The Fred Thompson Tax Plan

There’s a lot there to like.

Let’s go through it:

Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts.

1. Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
2. Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
3. Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
4. Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savings plans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
5. Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
6. Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.

All good stuff so far.  Bush’s tax cuts have really helped the economy, and making them permanent will keep the economy happy.

 Permanently Repeal the Death Tax.

Excellent.  You shouldn’t be taxed twice on your money.

 Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Now that the AMT is hitting people who aren’t considered “rich” anymore, it makes sense to either change it or remove it entirely.

Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. 

And where does that money go?  To the UBER RICH, of course.  (And that means Democrats!)

I kid, of course.  It gets reinvested into the economy!  Better than being flushed down the government moneyhole.

 Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing.

 Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules.

Both would do wonders for small business.

 Expand Taxpayer Choice.

This is the only part of the plan I’m not entirely enamored with, although it’s better than what we currently have.  Effectively it’s “pay income tax like it normally goes OR pay a flat tax”.  It’s like the old square on the Monopoly board where your Income Tax was 10% of the money you had or $200 (if only it were that simple!).  I don’t like it because it’s a cop out.  Fiscal conservatives have been after a Flat Tax for a long time, and what Fred has in his tax proposal is a good start.  But homeowners aren’t given an incentive to select the flat tax so long as they have a mortgage, because with the Flat Tax there are no deductions for mortgage interest.   If there’s one deduction that people really want, it’s the mortgage interest deduction because it helps people buy a house and live the dream.

Flat tax doesn’t account for it.  But otherwise, it’s great for single people who rent (which the current system is not good for) or people who have small deductions.

Fred missed an opportunity here.  The Flat Tax can allow some deductions, like for mortgage, if it’s built in.  Go ahead, allow the mortgage deduction and child-related expenses, but toss every other deduction that’s out there.  If you simplify the tax code to a Flat Tax with minimal deduction, there’s no reason to have the staffing of the IRS as it’s been with the current tax code.  Reducing the number of IRS accountants frees up government money and reduces overhead and bureaucracy.  So why not go whole hog?

But this is the kind of thing I like to see from candidates– plans.  Not a nebulous “what I would do if I were Prez” type of BS.  I’m talking steps to a tax plan.  Steps to reducing government.  Changes that need to be made at certain levels.  And for goodness sake, don’t say stupid things like “No Muslims in my cabinet”, Mitt.

Rudy’s Dirty Little Secret?

Looks like Rudy was hiding tabs for trips to the Hamptons for his illicit affair with his then-mistress Judith Nathan by charging them to lesser-known city agencies.

Rudy’s been a solid guy on crime. He’s good with finances, too. But I never really liked the way he’s run his personal life (he ditched his wife after he recovered from cancer). And now I like him even less.

More coverage:  Hot Air

The GOP race is Newtered.

Newt Gingrich says he won’t seek the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination. I like Newt’s politics and ideology, but he’s as polarizing as Hillary. Nomination of Newt would guarantee failure in 2008, so it’s good he’s stepping aside.

I’m still waiting for the GOP to go on the attack against the DNC. All of the Democratic candidates are out there being horrible, and their leaders in Congress are viewed with contempt by most people. In addition, their buddies at MoveOn and Daily Kos are not helping matters. All of this is a sign of monumental weakness for the Democrats, and it’s now that the GOP should press the attack and swing the tide for 2008.

Hillary is their candidate. Make no mistake, she’s the best candidate they’ve got. Her positioning on issues has been clever and well-timed, keeping her insulated from most attacks. But if the GOP can wreck Democrats en masse, Hillary will go down by association, and it saves the GOP from attacking her directly. It also raises the possibility of the GOP retaking the House/Senate in 2008.

But the problem is the GOP isn’t doing anything. I get emails from Mel Martinez that literally do nothing to inspire me. They are attacks and barbs of the DNC, but how is emailing a GOP booster going to change public opinion?

