First off, I’d like to say that last night’s GOP debate was the most entertaining yet. I think it is important that primary debates be substantive and that the candidates challenge each other on their weaknesses. This is how the candidates, which (hopefully) includes the eventual nominee, improve themselves and their responses in preparation for the general election title match.

I do take exception, however, to outright dishonesty and deception being paraded as fact. This has unfortunately become a feature of Michele Bachmann’s campaign, and was on full display in last night’s debate. The other candidates took exception to Herman Cain’s “9-9-9″ tax plan on the basis that it would impose a new federal sales tax without repealing existing revenue streams. Bachmann took the criticism one step further. It is that last step that lands her into the outright dishonesty category.

Bachmann extended her criticism of Cain’s plan by claiming that the “business” tax portion of the plan was actually a value added tax (or “VAT” tax) masquerading in disguise. According to Bachmann, then, Cain’s plan not only creates a national sales tax as a ‘new’ revenue stream, but also creates a European-style VAT tax, a tax widely accepted to be one of the worst offenders of open and honest taxation transparency.

The only problem is that this is an outright lie. Apparently, Bachmann knows that it is a lie. The “business tax” portion of Cain’s plan is absolutely not a VAT tax. The overall Cain plan proposes a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent national sales tax, and a 9 percent business tax. The business tax portion of Cain’s plan absolutely does not resemble a VAT tax. In order to demonstrate this point, it is important to understand what a VAT tax actually is, and what Cain’s business tax is designed to replace.

A VAT tax is essentially a sales tax, with the caveat that it is levied at every stage of production, on the increase in value of production, instead of on the final retail product. For a detailed comparison of VAT to other types of taxes, see Wikipedia’s article on the subject. In the United States, in most states the end consumer pays a state sales tax on the final retail product at the checkout counter. Manufacturers and other ‘production line’ businesses do not pay sales tax on wholesale purchases. For example, a gas station that buys a carton of cigarettes at Costco or Sam’s Club for resale at their operation location is exempt from paying the sales tax.

As an example of what a VAT tax involves, consider R.J. Reynolds, manufacturer of cigarettes. Hypothetically, R.J. Reynolds purchases a pound of tobacco for $5.00, filters for $10.00 and paper to roll cigarettes for $1.00. These products are used to create a carton of cigarettes, which is then sold to Costco or Sam’s Club for $20.00. The VAT tax would be paid by R.J. Reynolds on the $4.00 profit realized during the manufacturing and eventual sale of the cigarettes. $4.00 is considered to be the “value added” to the product by R.J. Reynolds. In Europe, this VAT tax is levied on top of the consumer’s end-product sales tax and the corporate income tax on net profits (for which the VAT tax is a deduction).

Cain’s “9-9-9″ business tax is absolutely not a VAT tax. Stated succinctly, Cain proposes that businesses pay a flat 9 percent tax on “net” income, basically calculated as gross revenue minus raw material costs, with other deductions. The only difference between today’s thirty five percent corporate income tax and Cain’s 9 percent business tax is that certain deductible expenses would be eliminated, the most important of which is payroll expenses. However, the basic structure of the income tax on businesses remains intact. The tax is NOT collected on inter-business sales, but rather is reported and collected in the same way as the personal income tax; the main difference being that a different deduction rule set applies. While VAT taxes look just like sales taxes, Cain’s business tax does not. It looks just like an income tax.

Most importantly, however, is to consider what Cain’s business tax replaces. Cain’s plan is designed to replace the destructive thirty five percent corporate income tax.

While it is legitimate to criticize Cain’s decision to propose that payroll expenses be non-deductible, it is absolutely and fundamentally dishonest to characterize the business tax as a value-added tax, and then imply that this would be levied on top of the income tax and sales tax. Cain’s business tax would replace the income tax, and businesses typically don’t pay sales taxes on production-line purchases. Fundamentally, VAT taxes are reported and collected using entirely different mechanisms.

