It's Settled: Cain Is No Friend Of Gun Owners

I have been arguing for some time that Herman Cain is no friend of gun owners.

At this Saturday's Thanksgiving Family Forum, Cain made some comments on the nature of government authority and individual rights which, I believe, cement my arguments about his stance on gun rights.

Frank Luntz asks Cain to clarify his bizarre Tenth Amendment stance. Watch Cain stumble through his definition of the word "wrong" (these videos are pre-set to play at the correct time):



So, a federal mandate to overturn segregation was acceptable because segregation was "wrong" (and I agree, it absolutely was). But a federal mandate to remove barriers to gun ownership doesn't meet Cain's "wrongness" test?

Now watch Cain explain his definition of equal treatment:




Cain believes that an acceptable use of federal authority is to ensure "the common good" and to "level the playing field" and promote "fairness and respect" (these terms make me cringe, as they are collectivist buzzwords, but that's beside the point). However, equal treatment of individual rights apparently doesn't include equal treatment of a person's right of self-defense, in Cain's opinion.

Now watch Cain describe the justification for using force:



He believes that a person has a right to use force in self-defense, which is terrific, but since (in Cain's opinion) a state may deny the individual the tools to engage in lawful self-defense, the right is rendered meaningless.

There are two possible ways to interpret Cain's conflicting messages:

1) Cain doesn't really understand the legal and political issues involved in gun ownership, and so he falls back on "states' rights" rhetoric; or,

2) Cain is lukewarm (at best) on private gun ownership.

This certainly wouldn't be the first time Cain has tried to use two diametrically-opposed sets of rhetoric (and failed miserably at it). He did so with his comments on abortion- trying to use both the "life begins at conception" and the "woman's choice" talking points.

However, Cain's stance on abortion was already well-known and crystal clear. He made the "woman's choice" remark once, and it was clearly a case of him trying to use incompatible rhetoric.

On gun rights, however, it hasn't been "just once". He's used the "states' rights" rhetoric multiple times, and he continues to stick to it.

Now watch this video: Cain is directly asked about his "states' rights" argument and gun rights:

Question: "Do you support states' rights to regulate firearms?"

Cain: "That's a loaded question."

Excuse me? It's a "loaded question" to ask for a definite yes-or-no?

So, let's review:

Herman Cain doesn't support National Right-To-Carry.

Herman Cain doesn't support "federal mandates" to ensure gun rights, because state gun laws are not "wrong".

Herman Cain supports allowing states to make whatever gun laws they choose.

Herman Cain uses tough rhetoric on gun ownership and self-defense, but resists answering detailed questions on gun ownership (reference the video above, the Wolf Blitzer interview, the New Hampshire question, etc.)

Herman Cain has been using the totally incorrect "states' rights" rhetoric for at least eight months now, and has had numerous opportunities to clarify his position on gun rights- but has not availed himself of any of these opportunities.

Ladies and Gentlemen, given these facts, it's time to put this one to bed: Herman Cain does not support your right to keep and bear arms in any meaningful way. He clearly enjoys his own right to do so (as he said in New Hampshire, "I have six (guns)... and that ain't enough"), and for those who provide his protection. But not yours or mine. In this regard, he's no better than Mitt Romney.

National Right-To-Carry: An Individual Right, Not A State Right

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on National Right To Carry today.

However, an unusual argument against gun rights has been presented by the small-government crowd, of which I consider myself a member. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air best describes this issue:

For permit holders like myself, the ability to travel with my pistol into other states without having to worry about reciprocity issues would be helpful indeed.  But that doesn’t address other fundamental issues involved, such as the ability of states to set their own rules for permit issuance and carrying.  Some states, like Minnesota, require a certain amount of training to get a permit, while others do not.  Should Minnesotans be forced by the federal government to have non-residents carrying in the state under less-restrictive conditions than their own citizens have to address?  For that matter, should Minnesotans have the right to carry in Illinois while the state forbids its own residents to do so, even apart from the question of whether Illinois’ policy is intelligent?  (Let’s just stipulate that it’s idiotic, but also that Illinois voters don’t seem to be in a rush to correct it, either.)

To put this argument in context, I ask the reader to consider the following (intentionally absurd) "news story":

A debate is brewing in Congress over the National Right-To-Not-Be-Murdered (NRTNBM) Act. This act, if passed, will allow bearers of state-issued No-Murder permits to resist murder in other states.

But some small-government thinkers challenge the validity of a federal no-murder mandate.


"We must respect the right of states to determine who may lawfully resist murder" says Bob Walters of the State's Rights Institute. "There are legitimate public safety concerns here. If State A issues a No-Murder permit to anyone, but State B only issues No-Murder permits to persons who can prove a need to not be murdered, should State B be forced by the Federal government to recognize State A's lower standards? I respect the right of people to be murder-free, but states should be free to decide who may be murdered and who may not."


Rob Parker of the National Anti-Murder Association disagrees. "Every American has the right to not be murdered, whether they happen to be standing in New York City or in Tulsa, Oklahoma."

Legal analyst Bobby Jones gives us insights into the legal framework of the bill: "To date, the Federal courts haven't ruled that the 'Partial Faith & Credit' clause of the Constitution extends to the right to not be murdered. However, the Eleventeenth Amendment explicity states that the right to not be murdered 'shall be infringed in a manner prescribed by Congress', so the courts will likely rule that this law, if passed, would meet Constitutional muster."

