Image 01 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (Herman Cain isn’t their type of black)(Readers’ Choice Award)

Saturday Night Card Game (Herman Cain isn’t their type of black)(Readers’ Choice Award)

Herman Cain is bringing out the worst venom from the liberal media and entertainment complex, and the left-wing blogosphere.

Just as we saw liberal feminists fall all over themselves to bash Sarah Palin as an insult to women, so too we see liberals who claim to be enlightened on matters of race fall all over themselves to bash Cain as an insult to blacks.

There are so many examples just this past week so I’ll let you choose:

1. Touré on The Dylan Ratigan Show, who called Cain a media whore and compared Cain to Flavor Flav:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2.  Bill Maher, who referred to Cain as a “token black“:

BILL MAHER: Big news, of course, in the Republican ranks. There is a new – I say  this every week – but there is a new frontrunner:  Herman Cain, Herman  Cain. The Republican establishment is freaking out because their token black guy  is in the league now.

3.  Pam Spaulding at Firedoglake who accuses Cain of shameless tap dancing for conservative white voters:

But back to race. I’ll never understand Herman Cain and his relationship to the GOP establishment; like former puppet Michael Steele, they don’t see (or don’t care) how rancid race-based politics in the Republican party has become… [T]he Republican leadership has made its bed with the fundamentalists and nativist know-nothings, making Cain and other black Republicans curious cases that border on self-loathing.

4.  Cartoonist Telnaes at The Washington Post who portrays Cain as Bull Connor holding an attack dog on a leash (h/t Dana Loesch):

5. Ulli K. Ryder, a “visiting scholar” at Brown University in Providence, quoted in The New York Times calling Cain “minstrelsy” (h/t John Nolte):

“It makes the hair on my neck stand up,” said Ulli K. Ryder, a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America at Brown University. “The larger issue that a lot of people have, and I certainly have, is that he uses a certain kind of minstrelsy to play to white audiences. Referencing negative stereotypes in order to get heard to a white audience in the 21st century is really a problem.”

It’s a tough choice.  (Poll open until 5 p.m. on Sunday, October 23)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DINORightMarie | October 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm

What is so appalling to me about Toure on MSNBC is that an African American is saying all this; the MSNBC haters – whiter than white in all their major slots until Al Sharpton was hired – find a guy to spew this hatred. And it is “okay” because a “black man” is saying it about another “black man.”

That is why I voted for that one. The others are on par with Chris Matthews and his fellow travelers, Martin Bashir, Piers Morgan with David Gregory, and their ilk.

Toure stands out to me as beyond the pale sickening. And he manages to lowers MSNBC to a new low – quite an achievement, to his shame.

    LukeHandCool in reply to DINORightMarie. | October 22, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Agree DINORightMarie.

    There’s nothing more annoying in this world than the perpetually adolescent poseur-hipster-jivester who is nothing but a media affirmative-action case, who has done nothing in his life but string worthless sentences together, orally and written, and who has the gall to talk about a truly accomplished black man like that.

    Well … there is one thing more annoying. When he also has the mandatory faux-French name. One name at that. Like a celebrity. Pathetic, thy name is Toure.

All of the above.

There was no *other* option Professor, so I did not vote. Because I think this one tops them all. Bashir Asks Liberal Guest ‘Do You Think Herman Cain Can Spell the Word “Iraq?”‘

Read more:
Granted, there is no racial undertone to it (is there?), but this is despicable.

“By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this (NPV) “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.

“Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.

According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.

If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!”

This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always! -FOREVER!

    doombroker in reply to doombroker. | October 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Please comment on the NPVC, Professor Jacobson. I am very surprised you have not already.


    AR, CT, DE, MI, NV, NM, NC, OR, VT (& according to NPV site CO has now passed it in both chambers and sent it to the Governor for signing.)

      William A. Jacobson in reply to doombroker. | October 22, 2011 at 8:54 pm

      I’m going to look into that.

        Please see comment below, which SHOULD be here.

        Thank you very much Professor. It’s bad news.

          Would like to see more about this topic under another post.

          As for it being bad news, I don’t especially like it, but that depends on which side you are on.

          Right now, being in CA, my presidential vote means nothing as no Republican is likely carry this state for the forseeable future. We (here in CA) all know this and I think it suppresses our turnout by quite as bit. There are a lot of us here, but not quite 50.1% (though I could be wrong about that — some people have estimates we are actually have a slight majority) and if our votes counted toward the national popular vote, and that determined who CA’s electoral votes had to be assigned to, I think a more of us would vote.

          But as pointed out below, this movement does not undermine any constitutional protections, because there are none.
          States can do what they want in this area and I think it would take an amendment to force all states to assign their electors according to a winner-take-all standard.

          I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. I would not be surprised if next summer finds the national polls are against Obama, the CA legislature making a mad dash to repeal this rather than forcing our electoral votes to be given the Republican populat vote winner!

          I sort of hope they don’t because I’d love to see the frothing wrath of the Libs when they see their votes going to the Republican because the national popular vote is in our favor. 🙂

    I don’t like this scheme, it’s not ALWAYS and forever. The states that passed this law can rescind it ay any time.

    kohler in reply to doombroker. | October 24, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    National Popular Vote has hardly been unnoticed.

    As noted, has been active around the country since 2006. There have been almost daily postings around the internet, and 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. No one would be disenfranchised with National Popular Vote. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

I’m with @kobayashi here, ALL OF THE ABOVE…

I am starting to really dislike liberals.

These people are for the ideological equivalent of anti-miscegenation laws.

huskers-for-palin | October 22, 2011 at 9:53 pm

I good counter argument to the NPV.

The big issue is that the National Popular Vote Compact just changes how the state electors are apportioned, not that electors are still required. The Constitution just says that there have to BE electors. It doesn’t specify how those electors are to be apportioned. That is left up to the states.

Actually, even NOW, the State Electors can vote for whomever the hell they want, they don’t HAVE to follow the popular vote of their state now, unless they are required to by state law. Usually though, states have TWO slates of electors, and appoint the slate whose party wins the popular vote of that state. Unless required to by state law, electors could entirely ignore the will of the people in their state and vote against the popular vote. See: Us Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

If the states want to change the way they apportion their individual electors, that’s up to them. I think it unwise, because the first time that the electors of the state vote against the way that state’s popular vote went, there will be ABSOLUTE HELL TO PAY amongst that state’s legislature in the next days as the citizens of that state RIOT against the state government.

Now, that being said, there may be an argument against this on the grounds of “One Person, One Vote” under the Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1964) decision and its progeny, on the argument that the voters of one state would be disenfranchised by the voters of another state.

As far as I am concerned, every one of these people should be fired. This is a man who has a lifetime of accomplishment, who is running for the office of President of the United States, and the entire purpose of these remarks is to stir up racist distaste for him instead of reporting on his issues and proposals.

None of these people have a place in our public debate.

I should clarify that Herman Cain is not my first, second or third choice for the Republican nomination. I consider him far too inexperienced and rather naive to ever be taken seriously. I further have little doubt that he, like Bachmann and Perry before him, is a passing fancy for Tea Partiers to flirt with before moving on to the next “Not Romney” (Gingrich? egah!).

That being said, the bilious, race-charged bile spewing excrement from frothing liberals about Cain is disgusting but not surprising. It’s important to understand the simple, Manichean worldview most liberals (at least most liberal celebrities and intellectuals) adopt. Republicans and conservatives ARE (by definition) greedy, oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic hate-spewing white men along with their delusional, air-headed, barbie doll women. Whenever anything or anyone challenges this worldview, the liberal intelligentsia goes into a catatonic fit. This worldview CANNOT be wrong! Never!

Herman Cain poses a very direct and extremely troubling challenge to this worldview in that he is not only African American, but he grew up poor in the Jim Crow south. How can anyone like that EVER be anything but a passionately liberal Democrat? He cannot, cannot cannot!! No, no, no! The liberal stamps his foot and covers his ears.

Since the liberals’ definition of a Republican/conservative is, prima facie true, there can only be one explanation. Something is terribly wrong with Cain. He is a “token”, a “minstrel”, a “tap dancer”. Has anyone called him the dreaded “Uncle Tom” yet? If not, that will come soon enough.

