What Might Have Been
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Featured Stories — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In running for the Republican Presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani could have finessed the abortion issue by stating that while he was pro-choice, he was also anti-Roe. Given that many pro-abortion rights advocates--including law professors like Laurence Tribe--believe that Roe was a badly written decision, Giuliani's could have mollified Republican primary and caucus voters by stating that even though he disagreed with many of them about the need for abortion to be available as an option, they could all agree that abortion ought to be taken out of the federal sphere and left as a policy matter for states and localities exclusively. Instead, Giuliani opted not only to embrace abortion rights, but to support the badly written, badly reasoned decision in Roe, thus causing Republican primary and caucus voters to view him with suspicion.
Now, Giuliani appears to have committed yet another blunder with Republican voters. And it's a doozy:
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ran into a buzz saw of opposition Saturday when he explained his opposition to a flat federal income tax.
Giuliani addressed a group of about 500 people in a standing-room only crowd at a town hall meeting at the University of North Florida, answering questions for about 30 minutes on a variety of topics from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and his plan for tax cuts.
Several dozen people jeered when Giuliani, in response to a question, said he would not be in favor of a flat tax.
"I have to study it some more," the former New York City mayor said. "I don't think a flat tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates."
Giuliani emphasized he supported a simplified tax system and cuts in federal taxes, including elimination of the so-called death tax, but his response to the flat tax question brought some cat calls and jeers. "I have a real question whether it would be the right transition for our economy," he said.
There's more. Read on . . .
It is just not enough for a Republican Presidential candidate to state that he/she is in favor of lower taxes. That should be the sine qua non of the discussion. Even low tax rates don't ameliorate all of the costs that go with the excessively complicated "progressive" income tax scheme that we have in the United States. Given how many countries are now passing us by in the realm of tax policy by implementing flat tax systems, and given how much they are benefiting from the implementation of a simpler system that in many cases, brings in a great deal more revenue than does the current income tax scheme, the design and enactment of a tax reform package that simplifies the tax system should be a no-brainer. Instead, a Republican Presidential candidate somehow seems to think that we ought to stay with the status quo and that we should just content ourselves with keeping rates low.
I would personally favor a consumption tax system since I would rather tax externalities than income. But as I have argued in the past, a flat tax system has much going for it as well and would make an excellent substitute for the current income tax structure. The next President will have to grapple seriously with tax reform if the United States wants to hang on to its long term economic advantages. And strangely enough, Rudy Giuliani seems eager and anxious to signal to Republican voters that he is not the person to do that job.
Maybe he'll turn that perception around. But if he doesn't, Giuliani may well look back wistfully to the days when he was the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination and realize that he lost it by failing to make honorable policy compromises and failing to recognize flawed policies when they were staring him in the face. It isn't ever election season when you see a frontrunner for a major party Presidential nomination seem bound and determined to throw away the chance for the nomination with both hands. But it looks for all the world that Rudy Giuliani is set on ensuring that when January 20, 2009 rolls around, he will remain a private citizen.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Romney Advantage: Who Needs Grassroots When You Can Afford Astroturf — Comments (54) »
What Might Have Been 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In fact, I think he may be the only candidate that has publicly committed to proposing a "Constitutional Amendment Establishing a Presidential Line-Item Veto."
If a family now pays a net tax after deductions of 10% and a 'rich' person now pays a tax rate of 20%- if they flat rate that to 15% every idiotic democrat will say (bitch, yell, complain) that the rich are getting the tax breaks while the poor working stiff is paying for the rich. While the idea of a national sales tax is worth considering, I believe that what we would end up with is both a sales tax and an income tax. Congressmen make a lot of money (campaign donations) by all the lobbyist trying to get a tax break for their client. I do not see any congressman giving up that money for the sake of the country.
While the idea of a fair tax/national sales tax type system appeals, my concern is that we would end up with it in addition to income taxes, where it should be in replace of.