48 of the 50 states have procedures for issuing no-murder permits. Vermont allows any person over age 16 to resist murder without a permit. Only Illinois requires that all residents submit to murder. If the NRTNBM Act passes, Illinois would not be required to recognize other states' no-murder permits.

Murderer-rights advocate Robert Brady strongly disagrees with the intent of the bill: "In a civilized society, only police and military should be murder-free. We're all safer when the government exercises a total monopoly on murder. Allowing just any common citizen to decide whether or not to be murdered will mean blood in the streets. Besides, studies say that a person with a no-murder permit is 347.9 times more likely to kill their own children than to resist murder, and I promise we didn't fund that study."

I use this farce to make a point: Each of us has an inalienable, natural right of self-defense. We have a right to go about our lives unmolested, and a right to use whatever means are necessary to assure that condition. We have a right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, which- despite the absolute phrase "shall not be infringed"- has been infringed upon to an intolerable degree by the federal government and by states and municipalities.

For those who mistakenly invoke "states' rights" and resist a "federal mandate" recognizing individual rights, let's take a trip back through history. At the end of the Civil War, southern states began writing laws to disarm newly-freed blacks (freed, incidentally, by a "federal mandate"). These states claimed a "states' right" to deny gun rights to blacks. The federal government created another "federal mandate"- the Fourteenth Amendment- to combat this tyranny. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the McDonald decision (incorporating the Second Amendment on the states), the Fourteenth Amendment was created specifically with the First and Second Amendments in mind, and it is historical and legal irony that the Second Amendment was among the last of the Bill of Rights amendments to be "incorporated".

Incidentally, I have twice criticized Herman Cain for holding to this absurd "states' rights" view (here and here).

Why were these "federal mandates" legitimate? Because one of the legitimate powers of our government is to guarantee and protect the rights of the individual. The fact that our government frequently fails to exercise this power, does not mean that it should be prevented from exercising it. Without the power to "mandate" the recognition of both natural and Constitutional rights, our country would cease to be the republic our Founding Fathers created, and would become a majority-ruled democracy, where individual rights are subject to popular will.

Let's also be clear about something else: Governments- including state governments- don't have rights! In our form of government, people have rights. Governments have powers, which are limited in scope.

Stated differently, we already have a series of "federal mandates" on the subject:

The Second Amendment, which provides that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed";

The Ninth Amendment, which extends protection to all rights (including the right to self-defense), not merely those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights;

The Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the Bill of Rights on the states;

The 'peaceable journey' provision of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, signed by President Reagan in 1986, which requires states to allow persons to transport firearms during travel;

The 'Full Faith & Credit' clause of the Constitution, which requires states to recognize the comparable acts of other states.

In sum: If we assume the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia" provision doesn't reference Congressional authority (Article I, Section 8) to train and discipline (in other words, to "regulate") the militia, but rather authorizes Congress to "regulate" individual behavior;

And if we assume the Ninth Amendment is an "inkblot" which doesn't actually guarantee the exercise of unspecified natural rights;

And if we assume that government, rather than our Creator, grants us our rights;

And if we assume that the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is limited by the violent acts of others;

And if we assume that the Fourteenth Amendment was only intended to guarantee "certain" rights;

And if we assume the word "Full" in "Full Faith & Credit" is actually a synonym for the word "Partial";

And if we assume that states have "rights", rather than "powers", and among those "rights" is the right to decide who may exercise civil liberties and who may not;

And if we assume that our Founding Fathers didn't intend us to have "a republic, if you can keep it", but instead intended us to suffer the "tyranny of the majority" of a popular democracy, and intended for government to enforce popular whims rather than protect individual rights;

Then perhaps there is a valid argument against a "federal mandate" recognizing greater freedom of personal protection.

Or we can "mandate" that people learn how to read before interpreting the Constitution.

Herman Cain: More Anti-Gun Than We Thought

I just recently discovered this video, from April 28th, of Herman Cain addressing a crowd in Rochester, New Hampshire, and opposing National Right-To-Carry:

From the video:

Question: What about a nationwide concealed weapons bill? Cain: Here's how I'd like that done: Let each state pass a concealed weapon bill. Empower the states- some states already have it- and not have a federal mandate. I believe in the Second Amendment.

As I stated in this post, Cain has used an argument matching that of Sonia Sotomayor regarding the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states:

Gun Control: Herman Cain's stated stance on gun control is bizarre- he seems to believe the federal government has only limited authority to regulate firearms, while the states may do so without restriction. Prior to Cain, I had only heard this position espoused by anti-gun judges (like Sonia Sotomayor)- people who favor very strict gun control but must appear to respect the Constitution. If we assume for a moment that this wasn't a "gotcha" question posed by Wolf Blitzer, and that this accurately reflects Cain's Second Amendment stance, then this is a problem.

This position also ignores an historical fact, cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in the US Supreme Court's McDonald decision (incorprating the Second Amendment on the states): The basic reasoning behind the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Second on the states. At the time of its passage, southern states were passing gun control laws intended to disarm newly-freed blacks. The fact that Cain- a southern black man who lived through segregation- misses this point, is deeply troubling to me.

If Herman Cain had only made the totally false "states' rights" argument once, it'd be forgivable as a slip-up. This is two statements, more than a month apart, both using extremely faulty Constitutional thinking.

As far as politicians claiming their individual status as gun owners as proof of their "pro-Second-Amendment" stance: I'll remind the reader that plenty of politicians who have voted for gun control laws were also privately gun owners. After all, Mitt Romney calls himself a "sportsman".

