Will 9-9-9 Hurt the Middle Class?

There's a lot of mish-mashed conservative talk out there about Herman Cain’s proposed 9-9-9 tax plan being a tax-hike for the middle class.  The latest came from Rick Santorum in last night's debate, in which he suggested that cutting corporate and income taxes to a flat 9% while applying a federal sales tax of 9% would equate to a tax increase for 84% of Americans, as reported in a recent tax analysis.  Exacerbating this travesty, he suggests, is that Cain’s plan allows no deductions for poverty stricken families and the middle class.

In trying to discredit Herman Cain, Rick Santorum discredits himself- by regurgitating scare tactics and broad, untrue statements akin to Obama's promise in 2008 to "cut taxes from 95% of American families."  

First, let's do some basic math.  Utilizing the current marginal tax rates, a family earning $75,000 annually finds itself in the 25% tax bracket.  With the progressive application of federal income tax, this tax is actually ~15% of wages.  This is 3% less than Cain’s suggested 18% that would be paid in federal income tax on wages earned and sales tax on items purchased.  Sounds like Herman might be giving the middle class a raw deal, huh?  Well, consider the payroll taxes that wage earners currently pay, and this same family will see an additional 7.65% of their wages garnished for Social Security and Medicare, for a grand total of 22.65%.  Cain’s suggested plan replaces these costs in the simplistic 9-9-9 plan, and this 18% is 4.65% lower than this number.

If I know anything about which number is lower than the other number, Cain’s 18% is a reduction in federal taxes for middle-class Americans, not a tax-hike.     

Second, consider that high corporate taxes account for added consumer cost, as companies generally pass these levied corporate taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices.**  By reducing corporate taxes, prices will naturally fall for competing companies in multiple areas of production.  You don't have to call it "cutting taxes for the middle class" if that doesn't agree with you.  Let's just call it, "a plan to let the middle class keep more of their hard-earned money."

Finally, it’s clear that Santorum didn’t think through his accusation that the plan “eliminates” deductions.  Cain’s website clearly states that deductions on both income and sales tax will be applied via “empowerment zones” to lessen the burden on those who might need such support.  Herman kindly reminded him of this on the stage, another well-placed nail in the coffin containing Santorum’s presidential ambition.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan does have some questions surrounding it.  For example, the aboliton of current tax code would decimate the accounting industry, harming growth and GDP while costing American jobs.  Another concern I have is that retirees, who generally keep income low to avoid higher taxation of retirement accounts, might see increases in taxes paid, which could harm their retirement outlook.  But how are we to address these questions and find solutions if Herman Cain is constantly having to deflect untrue claims that 9-9-9 amounts to a huge tax-hike?

William Sullivan

** Argument supporting this economic reality can be found here.

Retro Debate- Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton

Very interesting video, from 1994.



You've got to hand it to Slick Willy.  First of all, I give him credit for honestly fielding and addressing the question.  At least Clinton tries to debate the numbers before crawling back into the bastion of party talking points, like "balanced approach," and "fair shares," which is more than we could ever expect of our current president.  Second, he sure knows how to work an audience.  When Clinton's argument confirms that HillaryCare would increase cost for businesses across America, what does he do?  He cracks a joke, poking fun at his notorious love of food, and suggests that the healthcare mandates would only add 2% to Cain's company's bottom line.  And that's no big deal, right?  Just pass it on to consumers, they'll pay it!

Sound familiar? If you have a Bank of America account, it should. A recent federal mandate levied by those lawyers in Washington (and unsurprisingly, spearheaded by Democrats) has negatively impacted BoA's profitability, so now we have to pay $5 a month to use our debit cards. Administrative costs have been passed on to consumers.  No big deal either, I guess. 

But once the laughter from Clinton's joke subsides, Cain explains that this "2%" figure, and his numbers in general, are all wrong.  The burden to the company would be much higher than Clinton estimates.  But shortly after, Clinton skates out of this moment with minimal damage by suggesting that if Cain would only send his numbers to the White House office, Slick Willy'd straighten him out.  Cain then went on to send over those numbers, and subsequently authored an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and is credited as a major factor in the collapse of support for HillaryCare. 

Personally, I'd relish an opportunity to see Herman Cain debate Barack Obama, and have become more excited at the prospect after seeing this exchange with Bill Clinton, who is, in my estimation, far more skilled in debate than our current teleprompter junkie in the Oval Office.  It would be an absolute evisceration of Obama's platform. One guy is a seasoned businessman and mathematician that understands real-world fiscal operation, and the other guy is a college professor and politician that understands the socialistic concepts that he read about in some books. One guy has created geniune wealth, while the other has only manipulated it to satisfy his radical ideology.