The only way I would actually support imposing a national income tax or some type of fair tax system would be if it went hand in hand with the abolishment permanently of a national income tax (which would probably require a constitutional amendment to guarantee).
But a flat tax is a fairy tale. You'll never get the votes you need to impose such a tax. It's pure economics. It helps the rich (of which there are few) and the very poor (who don't vote). It hurts the middle class, who are many and do vote.
It just a non-starter politically.
...When half (or something like that) of the households in this country end up paying *no* fed. income taxes.
I think getting to a Flat Tax is probably a tall order politically.
But I think some hay can be made over the fact that paying fed. taxes is a civic duty, and the fact that about half the people pay *no* income taxes is unfair, somewhat unpatriotic, and definitely perverse.
At which income level you set the bar.
If you set it at the point where only half of all households pay any tax at all, the government would go bankrupt.
Right now about 90% of federal income tax revenues are levied from 5% of Americans or something ridiculous like that. So, as long as you don't mind shrinking the fed by 10%, you could set the bar at 95% of Americans not paying taxes and be just fine.
But I agree with Rudy's choice not to get behind Forbes' Flat tax, even though Forbes is supporting Rudy. I would prefer he get behind the Boortz' Fair Tax, but I understand that may not be politically feasible yet. Still, I admire Huckabee's courage for endorsing the Fair Tax at the primary debates on TV.
adopted democratically, which has been a great success. It's interesting that former communists have a better grasp of tax policy and free market economics than most of our own leaders. Steve Forbes might have had a real chance over there.
Any change to our tax system is going to have massive effects on our economy. Even if the final system is better, getting there may very well offset the gains. So why is it anti republican to be skeptical on any particular plan ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
of simplification of government or elimination of bureaucracy and regulation is going to have a potentially massive effect on our economy.
Does that mean we don't do them?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Oddly enough its also the last time we did immigration reform. The parallel of the results is uncanny.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
does that mean we shouldn't attempt either?
Lost in the whole immigration victory celebrations is that it was a vote in favor of the status quo.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
More broadly, its obvious what's needed is a simplification first of the progressive tax rates. Then we clearly need to insitute a SMALL consumption tax to make up any decline in revenues.
The real problem though is the myriad tax breaks and subsidies. We simply just need to eliminate most of each of them.
More broadly, its obvious what's needed is a simplification first of the progressive tax rates. Then we clearly need to institute a SMALL consumption tax to make up any decline in revenues.
I honestly can't believe that any self-proclaimed Libertarian would actually like to give the government *another* avenue of taxation on the people.
For "free" (politically and economically!) yet!!
The real tax simplification should be what I call "targeting" - restrict the Feds to just income taxation, restrict the states to just levying sales taxes, and restrict the localities to just property taxes. Under that system, if any one of the three taxes gets out of whack, you know exactly who's responsible for it.
First, people keep making this mistake around here, and it looks like you've made it too. The Flat Tax -- as designed by economists Bob Hall and Al Rabushka and as advocated by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes -- IS a consumption tax. It completely exempts savings and investment from taxation, and if you subtract savings from income what you have left is consumption. Thus, the tax base for the Flat Tax is consumption. That doesn't change just because the tax isn't assessed at the cash register; that's a mere administrative detail.
Second, Rudy might be guilty of being too deferential to intellectual rigor and analysis and not deferential enough to symbolism and slogans. Unfortunately, political activists jeer the former and cheer the latter. If we were starting a society from scratch on a tropical island, the Flat Tax would be a great way to go. But converting from the current income tax into a Flat Tax (or into the FairTax, for that matter) raises massive transitional problems that the most brilliant economists have not yet solved.