Clearly, Herman Cain has some explaining to do.

"Occupy" Violence: The Case For Deadly Force

The "Occupy" protests have turned deadly. Many people are shocked by this fact; I, however, am not. I believed, from the beginning, that this would be an inevitable product of the class warfare mentality behind the protests.

At the core of these protests is the erosion of property rights. The socialists encamped in our cities believe that individual property rights are "unfair" to those who have less property, and they seek to have government take property from its owners and redistribute it to others.

The link between a lack of respect for property rights and a lack of respect for the rights of the individual is well-known. Noted economist Walter Williams predicted this type of violence when he referenced this quote from John Adams:

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Adding, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Unfortunately, a large segment of our population doesn't grasp this connection.

This segment of the population, unaccustomed to violence, still maintain romantic notions of property crime. In their Mayberry-inspired worldview, burglars commit burglary because they are hungry, "things (property) can be replaced, but lives cannot", and "poor" shoplifters steal because they can't find work. This conduct, while illegal, can be excused because only those "down on their luck" would resort to such measures. These are the same snow-white souls who believe pornography and video games inspire violent thoughts and actions- they simply can't fathom how violent minds actually form.

In the real world, however, the situation is much more grave: Some people, such as the "Occupiers", harbor blind hatred for those who have more money and more property than themselves. These people have been taught to believe that any financially successful person obtained their wealth through criminal means; they have been raised to believe that no person advances through hard work (indeed, most of them have never had to perform "hard work"); they believe the criminal justice system exists solely to persecute them; and they believe savage, unmitigated violence is justified to redistribute property and "punish" the successful.

And "punish", they do: One need only see the sort of violence meted out during home invasion crimes (another form of class warfare): Raping and murdering adults and children, male and female alike; beating, torturing, disfiguring, and burning their victims alive; destroying property, homes, and businesses. These criminals believe that their victims- financially-stable nuclear families- have "stolen" from them, and believe themselves justified in inflicting a barbaric level of destruction and suffering as "punishment".

I have stated in other venues, and I will state here, that I strongly believe home invasion crimes will soon escalate in frequency and intensity, fueled by the class warfare furor of the "Occupy" protests. Both have the same basis: A hatred of those who "have more" than themselves. And both have degenerated to scarcely-believable levels of violence.

Those familiar with my self-defense activism know that I subscribe to the "personal autonomy" school of self-defense: The belief that each of us has a natural right to go about our lives unmolested, and to use any necessary means to ensure that condition. Far from justifying the debasement or punishment of others (as described above), this view of self-defense elevates and enhances the rights of the defender. This view encapsulates Oliver Wendell Holmes' view of rights: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

(I strongly encourage the reader to visit the link above.)

Today we are faced with a "movement" which numbers in the hundreds of thousands of particpants, who are destroying honest people's livelihoods and ability to feed their families, who are destroying our cities, who commit horrific acts of violence in broad daylight, and who have no apparent fear of police action (in part because politicians have restricted the ability of the police to combat them). The innocent person cannot hope to resist this violence with non-injurious means- and those who have attempted, have been even more brutally savaged.

This condition leaves only one tenable response: Recognition of the right of the individual to use any necessary means to combat this savagery- by which I mean, the employment of deadly force.

A few states- Texas being the prime example- already recognize a person's natural right to kill in defense of their property. In Texas, no person is mandated by the state to suffer the burglary or arson of their home or any other property. The age-old Castle Doctrine finds its greatest recognition in this state. Even the theft of property at night may be resisted with deadly force.

As a natural result, "Occupy Dallas" has been substantially less violent than other "Occupy" protests. In fact, "Occupy Dallas" has resorted to seeking a legal remedy to prevent their eviction. The lesson learned here: Recognizing the natural right of the innocent to defend their property with deadly force enhances, rather than erodes, the rule of law.

Unfortunately, most states grant little recognition of this right. In this regard, the state of Wisconsin is the worst offender, explicitly stating in its criminal code that self-defense is a privilege licensed by the state to the individual, not a right, and explicitly prohibiting the use of deadly force to protect property under any circumstances. One need only see the atrocious nature of the state capitol protests months ago to see the effect of this policy.

Adams' words are as correct today as they were two centuries ago. The erosion of any right cherished by the people will eventually lead to the erosion of all rights. We are seeing the cumulative effect of this erosion- Adams' "anarchy and tyranny"- today.

Romney's 59 Point Plan: Good, Bad, And Ugly

So far I have covered Herman Cain's "999" Plan (Part One-Part Two), Rick Perry's Alternative Maximum Tax, and Steve Forbes' Flat Tax (which Perry was originally believed to be adopting); Now, it's Romney's turn to go under my tax microscope.

Romney's "59-point plan" (PDF) isn't just a tax code proposal, but a series of policy changes covering taxes, business regulations, foreign trade, energy policy, China policy, immigration, employment retraining, and the federal budget deficit. It is, by far, the lengthiest plan any of the current Presidential contenders has presented (and, undoubtedly, its length is the major reason it hasn't recieved as much media attention as the other plans).

One should notice very quickly that this isn't really a "new" plan; it's a compendium of proposals put forth by others, which Mitt has packaged together.

For the sake of brevity, I'll group together a number of points into single units, and rate each unit on a "Good-Bad-Ugly" scale.