Michele Bachmann’s disturbing history of distorting and outright lying about her opponents’ records should be denounced in the strongest terms. Like Cain said at the debate, “apples and oranges.”

(cross-post)

Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah have joined forces to advocate a compelling solution to the next major legislative battle over raising the national debt ceiling. Both lawmakers are demanding that any vote to increase the debt ceiling be conditioned on amending the United States Constitution to require that Congress balance the budget. This is not just a sensible permanent solution to our current fiscal crisis, it is a political winner. Republicans, conservatives, and tea party activists should examine the implications of this proposal and begin the grassroots campaign to ensure the outcome.

One of the most important legislative battles this year will be over how — or whether — to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. It is no secret that our country is careening towards an economic cliff of monstrous proportions. With news of the Congressional Budget Office’s recent projections – that the single-year deficit for FY-2011 will reach nearly $1.5 trillion – one cannot help but feel a mounting sense of urgency. Indeed, The Heritage Foundation’s budget analysis projects permanent yearly deficits of between $1 and $2 trillion dollars as far as the eye can see.

Read More →

It is truly amazing to me that most of the talking heads on national television and in national publications are amazed, – amazed! – that there is actually a debate over whether or not to raise the federal government’s debt limit. This is continued proof that these people simply don’t understand what exactly it is that is bubbling up from the American grassroots, sweeping the state legislatures and governorships, and ultimately manifesting itself in Congress.

As Dan McLaughlin rightly points out, this debate is not just about revenue and expenditures. It is ultimately a debate about the role of the federal government in our free nation. As conservatives and tea party activists, we know that this debate is only the first in a series of battles that will define national domestic policy for decades to come. The incoming freshman class in the House of Representatives knows well the importance of this first battle.

The outcome, however, will be dependent on how it is framed in the public’s mind’s eye. If it is perceived as a hostile Alinskian attempt to intentionally bring about economic ruin in an effort to impose an extreme right-wing agenda, we will surely lose. The left is already hard at work framing this issue as being a coup d’etat by a lunatic tea party movement that wants to cut its nose off to spite its face:

Read More →

Over the past week, nearly 3,000 men and women of the Florida Army National Guard returned to the United States, concluding a yearlong overseas deployment to Kuwait and Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn. The men and women of Florida’s 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team will demobilize at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and are expected to be released from active duty in time to rejoin their friends and families before Christmas. The 53rd IBCT has a distinguished service history including deployments in support of World War II, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn, among others.

This deployment, officially named “Operation Tomahawk” but unofficially known as “OIF ’10″ by service-members, was the largest deployment of the Florida Army National Guard since World War II. Although the active duty portion of the mission officially occurred between January 2, 2010 and December 15, 2010, Florida guardsmen conducted multiple annual training periods and extended drill weekends over the course of 2009 to train for the mission and most won’t be released from active duty until just prior to Christmas 2010.

Read More →

I am getting more and more frustrated when I see conservatives, Republicans and others debating the Democrats on the terms defined by the Democrats, using language set by the Democrats. Guys, language matters. One of the most basic rules of debate is to build subtle assumptions into your statements and arguments that lead your opponent to accept certain premises that benefit your position. The Democrats are expert at this, and we’ve been stepping into their traps repeatedly.

I’m not saying that nobody is out there fighting to set the terms of the debate. There are talking heads on TV and commentators that do in fact fight on this front. We are losing the battle, though, because too many people accept the language used by the Democrats, and thus unwittingly admit the assumptions and premises built therein.

Read More →

The U.S. Senate today held hearings on the question of repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy enacted and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. These hearings follow the November 30 release by the Pentagon of its long-awaited report on the subject. Today, Senators heard testimony from, among others, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General Cater F. Ham, and Pentagon chief counsel Jeh Johnson.

Notoriously absent from the discussion, however, was the point of view of those who would deal most closely and immediately with the ramifications and challenges of elimination of the DADT policy: the officers and noncommissioned officers serving at the company level – that is, closest to the troops. This article is authored from the perspective of a company grade commissioned officer currently serving in an infantry unit at the tail end of a year-long deployment in a combat theater of operations.