Without significant transition rules, you wipe out all remaining depreciation deductions on existing capital, as well as a host of tax attributes upon which the values of assets throughout the economy depend. Eliminate remaining depreciation, mortgage interest deductions, excess foreign tax credits, net operating loss carryovers, corporate AMT credits, etc., and you create massive windfall winners and losers throughout the economy. Housing values plummet, and some Fortune 500 companies would actually have negative book equity (!) if they lost all the tax attributes they're carrying on their books. In theory, I absolutely agree that such a change would represent a more accurate valuation of these assets and companies, but that doesn't change the fact that such a sudden re-valuation would cause major economic disruption.
I believe that when Rudy says our economy is dependent on the current tax code, this is the frustrating reality that he is acknowledging.
Furthermore, in acknowledging that he needs to study it some more, he seems to be saying that he hopes that these problems can be solved. I work on this problem myself. I would love to find a way to convert to a Flat Tax, and I've far from given up. But it's going to take a lot more research and brainstorming to come up with transition rules that limit the damage to asset valuations while not being so generous that they create excessive new planning/sheltering/gaming opportunities of their own.
I think Rudy is guilty of nothing more than acknowledging reality: that moving to a Flat Tax without very well-designed transition rules -- which for the most part still haven't been devised -- could cause economic pain that far outweighs the benefits. Figuring out those transition rules is a project that I and many others -- and I hope Rudy -- will continue to pursue.
He would do better for himself politically by throwing red meat. Be that as it may, I think you're right about the political difficulty of fundamentally changing the tax system. As has been pointed out many times, the progressive income tax is a pretty good deal for all but the highest-income people, so there's no political driver for wholesale change. And the Dems don't seem to be losing any support by advocating even steeper progressivity.
The fact that our competitors in other countries are going to get economic benefits by moving to flatter taxation creates opportunity costs for us, but that's also a very weak political driver.
Guiliani could have been a real phony and said that he was in favor of a "flat tax," but I appreciate his honesty. A "flat tax" will never get through the political system. However,
he could have talked about some kind of alternate federal VAT taxes (You will never convince the public that a flat tax is a consumption tax.)
One is to convince them that someone else will pay higher taxes, and the other is to hide higher taxes from view. Progressivity accomplishes the former, and is here to stay. A VAT would accomplish the latter, and if we ever did anything like it, you'll be astonished at how fast the government grows its share of the nation's productivity. And since the US dollar is fictitious, the percent-of-GDP metric is the most relevant one for assessing the impact of government on our lives.
And before you ding me for saying that people aren't smart enough to see hidden taxes, just remember how well income-tax withholding works.
I have seen polls that show that as much as 40% of the electorate might be in favor of some sort of flat tax. And I am sure that with the right persuasive message that number could go up.
Believe it or not, the number of hard core "progressives" in this country are barely at 25%. The reason it seems that they still have a lot of political power can be almost totally blamed on lack of vision, lack of purpose, lack of courage, and lack of ethics on the part of those who are on the right on the political spectrum.
Most younger people tend to be very libertarian and so would be disposed to this sort of thing. If you sold it right.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...but since one of the (beneficial) effects of flatter taxation is to undo progressivity, aren't you putting yourself in the position of asking the middle of the electorate to vote for higher taxes on themselves? I may be living in the past, but I have yet to see that trick work.
. . . you exempt *net* savings and incorporate a mechanism to tax negative savings - ie money removed from investments. This would indeed be a much better system. There are people (often the mega-rich) who have huge capital but little income. Indeed, they hire flotillas of accountants and lawyers to *prove* that they have no income. As Parkinson pointed out decades ago, the tax efficient aim to have no income (only capital) during their lifetimes and no capital (only income) at their death. The whole incentive for so ordering your affairs is swept away if everything is taxed as consumption. You inherit a small fortune? No taxation of the inheritance, but you spend it and you pay taxes.
It is a plan which ticks all the boxes for the left *and* the right. It is more efficient, more socially just, and more environmental too.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If you use a yield exemption -- i.e., don't tax the return to savings -- and disallow interest deductions, then you accomplish just that over the long term: exempting net savings. (Note that over the long run, exempting savings and exempting the return to savings are the same thing.)
