Rick Perry and Taxes: Toast

NFL cornerbacks get called "toast" when they getg repeatedly "burned" by touchdown pass after touchdown pass. As politician, and he has only himself to blame, Rick Perry is getting "burned" more often than any NFL cornerback who ever lived.


Yes, I saw Perry being intervewed by Bill O'Reilly, He was hopeless. Perry, when asked about the reveue his new "tax plan" would raise: "Frankly, I am not concerned about revenue for the Federal Government. I am concerned about jobs, and getting the economy moving. I will have my advisors put together a pachage about those details."


Say what? If you thought, correctly, that Herman Cain did not do all that well in coherently explaining his 9-9-9 plan, he did amazingly ell in comparison with RickPerry. I know that most sane people (which leeaves out Obama and leftist Democrats) are not "concerned" about INCREASING the revenue of the Federal Governmetnt. But what about the deficit and the debt? No. You have to at least PAY ATTENTION to the effect that any change in the tax code would have as to INCREASING the defeict and our DEBT. Remember that debt ceiling fight? Is Perry really saying that debt doesnot matter. And he pulled a Michele Bachmachmann: saing our problem is SPENDING and not revenue. Problem: if you are going to say that, you have to say HOW you are going to CUT spending the 40% that is NECESSARY for us to be "living withn our means". Perry did not do that, and has no intention of doing it (as Michele Bachmann has blatantly failed and refused to do). Ron Paul and Gary Johnson may tell you HOW they would "balance the budget". Not so ith othr Repubicans, who are playing "politics as usual". REPPUBICANS in Congress are NOT proposing to CTU spending tis year, or nextg year. Their nominal "cut" for this coming year has been a mere 24 billion, and they have ADDED (in December of 2010) miuch MORE than that to spending and the deficit over the last year. Further they keep making noises to ADD MORE to the deficit: again, much more than the asham amount that they have supposedly "cut'. Any "cuts" they make, as part of the overal l budgetg "deal", are part of a Soviet Unioin style 10-year plan", whre the "cuts may never happen. I digress from Perry (not really, as my intent is to show you that Prry is NOT different from Boehner and those other Washington politicians, except in his Texas style and accent).


And Steve Forbes shoudld be rolling over in his grave on hearing the disgraceful Pery version of the "flat tax". Okay, Steve Forbes is not dead. But this may kill him, and then he will roll over in his grave. You simpky can't mess up an "issue" any worse than Perry has done. One of the major attractions of the "flat tax" is that you supposedly get rid of the IRS, and almost the whole Tax Code. Not Perry. He proposes to ADD the "flat tax" (lol) o ntop of the entire existing Tax Code. In other words, Perry proposes to make things MORE COMPICATED. He proposes a "flat tax" of 20% for corporations, but proposes to give individuals the "right to choose" what tax law they want to use. In other words (I think), you will get to figure your taxes TWICE uner Perry, and pay only the LESSER tax (betwen the "flat tax" and the old tTax Code, which is retaineed). Oh, and Perry proposes to KEEP the mortgage deduction, excpet for houses over $500,000 (a normal sized houe, in California, at least before the collapse of housing prices). In other words, Perry is joining the "tax the rich" rhetoric of Obama and the Democrats, as has Mitt Romney with regard to his COMPLICATING "tax breaks" for the "middle class". It is a stupid INCREASE in the tax rate (for certain lpeole) to take away the deduction for those people, while retaiing it for others. It is especially DISHONEST by Perry, because-presummabley--MOST of those people who don't get the full mortgage deduction will "choose" the "flat tax" Exceptm, Perry is seemingly proposing to let you have BOTH the "flat tax" and the mortgage deduction. It is not clear what is "flat" about Perry's tax proposal. As stated, he seems to simply propose ADDING another tax x method and rate ON TOP of our present tax systme. It is true that this will REDUCE TAXES for basically everyone, or at least not raise them for ANYONE, since Perry is going to let you have the OPTION (lol) of wich tax system to use. Prry, of course, would also eliminate the capital gains tax, as would Cain, since tis is a RELIGIOUS COMMANDMENTA for certain Republicans (who are WRONG to encourage GAMES with taxses by making it so advantageous to make sure that "income' is capital gainss, instead of ordinary income). 15% is actually abut right for the capital gainsts tax. If lyou get a 20% individual rate, you might reduce the long-term capital gainss rate to 10-12%. But making the rate "zero" merely encourages people to try to make sure that as much of their "income" as possible is in the form of capital gains. This is merely a quibble, however, in comparison with the MESS Perry has made of "simplifying" the Tax Code.


