Rick Perry has issued an economic plan that has a large tax cut as its centerpiece. The tax cut seems to have been designed so as to enable Perry to say that his proposal is a “flat tax” while also avoiding one of the political disadvantages of the flat tax: the fact that most versions of it would increase tax payments for many millions of people. Perry’s plan holds taxpayers harmless by letting them choose whether to file under the new 20 percent flat tax or the current system.
That flat tax would, like the current system, allow deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes. That last feature is disappointing: It means that under Perry’s plan, Texans would continue to subsidize the political mistakes of Illinois voters. But the flat tax is in other respects structured well. It eliminates the present system’s bias against saving. It also includes generous personal exemptions that partly offset the current bias against parents.
Advertisement
No detailed analysis of how much revenue the plan would raise has been done, but it seems highly likely that the number would be much lower than under the current system, and lower than Perry’s team is claiming. Governor Perry has already had to put an optimistic gloss on his proposed spending cuts to get his numbers to balance. If his revenue estimates are also too optimistic then the net effect of his proposals will be to make our already precarious budgetary position worse. The personal accounts Perry wants to introduce to Social Security will also make the budget deficit worse for many years, which is a bigger problem now than it would have been a decade ago.
But Perry’s economic plan also includes some real steps forward on spending. Perry has embraced the concept of block-granting Medicaid to the states, which now appears to be a consensus position of the party. More daringly, he says that the age of eligibility for Social Security and perhaps Medicare should be raised. He suggests that he would convert Medicare into a system of payments for senior citizens to purchase the health coverage of their choice, which if properly structured could make for a much more competitive health-care market. Having put forward a plan similar to Rep. Paul Ryan’s, Perry deserves credit for being more specific on entitlement cuts than Governor Romney: but the large tax cut and the personal accounts he advocates also mean he has a higher bar to clear.
Like Romney’s economic plan, Perry’s has nothing to say about housing or the financial industry, and not much to say about health care for young and middle-aged people. On the subjects he has chosen to tackle — taxes, spending, and regulation — Perry wants to go in the right direction: toward less of each.
But his plan reads like a second draft. He has chosen to avoid the political liabilities of a flat tax by forgoing its distinctive advantages of simplicity and low compliance costs. The hybrid tax system he would create would in no important sense be flat, and Perry seems unwilling to spell out the cuts necessary to get spending in rough balance with the amount of revenue it would collect. Republicans should try for something better.
Rick Perry's plan is flawed because there is zero evidence that he actually, fundamentally supports a flat tax.
This is nothing but a floundering pander from a class warfare huckster from Texas who is down to a whopping 6% support in the latest nationwide polls and badly trails both Romney and Cain in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida.
Okay, you're recognizing that the discussion is moving in the right direction and that we have made some progress. We have a long way to go yet. Let's keep pushing, keep the momentum building, but let's not move too far too fast. Though we don't have a lot of time, I worry that we risk triggering a powerful, albeit unreasonable, unsustainable - suicidal even - backlash if too many sacred cows get slaughtered too quick.
Keep going, Editors. There soon won't be a single candidate of ours the DNC can't cut an ad against and say - TRUTHFULLY - that, "Even the right wing National Review says Candidate X's plan is terrible!"
Between the right-wing pundits that chew up candidates, debates hosted by liberals and an idiotic primary system, it is no wonder we are left with
cursing our luck and holding our noses in the general election.
Gosh I love your name! I see you picked all your heroes but just between us, which is your favorite Leftie and how is Cynthia doing with the death of Mommar?
"No detailed analysis of how much revenue the plan would raise has been done, but it seems highly likely that the number would be much lower than under the current system, and lower than Perry’s team is claiming."
Isn't one of the key ideas in lowering the tax rate that the economy will grow and taxes collected actually increase?
That would make revenue neutral, by definition, always anti-tax cut.
Ok that's fine so long as you guys support Cain with the same vigor as you do Romney. An unrelated but significant matter is the fact that Romney will lose 10% or more of the Christian Right which will add up to a loss next Nov. It will be the unkindest cut of all
I will vote for Rick Perry in the primaries. He is a Christian, he is pro-life, he is anti homosexual special rights, he is for small government, he is pro business growth. He has experience as a political executive and has a record of being closer to the Tea Party ideals. I like Herman Cain's positions, but he doesn't have any political experience and his actions show him to be a rookie in the race. I think it is great to be a business man, but I wouldn't vote for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Donald Trump for president and they have been more successful. I like the positions of many pastors, but they are not presidential material. There is more to the presidency than a slogan and some conservative ideas. You need to be a fighter and know your way around the political arena.
"No detailed analysis of how much revenue the plan would raise has been done, but it seems highly likely that the number would be much lower than under the current system, and lower than Perry’s team is claiming"
No detailed analysis, yet you figurative flap yer gums anyway?
The rest of your piece is the same shopworn imbecility inherent in conservatives and their ideology; yet, you have nothing better.
Let me hazard a guess; which, by the way is what the editors of this tired, old rag, practicing the same tired, old rhetoric, with no pretense of knowledge about any particular thing: you don't have a better plan.
Negative nabobs, prattling on about nothing, and offering nothing in the way of a direction to take the country. Can't even win over the GOP with your ideas can you?
The fact that you forcibly place larger words into your otherwise fourth-grade insults in an attempt to flex vocabulary is a ruse that is easily seen through, my friend. Getting good use of your thesaurus, I see.
The question you should be asking is, what are the Democrats offering? More taxes? More disincentives for hard work? More legislation to shut down opposition in the disguise of fairness? Other than enlarging the leviathan known as the federal government to become a more inefficient, money-wasting machine...what are the Democrats offering? Lovely how your party "sides with the 99%", only to pocket millions from GE and return the favor by providing the exemptions that allow them to pay absolutely zero in taxes.
See, true conservatives believe in free-market capitalism. People like you believe in crony corporatism under the guise of European socialism. Put down your thesaurus, and pick up a book on economics not written by Keynes.
I'm a bit confused here, are you supporting this plan? Or are you just using it to flame conservatives.
Hmmm.
By the by, do YOU have a tax reform plan lying around your house that we can use? Us Conservatives are obviously busy "practicing the same tired, old rhetoric, with no pretense of knowledge about any particular thing".
Let me tell you something bub, "you don't have a better plan."
What I really like about this plan is that it would be a strong first step that could realistically be accomplished during Perry's first term, and also points towards greater reforms in the future. It launches some pretty serious reforms without picking fights with interest groups we are going to need in our corner.
Could it be better? Sure, but most of the potential improvements would be electoral liabilities that would have little chance at making the final legislation anyway. This looks a solid balance between bold and practical.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can fail to see that Perry's plan is a) more complex than the current tax code; and b) will raise less revenue.
Surely these two conclusions are obvious. Since his plan includes all of the current tax code, plus an additional option for a flat tax, it is necessarily more complex. And because taxpayers may choose either plan, and it is quite reasonable to assume that individual taxpayers will choose the plan by which they pay less tax, total revenues will be less.
I cannot support any plan that increases the complexity of the tax code. Surely conservatives deserve better!
