consumption tax on goods AND SERVICES. If you are worried about the poor, then certain items (like food & medicine) could be exempted and/or a rebate system could be put in place where those earning under a certain income would get a refund.

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I’ll pass on Santorum but welcome the Overton Window shift.

crrr6 on June 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

That’s one aspect of 2016 I’m looking forward to. Weasels like Rubio, CRISTie, and Jeb Bush trying desperately not to move too far to the right while the rest of the field is talking about dismantling the IRS and how awful the amnesty bill was.

Doughboy on June 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM

It really is amazing that in a country founded on the idea of freedom that people don’t think twice about forcing their friends, neighbors and total strangers to spend a certain amount of time each year working for government under the threat of imprisonment. The only thing worse than the income tax system, and other direct taxes, is slavery itself, so i guess we should be grateful we’re not being held on plantations and bought and sold in the public square, at least not yet.

clearbluesky on June 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Isn’t Santorum the new CEO of Echo Light Productions in Dallas,Tx.?

workingclass artist on June 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Isn’t Santorum the new CEO of Echo Light Productions in Dallas,Tx.?

workingclass artist on June 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Yes, he is.

fight like a girl on June 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

The direct tax on income is an open invitation to pols to play the “fat cat” class warfare game. They have been doing exactly that for 100 years now. There are fundamentally sound reasons the authors of the Constitution specifically prohibited such taxes.

How can you NOT favor something like the Fair Tax? No more withholding? No more tax returns? No more IRS? No more 16th Amendment? What’s not to like?

Humphrey on June 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Is DICK a nickname for Rick?

jake-the-goose on June 24, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Don’t they ever go away?

claudius on June 24, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Richard John Santorum should start working on his Google problems now to get a jump on 2016.

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I kind of despise a lot of Santorum’s politics, but the “Google problem” got old years ago – it was funny for about a day, and only to people like me who are easily amused.

Nowadays the only people who still laugh at that are militant leftist college kids.

RINO in Name Only on June 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If you really hate crony capitalism and ‘the evil 1%,’ the absolute best way to neuter them would be to abolish the IRS. In fact, repeal the income tax and institute a consumption tax on goods AND SERVICES. If you are worried about the poor, then certain items (like food & medicine) could be exempted and/or a rebate system could be put in place where those earning under a certain income would get a refund.

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Behold!

RobertE on June 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Nuts. The link didn’t work.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr25

RobertE on June 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM

This would carry so much more weight if it came from someone who didn’t spend a congressional career and a presidential campaign arguing for tax code provisions specifically designed to cater to an industrial policy.

Don’t think we’ve forgotten, or forgiven, for a second…

JohnGalt23 on June 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM

If you really hate crony capitalism and ‘the evil 1%,’ the absolute best way to neuter them would be to abolish the IRS. In fact, repeal the income tax and institute a consumption tax on goods AND SERVICES. If you are worried about the poor, then certain items (like food & medicine) could be exempted and/or a rebate system could be put in place where those earning under a certain income would get a refund.

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

A-HEM! Shifting the tax to sales would only increase corporate cronyism as each industry group, and indeed shop, fights for an exemption to the consumption tax.

Shifting the entirety of the tax to a flat-percentage (though I prefer flat amount, government can’t be shrunk enough to let that happen) individual tax would go a long way to eliminating corporate cronyism as businesses would no longer have a need to fight to limit their tax liability.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I’d much rather have a VAT than an income tax. And no more loopholes and deductions, all Americans need to experience the price signals of what their choice in Government cost them. You vote for big government liberalism them you pay for it as well!!

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Go back to 2012 1953.

DarkCurrent on June 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Kudos to Ed(?) or whomever decided to use that particular Dick pic – it belongs in the HA Hall of Fame along with that Piglosi one from yesterday! :)

Anti-Control on June 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I’d much prefer a VAT in lieu of an income tax. Tax spending not income and productivity!

Also, no more loopholes or exemptions. People need to experience the price signals if the government they vote into power.

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

A sort of voluntary sales-tax on non-essential products and food is better than an income tax, BUT, it’s got quite a potential for manipulation and misuse. Can anyone imagine what the taxes on cigarettes would be? LOL This would go on and on – what about BACON? It’s horrible for you, and non-essential. This will start to be used as some kind of game to tax what the mob does not like at the moment. Although I still think it’s much less egregious than an income tax.

fatlibertarianinokc on June 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Santorum: Time to get rid of the IRS

Yeah, that will happen right around the time Congress votes themselves a 20% pay cut.