Every four years, we bicker about which representative we should select from among the putrid cesspool that is American politics.  I, for one, find Herman Cain to be a breath of fresh air, and miles from ordinary.
 
William Sullivan

Lawrence O’Donnell Plunges the Left to New Depths

The most disgraceful interview I have ever seen.  (Full video here.)



Herman Cain completely destroys Lawrence O'Donnell on every race-baiting issue thrown his way. And on the issue of Vietnam? Cain worked with the Department of the Navy on ballistic missile testing during that era as a mathematician. Cain explains that in the later years, when he would have been eligible to serve, he entered the lottery, and would have served had he been selected. 

Wait for it- O'Donnell suggests that he should have just joined rather than enter a lottery, and brings up John Kerry as a reference for bravery, for what Cain should have done! A leftist media darling Kerry may be, but loved by the military he is not- I guess that's what happens when you slather lies to incriminate your fellow soldiers and sensationalize your political platform after your service, and then take the national stage to say that the military is comprised of uneducated simpletons.

(Apparently, a military not without a sense of humor, though.  See below)


O'Donnell says he is offended for the soldiers that decided to go to war while Cain simply made himself available to go to war. Wondering what O’Donnell did during Vietnam? Curious? He was in college and got a deferment- and this is the platform he’s using to scold Cain for avoiding the war. Is that really any more righteous? You’ve got to think, is being a hypocrite is a positive trait for American progressives?

Better yet, poll the military: ask who they'd rather have as president and commander-in-chief. A lucid businessman who served our military as a ballistic missile tech for the Navy, or a rabble-rouser with no connection to the military whatsoever.  We all know the answer to this question, don't we?

What a stupid, irresponsible accusation, from a stupid, irresponsible man. I'd say he should be fired, but he currently has the lowest rated show on the major networks in his time slot, so maybe he'll just go away naturally. 

Nonetheless, Herman Cain continues to impress.

William Sullivan

Janeane Garofalo Waxes Stupid About Racism... Again

Forgive me, but I must indulge.  One school of thought is that addressing Janeane Garofalo's stupidity empowers her.  That the mere mention of it gives her words the power of sensationalism, thereby lending some sort of credence to her wild and senseless rhetoric.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought. 

True, only the zaniest of the zany liberals even take notice of Garofalo.  The rest of us generally do ignore her, as we would ignore the crackhead that we encounter on the street corner, pacing about as he incoherently babbles on about God knows what.  But the sheer inanity of Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo's recent little pow-wow sends this conversation to an other-worldly level.  Stupidity the likes of which can only be cultivated by the prevailing pseudo-intellectualism of modern progressives.

According to Garofalo, conservatives have a good reason to back Herman Cain.  She says that conservatives support a black presidential candidate because they are trying to hide their racism against black people.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert," she says. "And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Let it be known- this is not the first stupid thing Janeane Garofalo has said regarding racism in America.  I once heard her vehemently deny that the Democratic Party offered the staunchest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In her mind, Republicans are invariably the bad ones, not Democrats.  Always have been, always will be, "truth" and "history" be damned.  Lousy God and gun clingers.  Fostering equal rights for minorities, how dare they!

But, to be sure, this rant is even more ridiculous.  The meat of her argument is that racist conservatives don't like Barack Obama because is a black man, but they love Herman Cain because he is a black man.

If you're scratching your head at that, don't.  All you need to know, Garofalo says, is that our country is more racist now than ever before- now that we have a black president, "how could it not be?"  Of course, this black president won a popular election at a national level, signifying "less racism," but don't get hung up on that- such cohesion only mucks up Garofalo's logic.  So you probably also don't want to consider that for the first time in history, significant swathes of diametrically opposing political parties in America are both considering a black man for leadership. 

But hey, I guess she figures with eyeglass frames and an elitist tenor that thick, Americans would just believe any damn thing she says without such considerations.

So what are we to make of Garofalo, really?  It's not hard.  She's just following Spencer Ackerman's formula that came to light in the Journolist scandal, where he suggested that calling Republicans racist is the best way to discredit them: 

Take one of them [on the right] — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

[...]

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

Beyond this, she proves herself to be something of a racist.  So focused is she on the fact that Herman Cain is black that she finds it impossible that conservatives could support him based upon his ideas, or the substance of his achievements, or the character he exhibits.  No, they must be just looking at him as a "black guy to be supported so they can hide white guilt."

And perhaps the funniest thing of all?  She derides FoxNews and others as having "zero credibility"- in the very moment that she mounted the edifice of relevance and took a 10-story swan dive right into the pavement. 

And I loved every second of it too much to not comment.

William Sullivan

Video found here.