This is the sort of thing that I like to hear from Rick Perry: “The flat tax will unleash growth, but growth’s not enough. We must put a stop to this entitlement culture that risks the financial solvency of this country for future generations. I mean, the red flags are alarming.” Governor Perry’s disposition is more surly than sunny, and maybe that’s a net loss so far as the general electorate is concerned. But, as for myself, the current state of fiscal affairs in this country has me more in a Book of Jeremiah kind of mood than in an Arthur Laffer mood, as much as I admire that gentleman.
I had a chance to talk with some of the Perry gang yesterday about his proposal, and I had mixed feelings. I had hoped for something more robust on the spending side, with fewer gimmicks (the balanced-budget amendment, etc.) and less wishful thinking. At 20 percent, the optional flat tax will be attractive to relatively few U.S. households, and I’d have strongly preferred to see the exemptions for mortgage-interest payments and the like repealed across the board, rather than only for households earning in excess of $500,000.
But here’s the thing that gets my attention: Governor Perry has some pretty serious entitlement-reform measures in here: Raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare benefits, changing the indexing formula to CPI rather than wages, giving younger workers at least a partial opt-out into private accounts, block-granting Medicaid, putting Medicare recipients directly in control of their own spending—this would be huge. A Republican president who got nothing else done in a four-year term would be a smashing success in my book if he achieved that kind of entitlement reform. I expect Perry to emphasize taxes, but the entitlement measures are the meat of the Perry proposal, in my view, though there’s a lot of good gravy: repealing Dodd-Frank, procedural reform for spending and regulating, repealing section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, expanding the “Galveston model” (another Social Security opt-out) to most government employees, etc.
Yes, I, too am inclined to scoff at promises to cut $100 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, as though that were something to call an achievement, and I doubt very much that Governor Perry’s proposal would produce an actual balanced budget in the foreseeable future. But getting a big piece of entitlement reform done would be a major victory that would set the fiscal Armageddon clock back significantly. And beginning the process of flattening and simplifying the tax code is worthwhile as well, though the Perry plan does less along those lines than I would like.
I’ll have a longer and more detailed discussion of the Perry proposal in the next issue of National Review. Did you know that NRO has a fortnightly print magazine, to which you can subscribe and read articles that are not available online? Like my profile of Ron Paul and his band of merry libertarians?
Are you out of your flippin' mind? You want to put someone like my 88 year old mother in charge of her own Medicare spending? How do you know she's still competent? How do her kids know? What if she doesn't have any kids?
Perhaps she ought to own a handgun too. Parkinson's or not, you never know when a gun in a shaky hand might deter a burglary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB:
I'd recommend a shotgun at her age.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRather a rude comment, Mr Williamson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLighten up, Francis
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenot rude at all, sound advice. at an advanced age eyesight and hand-eye coordination arent what they used to be. a shotgun is perfect for home defense even for a person w/ a sound body.
and mikey just wanted to toss some bombs, and rather lame ones at that. look mikey, just because you and your family are too lazy or ungrateful to care for your elderly family members is no reason to force the rest of us under the govt thumb. show a little familial responsibility ya liberal deadbeat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCab, I thought Kevin was suggesting suicide, too, at first, but he's talking about home defense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone upvote: Kevin's snark must be duly rewarded. :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike B is against the 2nd Amendment, Mr. Williamson.
He'd have her limited to her pepper spray.
Pepper spray and a death panel. Isn't love grand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love this comment! It just reeks of "people are too bloody dumb to make decisions for themselves. The government should do it!!!"
You're wonderful Mike. Keep it up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo why don't you go help your own mother?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne other thing. You wrote, "How do her kids know? (she's competent)"
So you really would trust some govt bureaucracy to determine this over you and your siblings and family doctors?
Wow.
And if you don't have the sense to judge your own family members we're supposed to trust your advice on how to structure the federal government?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhaddya mean, "go"?
My mother gets taken to doctors regularly. (That's what happens to 88 year olds.) They treat her, and she leaves. No money stuff.
Williamson's snark is cover for "I have no real answer."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"My mother gets taken to doctors regularly."
Why the passive voice, I wonder?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiberals don't get their hands dirty caring for their own families---that's what government is for!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour 88 year old mother doesn't have any kids?
More to your question: Is government competent enough to be in charge of her Medicare spending? How do you know? How do her kids know? What about the money in her bank account? Is she or the government more competent to spend it? What about the food in her fridge? How do her kids know that she won't just eat cold Reese's Pieces, thereby depriving herself of the nutrients in, um, that kale in the back?
We should just plug in this hypothetical, your-mom-like 88 year old woman to a nutritious slurry and hook her up to the Matrix. There, she'll be safe from all the things that threaten your-mom-types, thanks to Uncle Sam. Freedom is for those under 80! Or male!
P.S. I'd like my star now, please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd trust your mother over the tender mercies of the government any day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB, you know you could take care of it. My sister and I have had that talk about our mother who is only in her 70s and will probably need one of us to do that when if my father precedes her.
Why is it the responsibility of everyone else in America to make sure your mother's care is watched over.
You've made multiple claims about how well you've done in life and want to give more. Have you ever heard the saying, "charity begins at home"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerb, if you had to bet big money on whether I am actively involved in caring for my mother, taking her shopping and to the doctor, calling every day, bringing her to family events, and -- put yer tax hat on -- providing more than half her support, where would you lay your chips?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on your comments, not at all (after all, you're afraid of her having to handle her own Medicare instead of someone in the gov't which implies to me you don't have the time) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about the generic "my mother" and not your mother specifically.
Which leads me to ask: if you're actively involved in her care and would be willing to help her with finances if she has issues not only of amounts but management why do you assume the average person is incapable of doing so and thus this is a horrid plan.
If the average person can't, how can the gov't do better when it is, gasp, made up of average people as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do help her. What makes you think I'm an average person?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse