Image 01 Image 03

Vegas Debate (Tweet of Night added)

Vegas Debate (Tweet of Night added)

Not going to “live blog” but will have some observations.


Perry the winner not because he was so much better than the others, but because he was so much better than he was previously.  He may have revitalized his campaign tonight.  Cain was damaged, but not fatally.  Romney was okay, held his ground.  Newt and Santorum both good, stood out.  Bachmann pretty good also.  Ron Paul an outlier.

Tweet of the Night from Moe Lane about Romney’s suggestion that Chinese should be responsible for international humanitarian aid:

Blow by blow action:

At the first break:

Cain was hammered pretty good on 9-9-9, and all he did was refer to an analysis on his website, rather than explaining it in a way that addressed the concerns.

Perry was much more comfortable, forceful, can only wonder where he would be today if he was this way in the first three debates.

Santorum hit Romney on no trust to repeal Obamacare.  For first time Romney was on defensive, but recovered pretty well despite Santorum trying to cut him off repeatedly.  Never responded to issue of former advisers helping craft Obamacare.  Newt referenced Boston Herald article about small businessman being hounded for state mandate tax, “there’s a heck of a lot of big government behind Romneycare….”  Romney was weak in response, but did tag Newt with previously having supported a mandate.  Romney then responded by relying on state versus federal distinction.

Winner of the 1st Round:  Rick Perry.

At the second break:

Whoa, Perry says Romney hired illegals in home for a year.  Romney says wrong.  Perry tried to cut him off.  Turns out were illegals working for a lawn company Romney hired, and told company not to do it.  If that is the best Perry had, it fell flat.  I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.

On immigration Perry was better than in prior debates, focusing on Texas’ unique problems with long border.  Romney kept focusing on E-verify and tuition breaks that draw people.  Romney hit Perry on immigration, but Perry went back to the lawn care company, and the audience booed Perry.

Newt gave a good speech in response to a question about the Latino community.  The answer is “we want an America that’s working again.”  Ron Paul said we need to get away from ‘group mentality.”  Cain said the answer is growing the economy, evaded question of whether 14th Amendment made everyone born here a citizen.  Perry evaded the question as well, and focused on energy policy.  Cooper askied if Perry supports “repealing the 14th Amendment” to Perry said no, but Cooper misstated the issue.

On Latino issue, Santorum focused on faith and family.  “Family and faith in America being crushed.”

About real estate and foreclosures, Santorum says Perry supported Tarp bailouts, Perry denies.  I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.  Romney comes out in favor of letting markets work, turns again to getting the economy going.  Cain said was for Tarp initially, but not how Obama administration handled it, “I own up to it.”

On Occupy Wall Street issue, Cain stands by prior comments, direct frustrations at White House not Wall Street.  Paul says go to Federal Reserve as culprit of bubble, demagogued issue of bailouts of banks, and talks about why no one in jail.  Cain responds that “What do protesters want from bankers on Wall Street, to come downstairs and write them a check?”

Romney says focus on last three years, Obama failed on every issue, made it harder for economy to rebound.

Winner of Round 2:  Draw.

At the third break:

On issue of religion, Santorum said its a matter of values, not specific religion.  Perry asked about issue of reputiating the preacher who said Mormonism a religious cult, Perry talked around it.  Romney said he’s heard worse about Mormonism, and troubled by statements about choosing candidate based on religion.

On negotiation with hostage takers, Cain tried walking back his statement about releasing Gitmo detainees for American soldiers captured.  On foreign aid, Perry puts funding UN on the table.  Ron Paul says would cut all foreign aid to anyone.  Romney said let the Chinese do foreign humanitarian aid.  Bachmann says don’t cut aid to Israel, crowd cheers (mostly), Obama first President to put daylight between U.S. and Israel; hit Cain hard on negotiating with terrorists.  Ron Paul brings up Iranians arms for hostages, Newt says Reagan admitted it was a mistake.

Winner of Round 3:  Newt on points.  Didn’t say much, but what he said was a grade above.