Can’t wait.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Unfortunately, it would be impossible to trust Congress to keep income tax flat without a constitutional amendment, and that would be less popular than full repeal, I suspect — especially since it would keep the IRS in business, if effectively emasculated.

Instituting a flat tax, and ensuring its continued flatness via an amendment, is about much, much more than cutting the nuts off the IRS (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

The tax code is the top source of corruption in the US Congress today. Flatten it, lock out changes to anything save the rate and standard deduction, and subject changes in those to a supermajority vote. Half of K Street would be out of business tomorrow.

And that’s a good start…

JohnGalt23 on June 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

That’s a very nice tribute.

I hate to be critical but you appear to have mis-typed the family name as ‘West’ at least twice. The correct name seems to be ‘Wise’.

gh on June 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM

So Rick “phrothy” – mr anti-individualists – speaks

MoreLiberty on June 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM

For those who think getting rid of the income tax and the 16th Amendment necessarily means getting rid of the IRS, I need to point out the IRS is 50 years older than the 16th Amendment and the income tax.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Santorum is obviously right.

Strange, though, a bit like Michelle Bachmann, that RS generates so much hate. No one’s claimed he’s perfect, yet he’s obviously better than Obama, Ron Paul, Romney, etc. He’s actually worked to cut the budget and get it signed by a lib president… Who else has done that?

Oh well, gave it a shot… bring on the hate…

shinty on June 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Good think the Republicans chosen Romney over Santorum – I mean the latter might have actually fought to win the election, and actually done something meaningfully conservative if he won.

And the Republicans would want that…right?

18-1 on June 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’d much prefer a VAT in lieu of an income tax. Tax spending not income and productivity!

Also, no more loopholes or exemptions. People need to experience the price signals if the government they vote into power.

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Slight problem with that – a VAT, even one without the “pre-bate” the FairTax crowd wants to keep the “poor” from feeling any pain, hides the pain of high taxes for the frugal and the cheap.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

What exactly does Santorum do for his lobbying law firm to earn $1 million a year, if not lobbying?

Somebody tell this hack his fifteen minutes were up long ago.

Adjoran on June 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM

IRS is probably saying “Time to get rid of Santorum” right about now.

And they actually have the ability to do it, one way or another.”

LegendHasIt on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I’d much rather have a VAT than an income tax. And no more loopholes and deductions, all Americans need to experience the price signals of what their choice in Government cost them. You vote for big government liberalism them you pay for it as well!!

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Flat, not VAT. A VAT would triple or quadruple the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas, and gives government the opportunity to screw industries they don’t like…

PointnClick on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Just in to Fox – the interim IRS chief admits “inappropriate targeting” of conservative groups was broader and lasted longer than previously admitted, even as he claims the Lone Wolves of Cincy didn’t coordinate with the Lone Wolves of DC.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Slight problem with that – a VAT, even one without the “pre-bate” the FairTax crowd wants to keep the “poor” from feeling any pain, hides the pain of high taxes for the frugal and the cheap.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

When did frugality become a dirty word?

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I disagree with Santorum on the IRS. In so far as you are going to have a Federal government, you are going to need to fund it, which means that you will need both a source of income for the funding of said government, as well as an agency to manage the incoming revenue and distribute it to the various agencies for performing governmental functions. The latter necessitate the existence of some kind of government entity — i.e., the IRS.

As for the former, it is true that you could replace the income tax with another tax, such as a national sales tax. However, I’d be greatly disinclined to do so given that people can easily transition out of consumption to saving, and thus the Federal revenue stream would become more volatile, making it more difficult to balance the budget and ensure that the government continue to function, especially in times of distress when it is most needed.

I do agree with Santorum on the need to focus on people besides business owners, and that the empathy gap is a crucial factor in explaining why Romney lost. This is one area where George W. Bush’s rhetoric, if not policy, was quite helpful when it came to “compassionate conservatism.” Understand, empathize, and endeavor to make the working man’s life better by creating the conditions by which he may succeed (e.g., not passing an amnesty bill designed to undercut his wages), and you stand a much better chance of performing admirably come election time.

Stoic Patriot on June 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Flat, not VAT. A VAT would triple or quadruple the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas, and gives government the opportunity to screw industries they don’t like…

PointnClick on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I understand that, but a VAT more accurately represents what happens to raw materials that are turned into products. It more fairly distributes taxation throughout the supply chain. Yes, there can be manipulation by politicians, but that is what we have a political process for.

A flat tax can be manipulated just as easily as a progressive tax and reduce the “price signal” of the cost of Government on “favored” constituencies. Only consumption taxation truly affects everyone and forces us all to experience the cost of our choices.