Nope. Perry is toast, as this blog has told you for more than a week, after telling you, IN ADVBANCE, that Perry was no "savior" for the Repubican Party. This blog told you that Perry has NEVEr been impressive, even while being an ADEQUATE governor of Texas (where he has had the help of us Teaxans--superior to the other "races" of men, and you can join our "race" without even changing your skin color). Even I--who predicted this for Perry, unlike Rush Limbaigh--did not expect Perry to be THIS BAD.


Flat statement: Rick Perry will NOT be the Republican nominee for President. Refer, again, to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Wre None." Romney is making it clear that his goal is to SAY NOTHING, as slickly as possilbe. Romney made NOBODY happy by PUTING on the qustion of what he thought about the Ohio governor's proposal to reign in the pubic employee unions. Chris Christie endorsed Romney. Romney should go to him for advice on "straight talk". Oh, it is correct that this kind of CNN quesion is a TRAP. Romney is correct that a PRESIDENTIAL candidate does not generally have any business tali=king about a specific STATE issue. Obama never gets this kind of qusstion, unless the media is FORCED into it (or Obama pushes himself in), a with the New York City mosque. So I hae some sympathy for Romeney's general position. There is no reason for him to be arging OHIO politics. However, Romney had a chance to take on the pubic employee unions, and stand up for principle. I did not see the whole interview, but my mpressin is that Romney did not do that (although CNN, The Liar Network, is fully capable of leaving that impression when it is a LIE). Note the clever PROPAGANDA behind this kind of quesiotioin about a sTATE issue which a Presidential candidate has no reason to "study" in preparation for being President of the United States,. If Romney answers the questin directly, he may then be asked DETAILS that he is not prepared to address (and should not be). However, if Romney dodges the questin, he looks like he is playing "politics as usual"--which everyone, including me, expects of Romney. This is really an unfair, "when did you stop beating your wife", type question.


Still, Romney SUFFERS in comparison to Chris Christie. Romney is the very opposite of "straight talk". Romney gives the impression that he has NO real principles, and that he PREPARES positions on the "issues' based on focus groups, polls, and what Romney things sounds good POLITICALLY. No. Romney is NOT 'far left'. like Obama, or even McCain. But Romney is no cosnervative, and everyone knows it. That is why the Republican PARTY is so important. If the PARTY can stand for principle, which is apppearing more and mroe doubtful, Romney is a competent "technocrat". He can MANAGEHis core principles--except aybe in his personal life--are in doubt (doubt whether he has many). That is why I keep saying that if the Republican PARTY betrays me in Congress, I will NOT support Romney iagainst Obama. Romney can't be relied upon (as Bachmann could, despite the disappointment of her campaign) to stand up against backsliding Repubicans. Romney will probably lead the backsliding, if he thinks it to his advantage, and he needs a PRINCIPLED Republican Party to give him backbone.


It is not that theese people (Republican candidates) are untalented. They all are VERY talented, ni their own way. Even Johnn Huntsman can sound really good, and had a good record as governor of Utah. But I would not vote for him for President. I would vote for Cai, Bachmann, Paul (yes, Paul) or Santorum, but I see the FLAWWS (as well as virtues) in all of them. Only Cain has a real chance to actually be President, and he has a long way to go. No, I still would not vote for Gingrich, although he is the person who has actually performed the BEST over the past three months. Maybe he could talk me around, but I flat out don't trust him. He is erratic, even though he is probalby the most intelligent of the candidates. And then there were none This is why Romney is setting up as the "default" candidate, even though he is clearly" politics as usual", at a time when people are ready to bget beyond that.