At the end:

Question, who can win, polls say Romney best positioned.  Santorum says I’m only one to win swing state, hit Perry for running as Democrat and Romney as liberal/moderate.  Romney says that need someone who didn’t spend life in politics.  Perry says if want to know how someone acts in future, look how acted in past, then hits Romney record; need bright contrast with Obama.  Romney says 40% of Texas jobs to illegals, Perry denies.  Newt says would be strongest on substance, challenges Obama to 7 three hour debates.

Before the start:

To get things started, reader Charles sent me a link to this op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Ninety percent of success is showing up,” Woody Allen once observed. This helps explain why Herman Cain is soaring and Rick Perry has gone as flat as the Texas plains.

Turn on a TV, and there is the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO. From Fox and Friends to Face the Nation to The Tonight Show, the one-time chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve advances his message — virtually everywhere but the Weather Channel….

Amid these media cyclones, where was Perry? He evidently vanished into the federal Candidate Protection Program. Rather than offer his side of these breaking stories, Perry largely faded into the sagebrush. Between the two latest GOP debates, Perry did two CNBC interviews and zero network spots.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


[…] At tonight’s 8:00 ET debate in Las Vegas Nevada Cain needs to demonstrate he is more than a curiosity and is growing as a candidate (and do a lot of ’splaining). Perry needs to show he is in command not by bluster but by genuine control of himself and the stage. Romney needs to continue his brilliant performances but somehow convince the viewers that it is not just a performance he is engaged in. […]

So true, and it is another example of why conservative candidates should not run away from the media, despite the widespread liberal bias. Perry is running and hiding and hoping he can reintroduce himself via paid media and controlled retail events in Iowa, etc. It might work — but not likely is Perry’s numbers don’t improve in the next few weeks. The only way to accomplish that is media.

Well said, professor. Out of respect for several commenters here who favor Perry I’ve maintained an open mind about him, but up till now Cain’s campaigning – while not perfect – has been much more “presidential” than the governor’s. Eventually time will run out for Perry. Where are his staff and advisers in all of this? The clock is running.

The debate is only a half hour old and CNN is achieving its objectives of generating chaos amongst the GOP candidates. Someone, perhaps Gingrich, needs to tell the candidates that their job is not to attack each other as CNN is getting them to do but to attack Obama’s failed policies.

Also, Cain needs to mention that in order for his 999 tax plan to succeed, the 16th amendment needs to be repealed. Plus clarify how his tax plan will be implemented, in general terms.

    Why would the 16th amendment need to be repealed for Cain’s plan to succeed?

      Captain Obvious in reply to Awing1. | October 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      Unless you trust the Federal government to not stack a national sales tax IN ADDITION to the existing taxes, it makes sense to rescind their power to collect the latter.

      Laffer endorsed 9-9-9, which is good enough for me… even if it makes taxes slightly tougher for the middle class, it’s worth it to get everyone invested and exposed to the real costs of big government, in order to combat the entitlement mentality.

      I’m more worried that asked if he’d empty gitmo in exchange for 1 POW his answer was not “we do not negotiate with terrorists” but “I could see myself considering that”. Cain still least-lowest on my list, but another wtf moment like that and it’s … second look at Bachmann?

        Considering his plan includes a 9% tax on income, and presuming that tax would apply to all income including things like rental income from land, he’s likely going to need the 16th amendment to avoid the Article 1 Section 9 prohibition on unapportioned direct taxes.

        The 16th amendment is not what authorizes Congress to tax wages and salaries; Article 1 does that. Repealing the 16th would not affect that power one bit. Even the taxes on rent and dividends, which are what the 16th was passed to enable, are almost certainly constitutional without it; the argument that the Supreme Court bought in 1895 would probably be rejected by today’s court 9-0. In any event, Cain’s plan includes a 9% income tax, so he’s certainly not interested in repealing Congress’s right to impose one!

          spartan in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2011 at 6:14 am


          The Jeopardy answer is: What are you missing from your analysis?

          Pre-16th Amendment, Congress’ taxing authority was limited by apportionment. If a State had 10% of the nation’s population, the US government was limited in taxing the citizens of that State 10% of the national budget. The 16th Amendment does away with the apportionment rule.
          The other thing the 16th Amendment does is end the debate whether income taxes were a direct or indirect tax; indirect being treated the same as an excise or duty.