At least, I agree it is not difficult. I just think it needs to be noted that this is essential for the flat tax to be classified as a consumption tax. I am actually not sure that what you said incorporates all the points I made. I was saying you need to tax money that comes out of savings identically to income as well as exempting from tax money that goes into savings.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Steve Forbes pushed the Flat tax as the center piece of his campaign, good to go back and read what he said about the issue.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html
Summary of Steve Forbes'
Flat Tax Plan
America needs to take a new road, one toward an expansion future that is bigger and better than our past. That's why I'm proposing today, and will be talking about throughout my campaign, a liberation movement to take power away from Washington and put it in the hands of the people. A "Boston Tea Party," if you will, that puts an end to the taxing and spending party in Washington, DC. I mean to free the mighty American economy from political repression.
...
Agree or disagree with Forbes, he does a pretty good job of making the case for his position.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. The FairTax is:
• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity
Its benefits are as follows:
FOR INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance payback" for monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates
FOR BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets
FOR THE COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie"
increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow
IMO this is a bit unfair; and right up front, I have not declared my complete support for any candidate.
I found Giuliani's comments on Roe a bit disconcerting not for the liberal nature, which on social issues is to be expected, but the seeming pro-federalized context. Given the varied field of experts, whom irrespective of abortion opinion, say Roe is bad law, I found the comment foreboding. What other intrusive federal issues does this principal extend to?
However, I don't find Giuliani's related opine on the flat tax worthy of equal hand wringing. In fact, there is enough in the flat tax debate for me to say Giuliani's response was appropriately measured. The jury is still out with the public on this method and frankly if it was so compelling Forbes would be President.
Giuliani did not say the current system was fair or it did not require repair; quite the opposite. Yet this article skewers him and makes prescient comments about how he may look back "wistfully"; something really not supported by the facts or people jeering his flat tax comments at UNF.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
By the way, I don't recall a big outcry when Bush called the flat tax an "interesting idea" in 2004, later abandoning it for different proposals.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I likely support Romney or Thompson.
It is the self-immolation we are doing that I am suggesting that we stop.
I would vote for McCain before I would vote for Obama or Hillary.
I would work hard for anyone to stop the dhimmiecrats from carrying out their irresponsible pointless desire to declare defeat of the US and empowerment of Al Qaeda. I would fight against anyone who voted for this war and then betrayed it, no matter how elaborate their rationalization.
Eviscerating Rudy over a proposed tax system that is not even seriously on the table and is unlikely to be is disgusting.
potential nominees even before the primaries? Come on - for months, I've been hearing "let's weed them out during the primaries and then stand together in the general election". Now you're saying we shouldn't say bad things about nominees even BEFORE that?
"Self-immolation," as you refer to it, is part of the vetting process of the candidates. They are stating their positions, and we are calling them on those positions. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Once the nominee is selected, then the "self immolation" can cease and teamwork can commence.
Stop destroying. Big difference.
And writing off someone over a proposal for an idea for a study of possible legislation is destructive.
get their feelings hurt? C'mon - these are big boys. If they can't take the heat from their own party, they're gonna get crushed by the Dems. Someone made a similar point about Fred Thompson a while back - basically saying "don't whine about FDT getting criticized, because you ain't seen nothin' yet". And I agree. Every candidate has to be prepared to get the snot beat out of them, and there's no reason why we can't challenge them on any/every policy point, including tax policy. This is the same theory as military boot camp - if you can't take it here, you're gonna get killed against a real enemy.
Discuss it and ensure a more fair tax system. You may not be able to politically enforce a flat tax across the board but the public is open to ways of making the tax code simpler and fairer.
Our economy is based upon the current tax code; therefore, we can't change the system. What an idiot! If you haven't had questions about The Rooty before now, this line of thought about taxes should change that.