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I am not a fan of Santorum’s in general, but I will give him a big round of applause for this! Yes, repeal the 16th Amendment! If you can’t do that, then abolish the IRS. No agency of our federal government should be allowed to impose criminal penalties without a presumption of innocence and an ensuing trial.

Ed, repealing the 16th Amendment wouldn’t mean moving to a VAT. What it would mean is that the federal government would go back to getting their money the old-fashioned way: from the states. That was why the original ban on individual taxation was in the Constitution to start with! So the states had control of the federal government. If you leave the government able to tax individuals, then you leave them the power to control our lives.

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM

When did frugality become a dirty word?

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

When they decided they don’t want to pay for any part of government.

If we can somehow get federal spending down to, say, $500 billion a year, my dream of a $2,000 per adult tax (which would be a tax increase for me) could be a reality. No fuss, no muss, no IRS snooping around trying to figure out how much you made, no K Street lobbyists buying favors.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:38 PM

He’s actually worked to cut the budget and get it signed by a lib president… Who else has done that?

shinty on June 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Paul Ryan, another big-government statist that pretends to be a conservative but proceeds to sign every piece of government-swelling legislation he sees.

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM

In so far as you are going to have a Federal government, you are going to need to fund it, which means that you will need both a source of income for the funding of said government, as well as an agency to manage the incoming revenue and distribute it to the various agencies for performing governmental functions.

Stoic Patriot on June 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Then fund it the way the founders intended: money from duties and from the states, not from the individual people.

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I’d much prefer a VAT in lieu of an income tax. Tax spending not income and productivity!

Also, no more loopholes or exemptions. People need to experience the price signals if the government they vote into power.

powerpickle on June 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Slight problem with that – a VAT, even one without the “pre-bate” the FairTax crowd wants to keep the “poor” from feeling any pain, hides the pain of high taxes for the frugal and the cheap.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I think the fundamental problem is mainly that the Federal government has no interest whatsoever in either party in cutting back on spending. If the government didn’t have such a voracious appetite for our money, then income taxes wouldn’t be as big of a deal.

The second reason is that the IRS clearly gives them a lot more power.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM

This is the Fair Tax. Wish people would read about it. Been supporting it for years. Once you understand it, it’s very simple.

http://www.fairtax.org.

Barred on June 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Ed, repealing the 16th Amendment wouldn’t mean moving to a VAT. What it would mean is that the federal government would go back to getting their money the old-fashioned way: from the states. That was why the original ban on individual taxation was in the Constitution to start with! So the states had control of the federal government. If you leave the government able to tax individuals, then you leave them the power to control our lives.

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Let me refresh your memory here.

It was the Confederacy (no, not the Confederate States of America, but the predecessor of the United States of America) that had to rely on states for funding. Indeed, that’s why it failed.

The apportionment requirement for general taxation was indeed an anti-income seizure measure. It, and the related ban on taxes of exports, did not, however, limit the federal government to a head tax. The feds had a heap of use taxes and import tarifs. Remember that 100-some-year-old phone tax originally put in place to pay for the Spanish-American War that survived into the 21st Century? That didn’t depend on permission from the states or from the 16th Amendment.

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:49 PM

In so far as you are going to have a Federal government, you are going to need to fund it, which means that you will need both a source of income for the funding of said government, as well as an agency to manage the incoming revenue and distribute it to the various agencies for performing governmental functions.

Stoic Patriot on June 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, but funding for what exactly?

You could fire every local, state and Federal government employee (including military, police and fire) tomorrow and the rest wouldn’t even notice.

Over time, some things would become apparent-like road maintenance for instance. Then if you started restoring some of these agencies based upon need, I think eventually you’d reach a point where you wouldn’t need anymore to maintain our country.

Most government on all levels are criminal enterprises. Most of what they do is in the form of collecting fees, fines and giving out contracts to those who give them kickbacks.

As an example, do you really need a building permit and an inspection to replace an old air conditioner, especially by someone who’s already licensed and done that work literally hundreds of times before?

Another thing-does renewing your vehicle tag every year make you a better driver somehow? They charge fuel taxes for road maintenance, so where does that additional revenue go?

In all cases, a huge percentage of the budget is used to maintain the various agencies…including those who come up with the budget!

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 3:50 PM

We are starting to get a look at what a third party would look like…Palin, Cruz, Paul, Santorum, Lee, just to name a few.