Rush Limbuah i WRONG, by the way, and his analysis is totally wrong, when he says (as he has over the past two days) that Obama wants to run against Romney rather than a "real" conservative. Limbuagh has this FALSE idea that the whle country is jumping at the bit to give a landslide to a "real" conservative. That is not true, and I don't think Obama thinks that way. I think Obama would be glad to run against Perry. Hell, I would be glad to run against Perry. But that is not even the point. The point is that that Obama and the media want to TEAR DOWN ALL of the serious Republican candidates. Rush uses the example of a Los Angles Times (purveryor of Obama propaganda) article reporting that RomneyCare (like ObamaCare) COVERS illegal immigrants in one of its "hidden" provisions, even though illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from the insurance coerage provisions. Rush wonders why the Los Angeles Times would do htis if they are trying to elect Romney. Rush-as he sometimes, does--misses the point entirely. When McCain got the nomination, the mainstream media had already started to attack McCain BEFORE he locked up the nomination, even though they obviusly favored McCain for the nomination. Thisis just a matter of TEARING down every Repubilcan, and Rush is only saying that about Rmney bbecause Rush has so many doubts about Romney (adn FALSELY rpresented Perry to be that "savior' of conservatives and the Repubican Party). This is not roket science. Sometimes Ruh has an agenda that cuase him to either misrepresent the truth , or ideliberatlly hide it for his own purposes. I don't think thatq Obama "wants" to rn against Romney. I think it is obvious that Obama has already developed the PLAN as to how he is going to run against Romney, which is different from the way he would run against Cain or Perry (never hapen). Obama expectes the media to TEAR THEM ALL DOWN. The media only prefers Romney--hainv g fialed to seel Huntsman, who Obama really would like to run against--becaues the media is SCAED that somehow an actual conservative might win. They could not stand that. Thus, they will prefr Romney, even if Romney has the best chance to defeat their rea choice (Obama).


The problem is that there is no Republican running who has the whole package, form a conservative point of view: communications skills adequate to SELL conservatism, political skills (without becoming "politics as usual" at a time when that aprach is in its death throes), and "idea' skills. And NONE of the candidates seems to have the ability to actually take the battle to Obaama. This was shown when ONLY Herman Cain (rather timidly) was willing to ATTACK Obama over his support of the ridiculous "occupy Wall Street" movement. And there is NO Repubican candidate who is actually criticizing the SPECIFICS of the Obama "jobs bill".


No. These people are actually talented. But none of them is the complete package. So we wil ahve to do without another Ronald Reagan for this eletion, as has been true of EVERY election since 1964 (that s, every electin in which Reagan did not participate). That would not be so bad if Repubican politicians generally could be trusted. They can't. That is why Romney cannot get more support, as this blog has told you People do NOT want "politics as usual", but they dO want to beat Obama. Every candidate has obvious flaws as far as beating Obama--even Romney. Someone other than Romney may yet break out of the pack., but the urge to beat Obama is a force that keeps pushing Romney toward a "default" nomination. I think Rush is right that a COMPLETE conservative candidate would be much better against Obama than Romney. Howevr,, that candidate does not yet exist. Where I (corretly) disagree with Rush s that ANY "conservative" candidate wil simply swamp Obama because the country so clearly agrees with Rush (lol). Perry would have trouble, and will not get the chance. Ditto Bachmann. Ditto Paul.. Ditto Johnson. Ditto Huntsman. Santorum has just not caught fire, and had a horrible last debate. That leaves ONLY Cain, who just BOTCHED the question on abortion that h KNEW he would eventually have to face. And then there were none? None but Romney, hwho is not a conservative? Oh, Gingrich. His FLAWS are so larger than life that he needs VIRTUES that big just to "offset" them. I just don't see it. But I am willing to let Gingrich try to convince me. He is about 1/3 of the way there, and running out of timme.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).