As I said, I doubt that Cain ultimately will be the nominee or even come close. But, if by some chance he does, what we’re seeing now will only be a pale glow of the white (no pun intended) hot burning rage which will explode and ooze from the oh so tolerant and multicultural left. It will be ugly, friends. Ugly and vile. If you think we saw the worst of liberalism in their excoriation of anyone who dared criticize their savior Obama…well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Al of this is “noise.”

Noise that is the reflection of desperation that all of the O’bammy followers seeing their base deteriorate in large numbers. Independent voters are all but gone, some conservative Democrats too and let’s face it, it just does not look good.

The real joke, (on them), though is the so called race card. In order for them to apply such, they are admitting in a de facto sense that success by blacks is just wrong.

Better to embrace the welfare rapper and “hood” subculture than encourage success.

Cain’s remark on, “…leaving the Democrat plantation…” is so on target! The fact that he is a product of a hardworking family must really rile ’em a lot.

Cain’s not perfect but he’s my guy mostly because he tells it as it is. No sugar coating for me please…

    rightConcept in reply to GrumpyOne. | October 22, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    That “noise” sure did a number on Sarah Palin. They couldn’t play the race card on her but they used all the other cards in the deck including the joker.

    Looks like it worked to.

    They will keep on doing this to every good conservative until they get to a weak nominee that they think will give their annointed one the easiest path to the WH.

      It did, but that sort of noise is also subject the law of diminshing returns. The sad fact is that beating up on women is lot more acceptable in this country than beating up on Blacks. We saw that with Palin and we saw that with Hillary — does anyone recall the outpouring of outrage over the “Bro’s before Ho’s” tee-shirts Obama’s people wore? Me neither…

      What I think is really happening here is that the Left is engaging in their usual knee-jerk attack on the perceived front-runner, and in this case I think it will be shown to be a blindingly stupid thing to do.

      Cain is not yet a serious candidate — he’s still an enthusiasm candidate. The Left are revealing themselves as just as stupid, hateful, and racist as we all know them to be in order to destroy a Black candidate who does not have a serious chance of being the nominee.

      In a few months, Cain will have faded and the Left will be thinking “we are so kewl — we did in that stupid black guy” and attacking whoever, but people will being recalling how they attacked a Black man because he of his race, and this will both turn more people against them while undermining their further attacks.

      What this is really doing to pulling the mask off the Left and shining a spot-light on them without changing the race much (as Cain is not truly viable).

      Misdirecting the enemy’s fire is a very effective tactic. So as odious as their behavior is, their attacks on Cain serve a greater purpose in not just exposing the evil at the Left’s heart of Darkness, but putting front and center on a national stage.

The Dems apparently prefer blacks as communists of “light-skinned appearance and with no Negro dialect, unless they want to have one.”

Presently Cain is under increasing attack from both the left and the right. From the right because Cain is threatening the establishment crony Republican candidates, among other things. From the left because Cain is a mortal threat to Obama. All these attacks are echoing back and forth as each side picks up talking points from the other. Most of these attacks so far have failed to gain much traction but I expect them to increase in scope and intensity until some of them begin to do real damage. Everyone knows Alinsky attacks work. They ran Palin off and they will attempt to do the same to Cain.

His only hope will be that he continues to reveal that most most cherished of all political attributes – teflon.

    davidinvirginia in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 9:30 am

    He’s “under attack” from this member of the right because he constantly saying stupid stuff when asked questions he should be able to give coherent answers to. He can’t. This has happened repeatedly. Many of these non-answer answers and his continual followup “clarifications” (which often make his position *less* clear) also make him sound as if he’s not nearly as conservative as he’s led people to believe. He’s not qualified to be president. I don’t care if he is or isn’t part of some nebulous establishment. We’ll do well to survive the 4 years of on-the-job training President Petulant is putting us thru now. The last thing we need as we start cleaning up his mess is another guy in the White House with no clue how to be president.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to davidinvirginia. | October 23, 2011 at 9:53 am

      Your comment doesn’t address the blog post. No one is saying criticism of Cain is off limits, it’s a question of why liberals feel the need to use racial stereotypes against him.

While I agree that Cain does not have the foreign policy experience one might want – look at what the experienced politicians have done for us to date. What GOP candidate has great fp experience?