Certainly the country could use a discussion of the flat tax, but not until the program has been much more refined and the details far more worked out.
At present, though, with all the other pressing issues - Iraq, immigration, energy policy - I don't see the Flat tax as an issue that will galvanize the electorate enough that they will choose their President in 2008 on the basis of this issue.
By disaffecting enough voters to make Rudy, if he wins the primary, to weak to win the election.
We on the right are getting a bit too comfortable shredding each other.
I think the only people who benefit from it are sadists and democrats.
Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates.
This is so liberal on at least two levels. Yeah, I will never, ever, ever, vote for him. I promise you that.
Run like Reagan!
To suggest that American effort and ingenuity are dependent upon the current progressive-created tax system, I think is ludicrously statist.
Run like Reagan!
That's not what Rudy meant. Every asset value, from homes to shares of stock in Fortune 500 corporations, is partly based on the tax treatment of that asset. And the Flat Tax would treat most assets very differently than the current system. Home values are partly "dependent" on the mortgage interest deduction (which would be repealed under the Flat Tax), for example. Corporate book values are likewise "dependent" on remaining depreciation deductions, net operating loss carryover, excess foreign tax credits, and other tax attributes that would be wiped away by the Flat Tax. Stock prices are "dependent" on the current treatment of capital gains and dividends.
Similarly, the terms of existing business contracts are "dependent" on the tax code. When parties enter into a contract, they negotiate the terms partly based on their understanding of how those terms will affect their tax liability. If you suddenly impose a new tax system on existing contractual arrangements, you'll wreak havoc across the economy.
When Rudy said "dependent," he didn't mean the economy was good because of the tax code. He meant that the economic status quo -- from asset prices to contract terms -- are based on the tax treatment, and a sudden radical change in such tax treatment will have massive economic consequences -- both good and bad -- for everyone. Therefore, you don't jump in head first on something like this. You think through it and make sure rules can be devised so that the transition from one tax code to another is as smooth as possible.
The Republican party will be a has been if we shred each other over a radical proposed tax reform as we did over immigration.
In case anyone has not noticed, something that looks a whole lot like a sea change is happening, with solid Republican Senators bailing out left and right.
We are nearly at the point of the Legislative branch ending this war in defeat.
I suggest that we stop beating up people over their take on something that does not even exist- and likely never will exist- and start checking to see what we can do to have on to what we have.
If the Republican party is no longer a big enough tent for Rudy, etc., then the partyand the conservative causes I have voted, contributed to, and worked for over 30 years is deeper trouble than since Watergate.
I am really tired of these arguments over whose conservatism is the purest, and who should be shredded, flamed or run off because they don't measure up to some standard that no one measures up to and never has.
It is what blew up the dhimmies, and it can certainly blow us up now. I am sure most here don't notice it, but a very good Sen.- John Cornyn, who votes very straight conservative, is in big trouble in his re-election here in Texas. An Iraqi vet, who is hispanic and has been a state Senator and a democrat, is looking to come after him.
As much as I despise the Senate, long term Senators are very much realists and put their money where their mouth is in reading the tea leaves.
We need a reality check. Talking about this tax plan as a definitive weapon against Rudy is not a reality check.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
If a voter is honestly evaluating Rudy on the basis of taxes (I think some are not.), Rudy has stated that he is in favor of lowering federal taxes. Which is more practical, lowering taxes by changing the tax system, or lowering taxes, by lowering the rates and eliminating loopholes for the super wealthy?
The Republican Party is certainly big enough for persons against the proposed flat tax. If a person really wants to get a flat tax through the democratic process, they better improve on it. It is not fair for Bloomberg or Buffett to pay the same percentage as Joe Sixpack, unless all income is taxed. This deal about including only taxable income, not all income, and excluding savings and investments, is a non starter.