Taxes:

1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
3. Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
4. Eliminate the death tax
5. Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower, flatter rates on a broader base
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
7. Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation

This set of points reflects Romney's political pragmatism: He won't challenge Democrats on lowering tax rates for individuals, and will preserve current tax rates on investments for those who earn more than $200,000 (or, as President Obama calls them, "millionaires and billionaires"), while going for the low-hanging fruit of permanently eliminating the estate tax and taxes on investments for those earning less than $200,000 (in other words, tax-privileging senior citizens' accumulated wealth and retirement savings).

Being a flat tax advocate, I'm slightly disconcerted to see a low priority placed on instituting flat tax. As I stated in a previous post, there is already broad bipartisan support for flat tax; it's a major improvement which could be achieved quickly.

Likewise, proposing to merely reduce the corporate income tax to 25%, instead of eliminating it altogether, is another pragmatic move- Democrats would strenuously resist eliminating the corporate income tax, despite the fact that it is a double-tax.

The last point- "territorial taxation"- refers to a plan to permanently repatriate overseas profits. On the Republican side of the aisle, this is non-controversial; some Democrats could possibly be convinced to see the wisdom of re-injecting repatriated funds into the US. I like the idea of phrasing it as "territorial taxation"- this means a permanent change to the taxation of foreign profits, rather than a "holiday" for repatriation.

All in all, I'd have to describe this as "Good" on the Good-Bad-Ugly scale.

Regulations:

8. Repeal Obamacare
9. Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
10. Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
11. Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
12. Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations
13. Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
14. Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
15. Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
16. Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

I doubt I need to say anything on the subject of repealing Obamacare- it's a subject which has been covered in wonderful detail. I'll also avoid the "Obamneycare" quips at this point (side note: I still maintain that Tim Pawlenty started using the term "Obamneycare" after I made that joke on Twitter).

Repealing Dodd-Frank and amending Sarbanes-Oxley are unequivocally positive steps.

The part about this section which disturbs me is the repeated use of the "cost" phrasing- "unduly burden the economy", "cap of zero dollars", etc. This implies that there are regulations which cost nothing (I'd love to see an example of one); it also implies that regulating free enterprises is justifiable if the cost of said regulations is nil- again assuming that any regulation carries no cost.

It also produces another misnomer: That there is an accurate way to measure the costs to a particular business of a given regulation. All free-marketers understand that regulations cost money, and we can produce reasonable estimates to demonstrate this principle. It is, however, a principle; promising to implement it as a policy, which requires reliable calculations, could become a minefield.

Consider this: Whose calculations would be considered valid...? The above-mentioned Obamacare debate has centered upon conflicting calculations of cost- one agency claims Obamacare will save money, another group claims it will cost more money. We all know this tug-of-war by heart.

It's simpler and easier to just take a chainsaw to regulations. Additionally, the plan states that once Obama-era regulations are eliminated, the cutting will end- implying that no previous administration created burdensome regulations which could also be axed. Because of these factors, I have to rate this section "Bad".

Trade:

17. Implement agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea
18. Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
19. Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacifc Partnership
20. Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
21. Create the Reagan Economic Zone

There really isn't much to say in this section. Romney's plan literature (linked above) makes a very valid argument that President Obama has had little interest in developing foreign trade. While the free-marketer in me says the government should stay out of trade, another part of me says that using diplomatic means to strike deals beneficial to American businesses isn't a bad thing. On the whole, this is "Good".

China:

22. Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market
23. Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices
24. Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices
25. Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties
26. Discontinue U.S. government procurement from China until China commits to GPA

It's no secret that China is doing very well economically- and some of that success is due to cheating.

On the first point: Romney proposes devoting additional Customs and Border Patrol personnel to searching incoming shipments of goods for counterfeit items. One can see right away how this could spiral into absurdity: CBP wants more resources to search ships coming from China, so Chinese counterfeiters ship to other countries, who then ship here. CBP then needs even more personnel to search ships from those countries. Chinese counterfeiters cease shipping to those countries and ship to other countries instead. CBP needs even more personnel to now search every ship from every country.

There is a basic rule of black market economics: A black market can only exist when a particular good or service is illegal, heavily taxed, or regulated. Here in New York, for example, there is a well-developed "black market" for cigarettes: We have such high taxes on cigarettes that people go to Native American reservations to buy tax-free smokes. Cutting the tax would kill this black market.

On the other hand, we know from the prohibition of alcohol that no amount of enforcement will kill a black market. In fact, stricter enforcement generally causes black markets to grow (the black market for recreational drugs, for instance).

The solution for the black market in Chinese-produced counterfeit goods, then, is to dramatically reduce the cost of doing business in the United States. Cut taxes, cut regulations, and enable businesses to sell their products cheaper, and there would be no profit in making counterfeits.

Add to this Romney's proposals in points number 24 through 26- which would take first steps toward an open trade war with China- and I have to call this section "Ugly".

EPA and Energy:

27. Establish fxed timetables for all resource development approvals
28. Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
29. Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
30. Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
33. Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
34. Open America’s energy reserves for development
35. Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
36. Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
37. Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
38. Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
39. Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research

All of this is sound energy policy. The basic point made by these proposals is a well-known and sound one: The federal government is the single biggest roadblock to energy security and self-sufficiency. Federal over-regulation and manipulation limit oil and natural gas production; federal regulations limit the development of nuclear power (including the federal mandate which prohibits the building of newer, cleaner thorium-based nuclear reactors), and the federal government wastes taxpayer money on unproductive "green" energy programs. I rate this section "Good".