          Captain Obvious in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2011 at 12:43 pm

          Exactly Spartan.

    People need to start running the number on Cain 999 plan — thet results will be instuctive (and may be scary).

    But the focus on his 999 plan misses the point. I care much less about how the Gov’t collects taxes than how it spends taxes.

    What does Cain say about that? What agencies would he eliminate? Would he abolish gov’t unions? Which subsidies would he end? What about military spending? What about R&D support (or lack of it)? What about entitlements? What are his detailed concrete plans for these sustainable?

    Cain has no record; no meaningful experience in this job. He needs to produce detailed and precise plans on all of this to clarify his thinking and allow us to evaluate his suitablity.

    Otherwise he’s just the “feel good” guy. We have one of those already.

I’ve read blurbs about Perry “moseying” rather than running. Doesn’t really matter. When he started gaining he got the MSM target painted on his back. Cain is feeling some of that now that he’s in the advance.

Perry isn’t going to get the nod and he’s probably as aware as I am that he won’t get it. Why spend too much effort when you are being dealt the low cards? You only up the ante in a fair game and this one is rigged.

At this point in the debate I’m getting really tired of watching that smug look on Romney’s face 🙁

Cowboy Curtis | October 18, 2011 at 9:20 pm

No one is paying attention to this stuff yet but us political junkies. This ends up as a Perry/Romney showdown. They’ve got the money and the organization, and that’s what matters.

    I agree somewhat Cowboy but since Obama has been prez the number of political junkies seems to have grown larger with each passing day….I wonder what percentage that makes us?

      Owen J in reply to Joy. | October 19, 2011 at 12:13 am

      The distinction between political junkies and politically aware voters is what what counts. Political junkies (like pundits) are inherently bad — they lack perspective and are incapable of making rational decisions — but politically aware voters are great.

      If Obama has swelled the ranks of both (which he has), we can only hope the latter has increased more than the former.

        Disagree strongly…my opinion is that political junkies ARE aware voters because we watch the good, the bad, and the ugly before making decisions.

          Steve in reply to Joy. | October 19, 2011 at 12:21 pm

          I have to agree. Junkie is code for someone who thinks politics is important. Well… they are! As the 2008 Election should have brought to everyone’s attention. We can’t have another McCain. We can’t have another term for Obama.

That charge about Romney hiring illegals was debunked back in 2008. This is yet another cheap shot by Perry’s people in trying to scrape Perry’s amnesty anchor off on Romney is a very clumsy way. Just like his attempt to resurrect Mormonism and his wife Anita’s claim that the only reason her husband is being attacked is because of this faith (and besides, Jesus supports Rick…Ick!!!).

As the father of the Texas Dream Act, protector of sanctuary cities in open-borders Texas, he has no credibility in attacking Romney on illegals. Or anything else for that matter. Rick Perry is a shady politician who acquired his wealth via shady land deals and tried to govern by fiat. Although I find Romney to be a very capable and decent man, I would never vote for him because I just find his politics unacceptable for someone running as a Republican.

    You, it works a lot better to get all your facts straight. It may seem clever to mix a few real facts in the BS to make the BS seems palatable but in reality the BS just make the real facts stink.

    workingclass artist in reply to Pasadena Phil. | October 19, 2011 at 8:58 am

    The instate tuition bill in Texas was veto proof…sheesh!
    It saved Texas money and kept us out of court. It may also come up for review in the next session but Texas didn’t create the immigration problem and nobody on that stage except for Perry has done anything to secure the border. $400 million of Texas money spent on order security & it’s a federal responsibility.

    Perry pushed the anti-sanctuary city bill twice in the last special session & Strauss the speaker tabled it.

    Romney looked bad. Perry got under his skin with the Boston Globe story.
    Romney explaining that he can’t have these people cause he’s running for office is a big score for Perry.

    In terms of strategy Perry won that debate. I find it interesting that the same commenters who said he didn’t fight enough are now complaining when he shows some spirit and fights back.