As for the degrading remarks the Left makes about African Americans who are Conservative – wouldn’t you think that liberal blacks would find this stuff offensive? The Left uses wording and slurs they would vilify the Right for using, things most civilized people wouldn’t think of saying, but somehow they get the hall pass.

davidinvirginia | October 23, 2011 at 9:25 am

These comments by the usual suspects are disgusting (no surprise) and utterly predictable. Unfortunately, for the GOP, they don’t make Cain any more qualified to be the nominee or president. These people should be bashed for saying this crap, but please don’t let the sympathy for Cain convince you to vote for him. He beclowns himself with his own lack of knowledge about a wide range of issues almost every day on the campaign trail. He really doesn’t need any help for the resident idiots at MSNBC or Jon Stewart and their ilk to make himself look bad.

    Apparently a great many people disagree with you:

    “LAS VEGAS — Herman Cain placed first Friday in a straw poll of Republican activists at the Western Republican Leadership Conference.

    Cain took 31 percent of the more than 550 votes cast. Mitt Romney came in second with 29 percent, while Newt Gingrich’s 21 percent put him in third.

    Although straw polls are of limited use in predicting who will be the eventual nominee, they can be revealing indicators of whether candidates have grassroots momentum or appeal to certain populations.”

    South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary
    RCP Average 10/11 – 10/16
    Cain 31.5
    Romney 22
    Perry 11.0
    Gingrich 7.5
    Paul 6.0
    Bachmann 5.5
    Huntsman 1.0

    Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus
    RCP Average 10/3 – 10/19
    Cain 28.2
    Romney 22.8
    Paul 10.8
    Gingrich 8.4
    Bachmann 8.4
    Perry 7.8
    Santorum 3.8
    Huntsman 1.2

    New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary
    RCP Average 10/2 – 10/16
    Romney 40.4
    Cain 18.4
    Paul 10.6
    Gingrich 5.8
    Huntsman 4.8
    Perry 4.2
    Bachmann 3.8
    Santorum 1.3
    Johnson 0.8

    Florida Republican Presidential Primary
    RCP Average 9/24 – 10/16
    Romney 31
    Cain 29
    Perry 8.3
    Gingrich 8.0
    Paul 4.7
    Bachmann 3.8
    Huntsman 1.7
    Santorum 1.5

    RCP Poll Average National
    2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

    Cain 26.0
    Romney 25.5
    Perry 12.5
    Perry 9.2
    Gingrich 8.5
    Paul 8.5
    Bachmann 4.8
    Huntsman 2.0
    Santorum 1.6

      Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Neither post would seem to really address the topic at hand, but at risk of perpetuating the sin:

      What’s up with something calling itself the Western Republican Leadership Conference holding a poll that only it could only get “more than 550” Republican activists in vote in?

      That’s about as representative as the opinions at my monthly movie night.

      Is this the best we can do? Seriously?

    You overdid it. Its OK you don’t like Cain and won’t vote for him, but you justified it by parroting dhimocrat talking points. A classic mistake. That gives you a “fail” for believability at this site. The same exact things could have been said about our current president in 2007 IF our nation media had integrity. They don’t, so they weren’t said. But they coulda, woulda, shouda. And that makes your ranting irrelevant.

Cain presents an enormous problem, not to mention threat, to Democrats. The Democratic Party has received the majority of the black vote by playing upon fears of “racism”. How exactly do you exploit those fears when BOTH candidates are black. And especially when the Republican candidate has more in common with the general black experience in this country, and might be more appealing to the black electorate that Democrats depend upon. And of course the Dems charge that any opposition to Obama is racist based, begins to fall apart when that opposition comes from another black man. Their only fall back is to somehow show that Cain “really isn’t black”. A strategy that may founder on the fact that Cain is more authentically black than Obozo is. The hostility of the race merchants is self explanatory. Two black men running for the highest office in the land, makes their constant charges of “racism” everywhere a non starter. The hostility from the Republican establishment, is what ANYONE who isn’t part of the, inside the beltway, go along to get along crowd, gets.

47% of Americans pay no income tax and only pay 7.65% social security/medicaid tax.

Cain’s plan raises this to 9%.