Labor:

40. Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
41. Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
42. Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certifcation election
43. Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
44. Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
46. Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

Again, nothing new, but all solid proposals. I can safely assume most people reading this blog are fully aware of NLRB's treatment of Boeing, and the use of union dues to almost exclusively support Democrat political campaigns. This solidly rates as "Good".

Retraining:

47. Eliminate redundancy in federal retraining programs by consolidating programs and funding streams, centering as much activity as possible in a single agency
48. Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
49. Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts
50. Encourage greater private sector involvement in retraining programs

This section, in my opinion, makes a mountain out of a molehill: Government retraining programs put very few people back to work. They are a perfect example of a feel-good program- a waste of money which "feels" productive but really isn't.

To illustrate why, consider this hypothetical: You are an employer looking to hire a mechanic. You have two candidates, one with 10 years' experience as a mechanic, and another who just recently graduated from trade school and has never held a job as a mechanic. Which candidate do you hire? Obviously, you would hire the more experienced applicant.

This is a fatal flaw of retraining programs, which cannot be resolved by any amount of "restructuring". For this reason, I have to rate this section "Ugly".

Immigration:

51. Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
52. Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering

While I'm all for increasing legal immigration, this proposal would target for immigration those people with advanced skills over all others. As I explained above, there is already a shortage of employment opportunities for skilled workers; the target of this proposal would just add to that problem. I have to call this section "Bad".

Federal spending:

53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefts of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
58. Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
59. Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

A few points:

53) "Non-security discretionary spending" refers to about 15% of the total federal budget. A 5% cut of this tiny fraction amounts to practically nothing.

54) Block granting Medicaid funds to the states is a great idea- but not an original one. The key to making it work, though, is to block grant and cut the funds. Romney doesn't propose the "cut" part of that equation.

57) 20% of GDP is still higher than the 18%-ish typically collected by the federal government. It is, however, a cap, which is good; but Romney doesn't provide any clue as to what he'd cut to get below the cap.

58) This statement is so vague as to be worthless. Period.

59) This is a tricky subject, and I'm glad Romney left it for last. The basic concept of a balanced budget amendment- the idea of a Constitutional limit on spending- is a good theory. But as always, "The devil's in the details". Most proposals for a BBA have been written in such a way as to guarantee the involvement of the courts in the budgeting process, which could get very ugly. On the other hand, a very simple amendment- something to the effect of "Congress shall not spend more in the current year than the amount collected in revenue the previous year without a 2/3 majority of both houses"- is too blunt to pass through the Amendment process.

Given all of these issues, I have to rate this section "Bad".

So there you have it: Mitt Romney's 59-Point Plan: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

The Martial Arts: A Free Market At Work

Many libertarians are quick to point out- and rightfully so- that the market for goods and services in the United States is hardly free: Businesses are regulated, success is taxed, and failure is sometimes subsidized.

However, there is one often-overlooked example of a genuinely free market in the United States: Martial arts instruction.

Neither the federal government nor any state in this country licenses martial arts instructors (New Jersey tried, and failed, to institute licensing about 15 years ago). Safety equipment mandates and safe practice standards are non-existant. Martial artists are not required to carry any kind of insurance (indeed, for a period of time while I trained in martial arts, I didn't even have health insurance).

Most states have no regulations for martial arts competitions (with the exception of New York, which has banned mixed martial arts competitions). No mandated safety practices, no gambling restrictions, nothing of the sort.

Martial artists are not required to "register themselves as deadly weapons" (contrary to stories you may have heard). A few states regulate a few martial arts weapons (such as New York's ban on "chuka sticks" and throwing stars), but martial arts weapons are largely unregulated nationwide. And not a single state has created a special class of crime or a sentence enhancement for the commission of assaults by "extra-deadly" martial artists.

Quality standards for martial arts programs, to ensure uniformity and thoroughness of training, don't exist.

The result of this lack of government intrusion? Martial arts programs are safe. In fact, martial arts competitions (even "gruesome" mixed martial arts matches) have been proven to be substantially safer than common boxing matches (which are often heavily regulated).

There is no social problem with people carrying martial arts weapons and committing crimes with them, or "rogue" martial artists assaulting people at will. In fact, I would wager that martial artists, as a group, are among the most law-abiding people in this country.

The prospective student has a variety of choices in martial arts programs- combat-oriented; wellness-oriented; geared for children, families, or senior citizens; sport-based; some programs offer "pure" training handed down over the course of centuries, while others pride themselves on being "modern", and offer a blend of different martial disciplines.

We have martial arts associations, membership in which is voluntary. These associations host tournaments, promulgate training, promotional, and safety standards, standards of conduct for students and instructors, and on rare occasions, discipline or expel members for misconduct. Some organizations offer marketing assistance for schools and various types of private liability and injury insurance.

Are there some downsides to this free market? Of course. There are some fraudulent martial arts instructors, who lie about their credentials. Some schools are, frankly, crap. There are a few genuinely unsafe schools. How does one distinguish these from legitimate, high-quality schools and instructors? Trial and error.

One peculiarity of the martial arts as a market in the United States: While libertarian thinkers will often cite the "profit motive" as sufficient regulation of a marketplace, one will often find that the word "profit" is a dirty word in the martial arts. Though it's true that some instructors make their living by operating martial arts schools (and a few become relatively wealthy, and I don't begrudge them their monetary success), the best instructors are usually those who make no profit from the operation of their schools- the ones who do it "for love, not money". In this sense, the martial arts are somewhat similar to organized religions.