    Gingrich won on substantive demeanor as usual.
    Romney was rattled.
    Cain will lose his front runner status and it will because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth and becomes surly when challenged. 999 will raise sales taxes in states that have them and that is a fact he cant dismiss by saying the rest of us just don’t understand. His own adviser? is starting to walk it back and it’s all Cain has. His changing answers on the fence,Gitmo and negotiating with terrorists will sink him as revealing political inexperience and lack of depth.

    Romney can’t have it both ways lashing out at Perry as a career politician because the difference between the two is that Perry is a winning career politician & Romney is a career candidate with a liberal record he can’t run away from.

Perry won. He looked credible, and he isn’t Mitt Romney, and that’s what counts. He and Mitt have the money and organization, and that’s what will count two months from now. If the Perry we saw tonight shows up for the rest of the debates, he’s our nominee. Write it down.

    workingclass artist in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 19, 2011 at 9:17 am

    The Atlantic posted a story titled Perry’s death stare where according to them it looked like Perry wanted to throttle Romney.

    It was funny…almost spewed coffee on the keyboard over that one.

    Somebody gave Perry some RedBull & Perry decided to go for it. By the time he gets the chance to debate Obama he’ll be ready because he can only improve

I have to agree with your END GAME Professor….Perry may not have mastered his debating skills just yet but the fire that he lacked in the beginning is getting hotter.

The others were……..dare I say ‘ho hum’ talking points repeaters?

The only reason Perry appears to be a contender is because he is second in money. The problem is that the money, like his popularity, is Texas-specific.

It is no longer a matter of money for Perry. It’s that it takes too much money to sell cancer.

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to Pasadena Phil. | October 18, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    We’ve got half a dozen people on the stage, and one of them is going to win, so who are you pulling for cowboy? Telling us that everyone sucks and we shouldn’t vote for them doesn’t get Obama out of office, so instead of telling us who you’re against, how about a case for who you’re for.

    Analysis straight from the pages of the HuffPost. Let me guess, troll or Paulbot?

On the other hand, Romney is only well-liked by about 20-25% of Republicans and that number hasn’t budged since 2008. It is just not a good plan to nominate someone so unpopular among so many targeted voters. With all of the people living in the US, we can’t find a single acceptable Republican? We are again going to be asked to hold our noses and vote for the LOTE? Not me.

Here’s another problem for Romney: his claim that MA is happy with RomneyCare is falling apart.

The Democratic governor and Democratic legislature is working hard to overturn/revise many of the important features of that plan so I can only assume that maybe MA voters aren’t that into RomneyCare.

That is why running RomneyCare against ObamaCare is such a coin flip. It allows Obama back into the game.

I don’t agree with much of the “analysis” I’ve read here or elsewhere. Perry went straight to the top when he entered as the “not_romney”” and was instantly attacked from all sides. The attacks were 95% specious, depending almost entirely on people’s ignorance of the reality on the ground, but they gained some traction.

Perry is an easy target — a while male TX gov with a long record to mine for sound-bite “gotchas” by opponents that will seem credible to their uninformed supporters.

So when Palin declined to run, the bulk of her support appears to have gone to Cain over Perry as the “cleaner” Tea Party option. Cain is much harder to attack — he has no record, people are much more leery of calling him on his weaknesses, and he was so low in the polls before Palin’s annoucement that there was no point in going after him.

Cain is an easy “Aye” for Palin and other Tea Party supporters: he superficially appeals to their desires without having the baggage that comes from ever having to make hard choices about complex problems. They can paint him the way they like and praise his 999 tax plan while having no real idea of how it would work or what it’s impact would be.

Cain is their (maybe as a long-time Palin supporter, I should say “our”) “feel-good” candidate who absolves them from thinking hard. His rises in the poll based on this non-thinking lends faux-crebility to his candidacy, just as the notion of “electibilty” does to Romney’s.

So Perry’s debate performances have been largely immaterial in his fall in the polls. However well he might have done, he’s so juicy a target that his initial slide was inevitable.

Cain’s high profile now puts him in the position for proving he has some there there. The vast majority still do not know who he is and do not take him seriously. He has to become something more than the cute novelty option (BTW: everyone I talked to instantly switches their opinion of him from positive to negative once the 9% sales tax is mentioned.)