Bullhockey. Not one of those, in your wildest dream, would run “3rd party”. Never. Especially the “currently employed” Republicans.
Think Bloomberg, Christie, and Trump.
Senator Ted Cruz running 3rd party and turning his back on Republicans in Texas? Ha! His career would be over in 2018.

Marcus on June 24, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I think the fundamental problem is mainly that the Federal government has no interest whatsoever in either party in cutting back on spending. If the government didn’t have such a voracious appetite for our money, then income taxes wouldn’t be as big of a deal.

The second reason is that the IRS clearly gives them a lot more power.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Slight ReWrite™ because it matters not the source of the taxes, but that they, and the spending they only somewhat support, is too damn high (to borrow a phrase).

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Same here. The last thing the GOP needs is this sweater-vested dim bumb running for President again.

DRayRaven on June 24, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The only person I disliked more than Romney.

Irritable Pundit on June 24, 2013 at 4:07 PM

He’s running for president. He has to say things like that.

rickv404 on June 24, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Slight ReWrite™ because it matters not the source of the taxes, but that they, and the spending they only somewhat support, is too damn high (to borrow a phrase).

Steve Eggleston on June 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I disagree slightly. When you’re taxing individuals across the country, it becomes much easier to ignore their wishes. Who’s going to fight the power of the federal government 1-on-1?

If half the folks in Rhode Island refused to pay their federal income taxes, the feds would pop up there and bag a bunch of them, frightening the rest into compliance.

If half the folks in RI refuse to pay their state taxes, what is RI going to do? It’s much harder (not impossible) for them to coerce those folks.

I agree that the problem is too much spending, but how do you restrict that with civil disobedience or other mechanism short of the r-word, especially when voting out your rep will only impact less than 1/4 of 1% of the congresscritters?

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Related to both your posts, though (3:50 and 3:54), is whence stems the real problem? It isn’t just spending. It’s a government that is doing so much more than the government was ever intended to do. Eliminate everything not clearly delineated by the Constitution, and you cut the budget down to nothing. Add back in, say, 1/3 of the “gray area” things, and you’re still way under that 1/2trillion you mentioned. Make Congress responsible for actually writing laws and not passing them off to be “regulated” by a bureaucracy, and you will get a LOT fewer regulations – and a lot fewer bureaucracies.

Oh, and – BONUS! – you can eliminate the income tax, too. You won’t need it anymore.

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Funny how he was against the idea of a flat tax during the 2012 primaries and now he wants to abolish the IRS. Has Santorum ever been anything other than an opportunist?

Hostile Gospel on June 24, 2013 at 4:46 PM

He’s actually worked to cut the budget and get it signed by a lib president… Who else has done that?

shinty on June 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Paul Ryan, another big-government statist that pretends to be a conservative but proceeds to sign every piece of government-swelling legislation he sees.

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Specifically what budget cutting legislation did Ryan author which was signed in to law?

Santorum actually played a role in welfare reform which Clinton signed.

shinty on June 24, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Funny how he was against the idea of a flat tax during the 2012 primaries and now he wants to abolish the IRS. Has Santorum ever been anything other than an opportunist?

Hostile Gospel on June 24, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Maybe current events play a role in his position on the IRS.

Would be reasonable.

shinty on June 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM

What I’d like to see is for the States to collect all income and payroll taxes currently remitted to the US Treasury, then stand before the federal government as individual taxpayers paying a flat tax. For example, if a state typically collects $10 Billion in revenue and her citizens pay $30 to the Feds in income and payroll taxes, what would happen is that the state would instead collect $40 Billion total and pay the Treasury 75% flat tax rate.

The advantages are many. First, the IRS would only be responsible for collecting interstate and international revenue in the form of corporate taxes, tariffs, etc., so the individual is completely severed from dealings with the IRS. The IRS becomes much smaller. Second, any abuse a taxpayer potentially suffers from the state revenue agency will be from an entity with much less power and that will be under federal scrutiny, unlike the IRS which is not answerable to even the highest authorities. Third, each state is free to collect taxes in any way it deems best, so there will be competition in the form of different taxing schemes to attract and to keep residents. Fourth, being constitutional entities having a duty to protect citizens from tyranny, the States would be in the position to hold back some or all taxes from the treasury until certain grievances are addressed at the federal level, such as balancing the budget. There is little the federal government could do in retribution to a bloc of states so protesting, whereas a tax protest by an individual will lead to fines and jail.

shuzilla on June 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM

This is the sound of a right-wing demagogue. Did he promise to make the trains run on time, too?

He’s as glib with his promises as Obama is with his own.

flataffect on June 25, 2013 at 12:09 AM