Now compare the situation in Japan: Martial arts instructors are regulated, so it's difficult to make a business of teaching; cultural preservation laws have relegated most "koryu", or classical schools, to obscurity; "quality" standards have yielded little choice in martial arts training, beyond generic judo and kendo (which are state-sanctioned and subsidized); and "safety" standards have dulled down the efficiency of martial arts for combat preparation.

It's no surprise that old Japanese masters sought to bring the martial arts to the United States after World War II; those wise men saw what was coming- "safety", "cultural preservation", etc.- and saw the need to teach in relative freedom.

We martial artists regulate ourselves, take our own risks, succeed or fail on our own merits, and we do it without government. And that's just how we like it.

Let Facts Be Submitted To A Candid World

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

What You Didn't Hear About Herman Cain This Weekend

On Friday, Politico released a story claiming that Herman Cain settled two sexual harassment complaints while he served at the National Restaurant Association. The weekend news cycle has been furiously pursuing this story. I'm dubious about the story, myself- it's probably political mudslinging at its finest.

The harassment claim has, however, overshadowed a much more damning story: Herman Cain demonstrated abysmally bad judgment by hiring a petty thug as his personal bodyguard.

Meet Kris Herzog: Bodyguard, twice-convicted criminal, and possible extortionist.

In 2009, Herzog twice impersonated a police officer.

On one occasion, he used his fake police car- a police-standard Crown Victoria, equipped with lights and sirens and emblazoned with a "Police Interceptor" logo- to pull over a driver who had cut him off on the freeway. Herzog was armed at the time of this "road rage".

A month later, Herzog followed a woman out of a grocery store, pursued her, and used his fake police car to pull her over and ask her personal questions. The terrified woman fled the scene and found a genuine police officer, who arrested Herzog- and discovered that Herzog was also illegally carrying an unregistered handgun.

Herzog pled "No Contest" to the two counts, served 255 days in jail and was sentenced to three years' probation (he is still on probation as of this writing). As an interesting aside, Herzog has the same probation officer as Lindsay Lohan.

There's more to the story: Herzog is also promoting a tell-all book, sharing secrets about the celebrities he has protected. His website states he "has never signed a non-disclosure agreement"- as if this justifies violating one of the most basic ethical rules of the executive protection industry: "Keep your client's secrets secret".

In this book, Herzog claims that he had a sexual relationship with Oksana Grigorieva- Mel Gibson's ex-girlfriend; he also claims to have "proof" that Grigorieva was attempting to extort money from Gibson. Grigorieva's attorney denies the relationship claim, and describes Herzog as "half blackmailer, half psychopath".

This is the guy Herman Cain decided to hire as his bodyguard.

Link #2, above, describes Kris' appearance on October 23rd (7 days prior to this post) as being his first engagement with Cain; the Washington Post gives a date for October 21st for the same tour bus photograph. One week later, on October 28th (this past Friday), Inside Edition ran this story, describing Herzog as Cain's "former bodyguard":

Cain's campaign has come under fire for the chaotic way it's reportedly being run. At the top of the list of questionable decisions is the very fact that they hired Herzog, a man with a controversial past.

Herzog's explanation:

He insists he never kept his controversial past a secret from Cain's staff. But he did quit the Cain campaign due to the resulting embarrassment.

"Writing that letter of resignation was so physically painful. It was only like 30 or 40 words, it took me an hour and a half to do it," said Herzog.

"Were you an embarrassment to the Cain campaign?" asked Moret.

"Yes, and it breaks my heart," said a tearful Herzog.

To summarize: Herzog says he quit working for Cain after one week (though his resignation letter says '11 days', see below), due to embarassment resulting from the Cain campaign's decision to hire him.

I find it impossible to believe that Cain's staff didn't conduct a background investigation of Herzog before his hire, or for that matter, a simple Google search. Stated differently, I find it impossible to believe that Cain didn't know this information when he made the decision to hire Herzog, rather than hiring any of the thousands of highly-qualified professional bodyguards (without criminal records) available in the United States.

It gets worse, though: According to Herzog's resignation letter, Cain "felt God brought us together".

Cain is running for President of the United States- why would he get involved with someone like Herzog?

I ask the reader this: If Cain made such a monumentally bad decision about his own personal security, what other bad personnel decisions would he make as President?

Of course, there was no media scrutiny of this decision over the weekend; instead, all eyes were focused on an asinine fifteen-year-old story involving Herman Cain's chin.

Perry's Alternative Maximum Tax

Presidential candidate Rick Perry has finally announced his tax plan. As it turns out, he isn't favoring the Forbes flat tax as initially predicted; rather, his plan is based on Stephen Moore's quasi-flat tax, originally proposed in 1995 as part of Jack Kemp's tax reform initiative.

The plan involves allowing individuals and corporations to select one of two tax plans: to be taxed under the current tax code, or to optionally pay a 20% flat tax, with few deductions (see below), on income exceeding $12,500.

This really isn't a flat tax per se; it's an attempt to replicate Hong Kong's tax code here in the United States. Moore described his plan here in 1998; Alan Reynolds critiqued it in this article in 2005 (both are links from the Cato Institute). Interestingly, Moore makes no comment about his participation in crafting the "optional flat tax" concept in his initial remarks about Perry's plan.

In effect, Moore's plan is a 20% cap on income tax liability, similar to Hong Kong's 16% cap.

At first glance, one might see this as a political expedient- believing a flat tax system won't pass through Congress, but that an optional flat tax system might. I see a potential pitfall with this line of thinking: as in Hong Kong, where only the top 2% of taxpayers pay the 16% flat rate, this proposal would only apply to the top few percent of taxpayers here in the United States. In other words, it would amount to a "tax cut for the rich"- something which makes tremendous sense (especially in the current economic climate) but has always been politically problematic to implement.