On the other hand, Perry just needs to weather the storm and learn how to repsond better to the specious attacks on his record. If Perry gets out and stumps where it matters in person, his support will build, albeit slowly and tonight’s debate might help becuase it’s much better to follow up perceived weak debates with a stronger one (plus people tuning into this debate without seeing the others may well conclude that the commentary on the other debates was mostly baseless partisan carping).

But Perry has time, which works strongly to his advantage. History shows that Perry improves on acquaintance — Cain may not and when voters (not just political junkies) actually start to consider things seriously, Perry’s record gives him a distinct edge.

By the time the voting starts, it is likely that attacks on Perry will be already priced in; Cain’s lack of experience will begin to tell and his charm could be getting stale. Romney may well be wearing thin (well thinner) also, because he running only as a weak “not_Obama” — no one actually seems to like the guy.

So political junkies need to take a deep breath. No one in the real world gives a damn what we think — no one in the real world assesses candidates on the same basis we do. The vast majority think we are silly and misguided (and they are mostly correct).

Votes will tell in the end — not breathless vaporing by political junkies and pundits driven to ADD by their own accellerated news cycle.

Perry the winner not because he was so much better than the others, but because he was so much better than he was previously.

Replace Perry with Obama in that sentence and you may have the Democrat plan for winning the election. No way will the economy be good, but if it seems to be improving meaningfully the voters may narrowly give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He’s finally learned the job, as it were.

The degree of conservative overconfidence I encounter in the intertubes is worrisome too.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | October 19, 2011 at 12:29 am

Mr. Herman Cain, like I have stated many times, is a nice guy, but is extremely inexperienced in world international affairs, and thus not only has extreme inefficiencies and deficiencies, in his resume and experience level, for US President, and it would now seem, he is also as dangerous as Ron Paul is, in this regard and aspect of US National Security.

You cannot be an Appeaser of Tyranny and Terrorism as U.S. President, like Ron Paul would be.. thus, Herman Cain is unqualified, and should never be allowed to be the US President. Just like Obama should never have been.

Just look, at PM Netanyahu’s massive mistake, in letting go thousands of murders, terrorists, go free, for one single Israeli soldier.. That’s appeasement and capitulation to terrorists and murders.. and will only cost more Israeli Jewish lives in the end.

Hmm I thought Herman and Newt both seemed more Presidential than Romney, Perry, Bachman and Santorum. Ron was a bit out there but still Ron.

To me the candidates should not be squabbling like children while on a national venue. Also the gross misunderstanding/characterization of Cain’s 999 plan by all but Newt was off-putting as well. All the arguments against it were erroneous and perhaps outright fiction.

So I saw Cain Newt Romney Perry Santorum Bachman and Paul as the debate exit ordered by most Presidential.

    Owen J in reply to Steve. | October 19, 2011 at 12:39 am

    Have you run numbers on Cain’s 999 plan? If so, what did you get?

    Please share.

      spartan in reply to Owen J. | October 19, 2011 at 1:01 am

      No one has run the numbers; at least no one I have heard of. Even Cain could not get into specifics other than, ‘go to his website’. Could he not give any specifics or the folks who wrote the explanation. Laffer and Moore are walking back from their endorsement over the national sales tax.
      I think the 9-9-9 Plan was grab-bagging at its finest.

        Owen J in reply to spartan. | October 19, 2011 at 2:30 am


        I took a shot based on what I could find out and ran my taxes (as a homeowner and a small business owner with a wife that works) for 3 different years. One year, they doubled — the other two, they went up between 15% and 25%.

        Cain needs to answer for these numbers and explain if they are right or wrong and why. And if they are right — under his plan at ANY time since he thought of it — why he thinks potentally doubling my federal taxes is a good idea.

        Or he can admit his has no idea what he’s proposing and thus, no idea what he’s doing.

        Let him run for governor of some state that matters and let’s see how it goes. If he comes to CA he will have my complete support in getting of Brown.

      Steve in reply to Owen J. | October 19, 2011 at 11:11 am

      Well i looked at this year. I’ll be in the 25% bracket and will probably pay 17% + the FIca medicare (+4.2 + 1.45) for a grand total of 22.65% of my income. Plus 15% on my dividends and another 17% of interest on savings.