The GOP needs to start fielding ads, either directly or through 527s, and start fielding them during football games, Oprah, nightly newscasts, Grey’s Anatomy– wherever they can get maximum exposure. And all they need to do is point out the horrible approval ratings, expose Harry Reid’s comments that Iraq is “already lost”, that MoveOn is calling a highly decorated 4-star general a “betrayer”, and that the Daily Kos site, a Democratic heavyweight, admits to not supporting the troops. And just end with “Is this the kind of leadership we want in America?”

If I had more time, I’d make my own ad. Maybe I will.

Protesting the Establishment

One of the biggest ironies in life is that of the Anti-Establishmentarian. These are the people who protest the G8, constantly battle what they call “the establishment”, and protest having “rich old men” make decisions for everyone. They are the core of the “nutroots”, the Kerry supporter, the person with “Impeach NOW!” on their bumper. Republicans are bad. Rush Limbaugh is a drug-using blowhard. Only liberalism can save the world!

When you think of classic liberalism, especially in a historical sense, the liberal views were a rally against the conservative core. The Renaissance was the second real liberal revolution (the first being the Athenian period of philosophy). Ideas were expressed freely. Art exploded onto the world (although there were still great artists before the liberals made their mark). Great thinkers arose and battled the considered norms of society in order to affect a change that transformed their society into a truly progressive one.

Liberals wanted change. They wanted revolution. And they craved the freedom that would come with it.

A true liberal, one with an idea that would blow the top off of the capitalistic world, came around in the form of Karl Marx. He proposed that the class struggle eventually would lead to the Rich getting Richer and Poor getting Poorer until, at some point, a class revolution would occur which would lead to overthrow. The Great Union would be born where everyone would get an equal share. The government was really a commune of like-minded individuals, and thus Communism was born.

No struggle. No class envy. Everyone gets an equal share. Everyone is happy and nobody is treated unfairly. It’s the Communist model. It can even be called a “Christian” model.

And liberals grasped the idea and formed Communist parties as well as “baby” parties, or socialist parties. Communists took over Cuba, China, and Russia. And what we have are paragons of human rights, equality for all citizens, and modern marvels of technological wonder and peace. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. What we have are countries with oppressed populations run by a militaristic oligarchy who exploit the system for their own political and personal need. Doesn’t sound like an ideal system, does it? But this system has emerged in several locations and each time it degenerates into a system which is hardly the utopia Marx imagined.

Now let’s fast-forward into 2007. The liberals have just taken over Congress. No more war, they demand! They’ve fought the establishment and won. And what was the “establishment”? Republican senators and representatives. They had been established for 10-16 years. It was a good thing they were tossed out! We have new leadership in the Senate! Harry Reid, D-Nev, has been serving in the Senate for 20 years! He’s more establishment than the people who were the establishment!

And what about their Presidential nominees? The people who were supposed to rescue the country from the grip of the evil Republicans? Al Gore and John Kerry, both career politicians. Both are firmly entrenched in the Establishment.

What about this year? Hillary? Biden? Kucinich? Richardson? Are any of these people really Anti-Establishment? In fact, since these people are, in fact, the current Establishment, should an Anti-Establishmentarian being supporting Republicans in 2008?

The biggest icons of the US Senate are Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, two senators who have been in the Senate for a combined 77 years! Talk about your establishment!

I find it amazing that the liberal-minded of us would be dead-set against one political party but wholly supportive of another, as both parties have contributed to what is now considered the establishment that is the US Government. Were they truly progressive or liberal, they would seek a change to the government, but instead they only want a change in one direction of the US Government. That doesn’t sound like someone seeking to revolutionize the way we do business, ala the Renaissance or the Athenian enlightenment.

In fact, it smells an awful lot like consolidation of power into one centralized party.