That’s a tax increase of 1.35%. To 47% of Americans. Those on the bottom.

On top of this, these taxpayers would have to pay another 9% on everything they buy.

Most of these taxpayers are already living paycheck-to-paycheck; therefore Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would put them in the hole – if not bankrupt them,

Now… weeks after introducing his plan, Cain admits he knows it sucks and is tweaking it with empowerment zones and all sorts of exemptions for this an exemptions for that.

IOW: To make his idiotic 9-9-9 plan more palatable, Cain is picking winners and loses – just like those he claims he opposes.

THE BOTTOM-LINE ON 9-9-9: it was a lousy plan that was poorly thought out and in the end only proved Cain ain’t ready for prime-time.

Conservatives who deny this are humoring Cain and pandering.


Cain has sometimes appeared to be in over his head. Consider what’s happened over the past week:

–He suggested electrifying a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico to kill illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States. Cain later called it a joke and apologized if anyone was offended by the remarks.

–He said he would negotiate for the release of U.S. prisoners held by terrorists, then reversed himself and said he had misunderstood the question.

–He muddied the water on abortion. He told CNN that while he strongly opposes abortion, “the government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.” He later issued a statement reiterating his opposition to abortion.

–Amid criticism that his 9-9-9 tax overhaul would force the majority of Americans to pay more to the government, he reworked the plan to exclude the poorest people and to allow some deductions. Backers of Cain’s original plan had praised its simplicity, and carving out exceptions could erode that support.

    So now we have the likes of reliapundit acting as the unwitting right flank of the leftist media complex.

    OldJoe33 in reply to reliapundit. | October 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Please go to” and read the whole thing. Then, right under the “Let’s Get Real” quote, find the 3 small-font links:
    “9-9-9 Brochure”, “9-9-9 Scoring Report”, and “9-9-9 Scoring Tables”. Download and save these articles for some tough reading. These are summaries of the background research and recommendations. THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT AND ANALYSIS PUT INTO THE 999 PLAN. You can’t ‘tweak’ this into the plan on the fly.
    As he replied to a gotcha question on Fox (of all places! and paraphrasing) ‘It’s been there from the beginning. Read the entire proposal’
    I said it is tough going. The concept is simple, but the details are NOT. A smart Leader like Mr. Cain is not going to attempt to try to explain it on TV.
    At least, not in the early going.
    One of the provisions is that people under the official poverty level will get a return (details explained in 9-9-9 … links) that is calculated as ‘taxRate * povertyLevel’ for the individual family that qualifies. So, no tax raise on such families.
    Also, and I believe that this is an example of this man’s forward-thinking insight, the 999 plan is a gentle introduction to the “Fair Tax”. A transition that I believe to be absolutely necessary to get to an even better taxation plan.

[…] Legal Insurrection’s Prof. Jacobson points out the blatant hypocrisy racism when the leftist MSM and celeb talkingheads deal with the conservative ‘black’ man Herman Cain who won’t be chained to the liberal plantation and step-n-fetch the victim meme:   […]

“the three tax bases for Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.”

“Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax plan has been attacked and denigrated by his conservative opponents. Liberals are having a cow. The media is up in arms. It seems everyone is upset. But the reality is, it was a great start. The only way you know something works in Washington is when all sides are angry.

The 9-9-9 plan is simple, it’s memorable, it opened the conversation and it reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s plan to cut the tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. That, too, was laughed at and denigrated as “too simple.” No one believed it could ever work. Yet Reagan got it passed and, in record time, the worst economy since 1929 was turned into the greatest economic boom in world history.”

“The influential anti-spending Club for Growth defended Republican presidential contender Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan against attacks from his GOP rivals, saying that those who warn the federal sales tax component would simply hand Congress another way to levy taxes on citizens “miss the mark.”

“Mr. Cain’s plan, he said, may not be perfect, but “it is a truly revolutionary tax reform that would amount to a massive job creating tax cut on investments, savings and income.”

“Instead of tearing down ideas that would create economic growth and jobs, the other Republican presidential candidates should produce their own plans to achieve a flatter and more growth-oriented tax code,” Mr. Chocola said.”

    Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Have you run your numbers? If so, what happened? If not, why not?