Over a year ago my unit transitioned from a traditional infantry structure and mission (in which it maintained an all-male composition) to a mixed-gender structure to perform a branch-neutral mission (convoy escort operations in Iraq). The lessons of this deployment in managing the many challenges of a mixed-gender composition in a deployed environment are instructive and should inform on the question of DADT. Ultimately, it is my recommendation that the DADT law not be repealed or, if it is, that open homosexuals be subject to the same prohibition on service in combat arms that restricts such service by females. The reasoning behind this recommendation follows.

Read More →

I am going to try something new in this diary and I hope it works. I am posting a debate that raged on over the course of about five and a half hours on Facebook between myself (a Floridian) and two northeast liberals, one of whom (Vanessa) is a friend of mine. They are from the New York / New Jersey area. I’ve modified name details but otherwise left the entire conversation untouched, typos, grammar, and all. I am very interested in hearing any thoughts or comments about this debate, including if I’m totally off base in my argument.

I don’t claim to be any kind of great theologist. However, in my quest to discover the truth of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going, I took the time to learn about science, atheism, and different religions. So although I am not an “expert” in theology, I do know something about religion having repented and been baptized in the name of Christ.

Most striking to me was the fact that these individuals went to such extreme lengths to torture plain and obvious facts to fit a patently untrue narrative of reality. I just simply don’t understand how people claim, with a straight face, that Islam is some great peaceful religion? Maybe it is just me, but it seems like a good chunk of the violence around the globe is perpetrated in the name of that religion, with the support of its religious texts and teachings.

From Vanessa’s Facebook Wall:

Vanessa: Sarah Palin in North Korea Gaffe
6 hours ago via Friendly for iPad

[scorpio0679]: Just like Obama admits he is a Muslim, right? The clip you link itself clearly shows that she simply misspoke. If this is all you have against Palin, I fear for The One’s hopes of a second term. Obama Admits “My Muslim Faith”
6 hours ago

Read More →

Democrats are expected to exhibit the symptoms of Palin Rage Syndrome. As conservatives, we battle the disease quite effectively when it rears its ugly head on the other side of the aisle. For example, when Richard Cohen of the Washington Post penned a transparently unabashed snowjob hit piece on ex-governor Sarah Palin, it was swiftly met with a two-by-four to the face by Lori Ziganto.

However, I can’t help but feel more upset about the exhibition of PRS by those of our supposed allies in the GOP. First, Mona Charen at National Review Online takes a page out of the Left’s playbook and attacks Palin’s supposed lack of experience. Now, via HotAir.com, it appears that even our newly minted star Chris Christie is developing PRS:

Read More →

Sometimes the people over at National Review just seem to completely miss the point. And then today they publish a commentary by Andrew C. McCarthy which takes aim at Speaker-elect John Boehner’s support for banning earmarks. Can you be any more tone deaf?

The debt is what the election was about: the growth-killing tab that runs up another $4 billion every day . . . Yet, Mr. Boehner is focused like a laser on . . . earmarks. They are, he says, “a symbol of a broken Washington.” Okay, but they are also less than one 1 percent of our unfathomable $3.8 trillion budget. The problem is not the symbols, it is the broken Washington.

McCarthy’s overall point is that we are headed for fiscal ruin on the gravy train of relentless spending by the federal government. Thank you, Captain Obvious. It wasn’t necessary to make that point by denigrating a major grassroots victory in the process. Opposition to earmarking was almost universally a deal-breaker issue for tea party activists and candidates across the country.

Read More →

Peggy Noonan’s piece in the Wall Street Journal today is certainly turning heads.  Despite being completely enamored by The One in the 2008 election, it appears that Ms. Noonan is having second thoughts.  From start to finish, this is one of the best post-election commentaries that I’ve read.

The first half of the commentary tears at the very soul of Barack Obama in a way that only pure unadulterated truth can.

The second half, however, which addresses the shortcomings of certain Tea Party candidates, deserves further discussion:

Read More →