So is the goal of the modern liberal a Communist state? You should ask your friends and find out. Here are some questions to ask to ferret out if they are a true liberal or a communist in liberal clothing:

1) Is a vote for a Democratic nominee for President a vote against the Establishment?
2) Do you feel government would work much better if Democrats had super-majorities everywhere?
3) Is Ted Kennedy a good example of modern liberal thinking?
4) Is Bill Clinton? Al Gore?
5) Aren’t the Democrats embedded into the political process to a point where they are the establishment and they are just as stodgy as Republicans?
6) Shouldn’t a true liberal seek to change government than elect the same paragons of the Establishment year after year?

Here’s how a communist-in-liberal’s clothing would answer:
1) Yes. 2) Of course. 3) Absolutely. 4) They are both great examples of modern liberals.
5) No! Democrats are much better than Republicans! 6) Yes, and the best way to change government is to elect more Democrats!

A true liberal would say:
1) There is no real difference in the current candidates other than base ideology.
2) No. In fact, it may be worse as there would be a failure in checks on a single-party rule.
3&4) He, as well as Clinton & Gore, did nothing to promote a positive change in the US Government. And why should they? Would you change the system that’s put you in power?
5) Of course. There is little difference other than the lobbies who have the candidate’s ear.
6) Our current government has many problems and keeping the people who caused the problems in power year after year is not going to change the broken system. The only way to truly change the system for the better is for a new party to arise, challenge and supplant the old parties. Unfortunately, new parties are typically unstable and they are susceptible to massive implosion. Just ask the Reform party. This cannot, nor should it be, a rapid process.

What we’ve seen this week is a hopeful sign. Democrats and Republicans felt the heat from an enraged constituency on the Immigration issue. The conservative base rebelled against the Establishment and the Establishment, to a certain degree, listened. As for the “liberal” side of things? They’re still trying to get Bush impeached, something that doesn’t have much traction outside of the “liberal” community, mainly because they are no longer “liberals” but instead they are simply “anti-conservative”.

I never thought I see the day the Republican base would rise up against its leaders in a show of– liberalism. These certainly are strange times we live in.

Ron Paul! RON PAUL!

In 2004 there was a fringe candidate who fired up the grass roots. His name was Howard Dean. His followers were called Deaniacs.

Now, in 2008, there’s a movement to the right of center. 2% of the Republican base are all fired up about him. It’s Ron Paul. RON PAUL! Dominating online polls left and right. RON PAUL!

So, we need a name for the Ron Paul effete. Not Paulists. Not PaulPourri, although it’s very cute. Let’s stick with the basics and call them the Paulunatics. Or the Pauloonies.

If you want someone with good, solid conservative values without the fudnamentalist slant of a Huckabee or a “really?” plug of a Mitt Romney, go Duncan Hunter.

Don’t Let the Door Hit You…

Mike Bloomberg has left the Republican Party.

And all across the country, people looked up, shrugged, and didn’t care.

Except in New York, where people knew he really left the party about 8 years ago.

SF Chronicle Gets It Almost Right

The SF Chronicle has a story about the reaction to Ann Coulter and her attention-grabbing slut uttered at the CPAC last week.

I was on board with the article until I read this:

Conservative gay scholar Andrew Sullivan, who heard Coulter’s comments live, said she uttered it with “malice aforethought.” But equating it to other slurs is a difficult comparison, Sullivan said.

Conservative gay scholar? Well, they have the gay part right. But conservative? You have to be joking!

If Andrew Sullivan is conservative, then I’m King of the Libertarians. And as far as scholarship goes, Andrew is pretty far removed from the field. The guy’s a blogger who’s written a few books. If that’s the case, Michelle Malkin’s a scholar. Michael Savage is a scholar. Hell, even Howard Stern would be a scholar.

Conservative scholar. Come on.

************************************

In the meantime, look what Mick LaSalle has to say about “300″. He’s one of the best movie critics around, but doesn’t get his props. Well, props from “The Autopsy”, Mick.