      So All of those taxes are eliminated and I will pay 9% on my personal income ( save 13%) and 9% on my capital gains ( Save6%). Additionally if I spend money on used goods I will pay no sales tax.

      The Sales tax is interesting since it is on top. That brings my tax back up to 21% but its based on my behavior. If I save my money there is no additional penalty. If I buy used goods predominately then I avoid the sales tax. So in reality I see this being somewhat less than 18%

      Finally there is the impact on price of removing a major tax on companies at the 35% level (C Corps, LLC ) and larger partnerships will help those entities lower cost of goods and services ( no effect on partnerships sole proprietor and S Corp since they pay on Personal Income) uses an assumption of 22% goods cost reduction.

      So I think net net I will come out paying less than i currently do based on info at the Cain website.

      Hope that helps.

perry went for cheap shots and barked them like an angry chihuahua…romney became tiresome with his ‘it’s my turn to talk’ shtick and his condescneding laugh…santorum tried too hard to lay blows that all landed with a thud…bachmann is a peppier elizabeth dole…cain has no explanation for anything he says and usually ends up having to apologize…gingrich is smart, knowledgable, and even humorous. remind me again why he’s not electable..? he would rip obama a new one in debates: seven of them, three hours long, with no moderator ! yeah, baby!

No matter what Romney or anybody else does Romney is stuck at 24%. That’s all the deeper his support goes, and he can’t get more than that. Thusly, this whole has consisted of putting up candidates to capture the imagination of the 76% who refuse to support Romney. Bachmann, then Perry, now Cain. Others were hoping for Trump, Palin, or Christie, but they’re out. Same thing happened in 2008. Faced with the prospect of Romney, McCain’s moribund candidacy was resurrected. Based on all that, in 2012 it’s NOT going to be Romney. I don’t know who it will be, but Romney is toast.

The 3rd sentence should be, “Thusly, this whole campaign…”

I take you were not around in the 90s. Newt is not electable because he is a terrible administrator and horrible when it come to exercizing executive authority.

He’s good at talking and he is an good gadfly. He would make a decent pundit. As a leader, he’s almost as bad as the current occupant.

When are people going to learn that talk is not just cheap, but misleading and deceptive? Please quit proving P.T. Barnum right.

    spartan in reply to Owen J. | October 19, 2011 at 6:51 am

    You missed the part of Newt being the master of the unintended soundbite. Back in the 90’s, Newt made a statement about the then looming government shutdown using Clinton’s decision to make Gingrich and Dole ride in the back of Air Force 1 on the way to Rabin’s funeral as the reason for taking a hard line against Clinton.
    Lest we forget, ‘right wing social engineering’ became the battle cry to fight the Paul Ryan Plan.

    BTW, I think you analysis concerning Perry (above) is spot on. I think his ability to raise money will keep him in the game; much to the chagrin of Romney and the Beltway Establishment crowd. One big problem for Romney is when he talks specifics, he either says nothing or opens up old/new problems. I think Cain will continue to attack Perry in order to get on the ticket with Romney. Two technocrats on the GOP ticket. I guess someone has to sweep the parking lot.

Off topic… Hey Prof, did you know that the protesters are eating gourmet meals, thanks in part to the Wide Awake Bakery in Ithaca?

Protest mob is enjoying rich diet:
‘“We’re running a five-star restaurant down there,’’ crowed Eric Smith, 38, the ex-le Chef de Tournant at the Sheraton in Midtown, who works out of a soup kitchen in East New York, Brooklyn, churning out the meals for more than 1,000 protesters every day.

“The other day, we made some wonderful salmon cakes with dill sauce and some quinoa salad and a wonderful tomato salad with fennel and red onion,’’ he said.
‘Most of the produce, grass-fed meat and organic chicken is donated from small organic farms upstate, including Northland Sheep Dairy, West Haven Farm and Wide Awake Bakery in Ithaca, and several farms in Connecticut and Vermont.’

Spartan wrote:

The Jeopardy answer is: What are you missing from your analysis?