    “Tax revenues will also increase enormously…” But Cain said the plan was revenue neutral — so who’s right? If this is right, is this a good thing or does it just support more government expansion? (I think we know the answer to that.)

    The problem with Cain’s plan is all the used-car-salesman hand waving that is being done about it. Used-car salesmen can be really bold too.

    The plan is all about numbers. So run the numbers.

      Viator in reply to Owen J. | October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      What are you my auditor?

      The first third of the post is by Arthur Laffer, Phd in economics, Yale and Stanford. His numbers are probably better than mine.

      The second third of the post is by Wayne Allyn Root, VP candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2008 and classmate of B. Obama at Columbia.

      The last third of the comment is by the influential Club for Growth whose raison d’etre is to minimize taxes and government spending.

      The Tax Policy Center is a left wing think tank, a joint venture of the Bookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Both of those organization get money from George Soros. They are hardly a reliable source on cutting taxes or shrinking government power. So the leftist The Hill quotes the leftist Tax Policy Center, big deal.

        Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 24, 2011 at 3:59 am

        Do I need to be?

        I ran my numbers — my taxes went up under Cain’s plan by 15% to 20%, except for one year when they nearly doubled.

        Laffer may have a Ph.D but some of his statements are contradicted by Cain’s explaination on his website. He either got bad data or he made mistakes in his analysis.

        This is about numbers — I don’t care who is affiliated with whom or what. Either their math is right or wrong based on the info Cain’s people have provided.

        So do the math yourself and see what you get. Do your personal taxes go up or down?

        Do you care which?

        Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 24, 2011 at 4:28 am

        In case you missed it, Laffer said: “a 9% flat-rate tax on net business profits.”

        This is not true at all. The truth is that wages and employee benefits (like health insurance) are fully taxed at 9% (both the employers and the employee pay 9% of the full amount, BTW) under 999.

        Right now, payroll is taxed at less than 8% overall (for each party) and less than 7% given certain credits, and health insurance is not taxed at all for employers, being fully deductable.

        So marginal tax rates for business do not go down as asserted under 999; often — perhaps usually for most small business concerns — they go up!

        This single mistake alone invalidates Laffer’s main conclusions.

        So again — read the plan and run the numbers. If you are going to support something, take sometime to educate yourself on the actually affects instead of just quoting people who have already made elementary mistakes.

    Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Just read this over at the Hill:

    “The Tax Policy Center released a report stating that Cain’s plan would increase taxes for some Americans, to which the GOP candidate said is a “lie, L-I-E, lie,” and urged everyone to “take a look at the full analysis.” ”

    Does anyone have the full quote? Is the Hill’s reporting here being rather shoddy here or is Cain sticking his foot in his mouth?

    It’s not clear what Cain is saying is a lie, L-I-E: the whole report or the assertion that his plan would increase taxes on some Americans?

    Obviously it would increase taxes in some Americans (I’m one of them).

    If Cain is calling Tax Policy Center liars (as opposed to simply disagreeing with him), we ought to be sure what exactly he is talking about.

Well, true, but absolutely no surprise, yes?
What does surprise – and disappoint – me, is all the thinly veiled contempt from ‘conservative’ media-bloggers. They are playing ‘rhetorical gotcha’ to an extreme I’ve never quite seen before…no question, they are out to eliminate Cain as ‘too stupid for us’…nothing he says is beyond their twisting into some metaphysical problem. The real problem is Cain speaks like a normal, intelligent voter – not a career pol/pundit who’s been vetting his own brain for years and years. The ‘institutional conservatives’ still haven’t gotten over the tea party making fools of them in 2010, and they’re out to destroy cain in comeuppance.

Herman Cain is under Alinskyite attack right now because he has become a threat to powerful people. The same kinds of lies were used to defeat Robert Bork, almost destroy Clarence Thomas, defame Ronald Reagan, nullify Sarah Palin, and crush a large number of people in our society who become a danger to business as usual or any pet project of the left. The reason “global warming” gained ascendency was because scientists who dared question this pseudo-scientific construct were mercilessly attacked Alinsky style. They use it because it works.

[…] Jacobson suggests that Herman Cain is bringing out the worst in the […]