Contrast this with the rhetorical core of a flat income tax proposal: Everyone pays the same rate.

The plan does have some positive attributes: An upper limit on income tax liability makes the tax system more predictable for upper-income earners- including owner-operator businesses. It also allows individuals and businesses to choose to simplify tax preparation. Even if this means a slightly higher tax liability for some payers, it may be worth the additional sum to dispense with extensive tax preparation- to pay a bit more for the sake of convenience.

Moore claims an advantage of his proposal which, in my opinion, is specious: He claims that opting into the plan will eventually make the current tax code obsolete, because most taxpayers will eventually decide to pay flat tax. Unfortunately, decades of experience with a dual system in Hong Kong contradicts that claim- as stated above, only 2% of taxpayers opt for the 16% flat tax.

One major fault of the plan is the deductions. As I stated in my Forbes post, the charitable contributions deduction is one of the biggest holes in our tax system. Perry's plan preserves this deduction, as well as the sacred cow mortgage interest deduction and deductions for state and local taxes paid, for persons earning less than $500,000. However, no mention has yet been made of a deduction for business expenses. As stated previously, the business expenses deduction is critical to small businesses and individuals entering self-employment; failure to include it makes the alternative maximum tax a less-attractive option for these taxpayers. Hopefully this deduction will be included as Perry's campaign fleshes out the plan.

All-in-all, Perry's plan is substantially better than 999. It is, essentially, an "opt-out" from the current tax system. With some substantial improvements, it could replicate the effect of Hong Kong's tax system- which is generally accepted to be part of the reason for Hong Kong's economic prosperity, along with greatly less-restrictive business regulations (and cutting business regulations has been a hallmark of Perry's record as Governor of Texas).

I would prefer a flatter tax structure for everyone, for a number of reasons. However, I am cautiously optimistic about this plan.

The Forbes Flat Tax

Current speculation is that Governor Rick Perry will advocate for the flat income tax plan proposed by Steve Forbes. As a flat income tax proponent myself, I am elated by this news. Perry has referred to the plan as "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's". I couldn't agree more!

The Basics:

Forbes proposes a flat rate of 17% applied to business and personal income in excess of $36,000 per year, with very few deductions or credits. Corporate income tax, which is a double tax, would be eliminated. Capital gains tax would also be eliminated, which is sensible when one considers that capital gains are realized from investments purchased with already-taxed money. Retirement accounts would continue to recieve the same tax treatment as now.

In Forbes' own words:

The flat tax would be simple. You could fill it out on a postcard. It would be honest. It would eliminate the principal source of political corruption in Washington. It would be fair. Millions of people would be off the federal income tax rolls.

There would be no tax on Social Security. No tax on pensions. No tax on personal savings. It would zero out capital gains taxes. It would set off a boom by letting people keep more of what they earn and by lowering barriers to risk taking.

Flat income tax would also eliminate most of the estimated $140 billion annual cost of tax preparation, remove many opportunities for tax avoidance, and take most of the bite out of the IRS.

There is already broad support for flat tax principles on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Democrats want to eliminate "tax loopholes", Republicans want to lower rates. Flat income tax does both.

Eliminating deductions and credits:

On the one hand, this means no charitable contributions deduction, mortgage interest, child credits, and so forth. On the other hand, I ask the reader this: Look at your tax return for last year. Did all of the tax incentives you claimed- mortgage interest, child credit, charitable contributions, etc.- add up to $36,000? For virtually all middle-income earners, this would equate to a net reduction in federal taxes paid.

Naturally, the major public objection to this concept is the elimination of the charitable contributions deduction. The public at large believe that this deduction promotes altruistic contributions from "the wealthy" to legitimate charities. In fact, the reality of this deduction is somewhat different: Much of the money claimed in this deduction is donated to non-charitable organizations (political and quasi-political organizations, for example).

Indeed, in the book, "The Flat Tax" (which can be bought in e-book format from that link for $6.72, and I highly recommend it, even if it does contain a few left-leaning sentiments), Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka point out the following:

There is little merit in public subsidy for organizations whose success in raising funds depends on tax deductibility rather than the intrinsic merits of their activities.

Business expenses:

Among the few deductions Forbes would retain is the deduction for business expenses- a very necessary deduction, since taxing business expenses would create a barrier to entering self-employment, and would disproportionally burden small businesses in comparison to large businesses.

The payroll tax problem:

There is one major problem with any flat tax transition: What to do with payroll taxes? Most countries (Russia, for example) which have converted to flat income tax have never addressed their payroll taxes. If payroll taxes are left unchanged here in the US, a flat tax system would pinch the middle class most:

Income below $36,000 per year would be taxed at 7.65% (payroll);

$36-102,000 (Social Security tax cap) would be taxed at 24.65% (17% + payroll);

Income over $102,000 would be taxed at 18.45% (17% + Medicare tax).

Forbes has yet to address this problem. My suggestion? Remove the income cap for Social Security tax, so that it is applied to all income.

I admit this idea has problems, but it also has one whopping big perk. As I explained in a previous post, one of the core components of wealth redistribution is to force employers to fund entitlement programs- through employer payroll taxes- from which the employer will derive no benefit. It conceals the true cost of these programs. It also creates a barrier to hiring new employees, or retaining current employees. The revenue-neutral alternative is to convert payroll taxes into an 8% flat tax on incomes- with no deductions- removing the cap on Social Security tax and eliminating employer contributions into entitlements.