Pre-16th Amendment, Congress’ taxing authority was limited by apportionment. If a State had 10% of the nation’s population, the US government was limited in taxing the citizens of that State 10% of the national budget. The 16th Amendment does away with the apportionment rule.
The other thing the 16th Amendment does is end the debate whether income taxes were a direct or indirect tax; indirect being treated the same as an excise or duty.

Bullshit. Every single assertion in the above paragraph is flat-out false. You have exposed yourself as utterly ignorant of the USA constitution and should refrain from commenting on it.

    spartan in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Perhaps, you should read/re-read Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.
    Pejoratives aside, I was attempting to augment your argument above. My apologies for not being more obvious.

      Milhouse in reply to spartan. | October 19, 2011 at 9:23 am

      I’m quite familiar with Article 1 section 2, thank you very much; it’s evident that you’re not. You can try to walk it back, but your original post misspeaks for itself. It’s an attempt to rebut my argument, not to bolster it; but it’s a failed attempt.

        spartan in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am

        If what you propose in your original post was true then why amend the Constitution?
        If you go back and read the Pollock decision, you will soon (maybe?) realize the decision was based on apportionment. It would have been politically impossible to tax wages without taxing income from property. The 16th Amendment did away with apportionment. Here is the pertinent language:
        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

        Reading is fundamental. So is logic. We are all counting on you.

          Milhouse in reply to spartan. | October 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm

          Indeed it is. As I wrote earlier, every single assertion you made in your original comment was flat-out wrong.

          1. Pre-16th Amendment, Congress’ taxing authority was limited by apportionment.

          Only direct taxes need to be apportioned. There is no possible question that a tax on wages and salaries, which is how most people earn most of their income, is an indirect tax, which Congress has the full power to impose without apportioning it. Nobody has ever suggested that it might be a direct tax; the very idea is ludicrous. As for a tax on rent, interest, and dividends, in my opinion the argument that the Supreme Court bought in 1895 is implausible, and would be rejected by today’s Court 9-0.

          2. If a State had 10% of the nation’s population, the US government was limited in taxing the citizens of that State 10% of the national budget.

          Again, only direct taxes need to be apportioned. All or almost all federal taxes that have ever been imposed are indirect.

          3. The 16th Amendment does away with the apportionment rule.

          No, it didn’t. It only exempted income taxes from it. Other direct taxes still need to be apportioned, which is why Congress doesn’t impose them.

          4. The other thing the 16th Amendment does is end the debate whether income taxes were a direct or indirect tax; indirect being treated the same as an excise or duty.

          It did not end the debate; it just made the question moot by exempting income taxes from the requirement. The fact remains that the income tax as applied to wages has never even been challenged, and as applied to rent and dividends the question is still open, and will now remain open since no court can now rule on it.

          If what you propose in your original post was true then why amend the Constitution?

          Because they wanted to tax all income, not just wages (indeed at the rates then imposed it didn’t affect most people’s wages), and because the Supreme Court made a stupid decision. That decision would not have been made at almost any other time in US history, but it was made then so they amended the constitution to make the question moot.

          If you go back and read the Pollock decision, you will soon (maybe?) realize the decision was based on apportionment.

          Of course it was. But as you belatedly acknowledge, it has nothing to do with the income tax as it applies to most people today, i.e. to income derived from personal labor.

          It would have been politically impossible to tax wages without taxing income from property.

          That’s not a constitutional argument. You never know what’s politically impossible until you try it. More to the point, at that time the rates were so low that they hardly affected wage income.

          The 16th Amendment did away with apportionment.

          No, it didn’t. It merely exempted income taxes from that requirement.

I’ve never been more disappointed than I am now in the current field.

Shallow, juvenile, and petty.

Newt is in a different class. Time to give him a 2nd look.

I think that fiscally, Cain’s plan needs to be 666. But obviously, that wouldn’t have gone over well. What about 777? Perhaps a copyright infringement for slot machines? 888? They’d get all over him for encouraging more people to eat! (You know how Libs/Progs/FlavorOfTheWeeks are.)

I really do wish I could vote FOR someone, just once. All I ever seem to do is vote AGAINST someone.

I guess I’m stuck with “No More B.O.” but it stinks…

[…] for the debate itself I found excellent analysis at Legal Insurrection: Perry the winner not because he was so much better than the others, but because he was so much […]