Let's have less taxes, less spending, and less government, but not help the super wealthy become even richer. Conservatives often criticize the federal government for trying to redistribute wealth. This flat tax redistributes wealth to the top one percent.
Its amazing to find such support for a socialist tax plan like the progressive income tax on a conservative web site. I really wouldn't have expected this.
It really doesn't matter whether the rich pay a little more or less than they do now. I don't make much money right now (college) so I don't pay much. I am actually better off right now than I would be under a flat tax, but I still want to see the tax system changed because our system is an insult to individual freedom and a free market concept.
...is that he gave money to Planned Parenthood. The tax issue is less important because he didn't say he was necessarily against it, but that such a proposal would be unrealistic.
and shouldn't be the goal of anyone else either. By taking that approach there is no incentive to succeed to the highest level. It encourages only mediocrity.
What I like about the Fair Tax is that it taps one group we have largely missed come payday. Those who "live in the shadows". Yep, the very people we just spent weeks complaining about and fighting to keep out/send back home until they can politely knock and request to come in.
While I'm sure there would be ways to avoid a Fair Tax, I just really like the idea of illegals having to pay the same taxes as everyone else when they get to the cash register.
I realize the conversation was about Flat Tax and not Fair Tax, but I really just wanted to get in on this.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. - Alexander Hamilton
It's not wise to base your position on fundamental tax reform on the question of whether a proposal would tax illegal aliens. Talk about blowing something out of proportion. If you did a pie chart breaking down which groups are responsible for what portion of total tax avoidance, illegals would be a tiny sliver.
Likewise, you shouldn't base your position on fundamental tax reform primarily on how it will affect the top 1%.
According to the Washington Times, Guilianis said he was opposed to the FAIR tax, not the FLAT tax.
Republican 2008 presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani heard jeers Saturday when he explained his opposition to elimination of the federal income tax and replacing it with a so-called "fair tax" based on consumption.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070709/NATIO...
I won't be voting for Guiliani in any event, but we should be sure what he actually said before hanging him. On this particular issue (assuming the Washington Times is correct) I would actually favor his position.
While I recognize the theoretical advantages of a consumption tax I have two concerns with such a tax, and granted Bush's well intentioned meddling with the current income tax somewhat moots my second point.
1) I fear the consumption tax will be implemented as a hidden tax like the European VAT and then the Dems will demagogue the greedy manufacturers while it is really that VAT that drives the prices so high.
2) A consumption tax places eforcement locus on retailers only. With fewer people potentially at risk of audits, concern for the rights of those being audited will be diminished.
I would be in favor of a flat tax, with taxable dollars starting at the first dollar you make. I would exclude savings and investment revenue from the current 1040 taxable income calculation.
Why is it Rudy's opponents feel the need to take everything he says and blow it out of proportion trying to turn conservatives against him?
OK, we get it. You don't like Mr. Guiliani's abortion position.
Rudy also has some important things to say in the area of national defense and by trying to eat one of our own, you end up making the other side stronger. Great plan.
This doesn't even compare to Giuliani's refusal to embrace the truth about Roe being a horrible, constitutionally unfounded decision. Giuliani could use his moderate-on-social-issues (which of course is media speak for liberal on social issues) credibility to educate the public about Roe, and point out that its reversal would not ban abortion as many on the Left like to falsely suggest. He could point out how it is a terrible decision w/o any constitutional merit.
Instead he stands by his indefensible idea that taxpayers should fund abortion, and the ridiculous notion that a 'strict constructionist' judge could be either pro-Roe or anti-Roe. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I hear that nonsense, it makes me think that a President Giuliani would intentionally nominate a phony conservative like O'Connor, or worse, even a Souter.
Add to Rudy's list of wrong positions on issues that define being a Republican, his opposition to the line item veto.
I'm not sure what party Rudy is running for the nomination from, but if he thinks he's promoting Republican values, he's seriously mistaken.
_______________________________
None of the Above !