In other words, it would make the "employer payroll tax holiday" permanent.

If this were instituted, tax rates would look like this (notice the miniscule difference from the figures above):

Income under $36,000 per year would be taxed at 8% (FICA);

Income over $36,000 per year would be taxed at 25% (17% plus FICA).

This idea offers another benefit: It would eliminate the tax penalty for self-employment (payment of both "halves" of payroll taxes). A person's tax rate would be the same, regardless if that person were employed or self-employed. Since it would also apply to income derived from capital gains, it would soften the objection to eliminating capital gains tax while also softening the effect taxation has on said investments.

--

In comparison to Cain's "999 Plan", flat income tax is simpler, fairer, more transparent, and decidedly less risky. Flat income tax is also a tried-and-true system, which has been a rousing success in those countries which have instituted it.

In other words, it's exactly what our country needs.

UPDATE (10/25/11): Perry has announced his own tax plan.

9-9-9 Part II: Coming Apart At The Seams

Now that Cain's campaign has put some more of the 999 Plan in print, we can begin discussing the misconceptions and deceptive language found in this proposal.

The reader should notice immediately, when reading the above link, that most of the "proposal" is meaningless soundbites, non sequiturs, and strategic rather than economic justification for the plan. Once we sift through all of that, however, we run into problems.

The "big secret" about 999? It's really four taxes, not three. It's an income tax, a sales tax, a VAT tax, and a hidden payroll tax, all rolled into one package.

1) It's a payroll tax. Cain has been touting a feature of 999: that it would eliminate payroll taxes. I think it's safe to say that most thinkers agree that eliminating the burden of payroll taxes will help stimulate hiring.

One problem: Cain's plan doesn't do that.

Let me explain: Currently, employers are allowed to deduct payroll as a business expense, so long as payroll taxes are paid on the amount. Under Cain's plan, however, most business expense deductions would be eliminated:

"Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports"

In other words, the 7.65% tax on payroll would be replaced with a 9% tax on payroll and almost every other business expense. This is, of course, in addition to state payroll taxes.

7.65% of payroll is enough of a burden to hiring; 9% of almost everything would be even more so.

Allan Bourdius makes an even graver case: 9-9-9 isn't just a substitute payroll tax, but that it's the mother of all payroll taxes, and would effectively kill service-oriented businesses such as personnel services.

Eliminating the payroll tax paid by the employee, while increasing the payroll tax burden on the employer, is exactly the opposite of needed reform. If government is going to be involved in retirement, low-income health care, unemployment insurance, and the other services funded by payroll taxes, the cost should borne by the employee who might recieve these benefits, not the employer who won't. Burdening job creators with funding social programs is the core of wealth redistribution, and 9-9-9 will only increase that burden.

2) It's a VAT. How do we know? Cain's campaign says it is.

In this PDF from Hermancain.com, the business portion is described as a "subtraction method value added tax". Bizarrely, Cain supporters continue to claim it isn't a VAT.

Most of my readers already know the destructive potential of a VAT; to refresh our memories, here is a classic description of this effect from Murray Rothbard, reproduced by Reason.com.

In fact, it's worse than a VAT. It's a gross receipts tax with VAT-like qualities.

Hank Adler uses Safeway grocery stores as an example of this destructive effect:

One need only look to the annual report of Safeway to understand the impact of 999 on grocery prices. Because the grocery business is incredibly efficient and there is significant competition, there are very, very low margins in the industry. The pretax profit in good years for Safeway is only about 2% of sales and the Federal income taxes therefore are less than 1/2% of sales. After making a reasonable guess based on other information in the Safeway annual report, the total Federal income tax plus Safeway’s portion of their employees’ payroll taxes is less than 2% of sales. Assuming that would all be passed through to the customer in the way of price reductions, the price of food must increase by about 7%.

In addition to this estimated 7% increase in food prices, there's a new sales tax, which brings us to this:

3) It's a national sales tax. And it's not just any sales tax, either. As Adler questions (above), Cain's campaign isn't clear about whether this will be an exclusive sales tax (as state sales taxes in the US currently are), or an inclusive tax. I argue that this ambiguity points toward Cain's intentions: The tax will be inclusive.

We can readily deduce this: Cain is an ardent FairTax advocate. Cain has stated his desire to implement full FairTax. He has described 9-9-9 as an introduction to full FairTax. FairTax is an inclusive tax. Hence, his "introductory" FairTax will also be inclusive. And if the sales tax portion of 9-9-9 were intended to be exclusive, like current state sales taxes, wouldn't Cain would just say so and alleviate any concern?

If the reader is still in doubt about this point, there are two more pieces of evidence:

a) The scoring tables for 9-9-9 (PDF) from Cain's own website include tables for a "poverty grant" to offset the regressiveness of 9-9-9 (see Point 6, below). In other words, it would include a "prebate", just like FairTax. Interestingly, Cain is simultaneously claiming no "poverty grant" would be included, citing the reasons I cited in a previous post about "prebate" becoming yet another welfare entitlement.

b) Cain has renewed his intent to use 9-9-9 as a step toward full FairTax. From the 9-9-9 link at the beginning of this article:

Amidst a backdrop of the economic renewal created by the 9-9-9 Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people on the benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.

I think it's safe to assume that Cain's "FairTax Lite" will be an inclusive tax- one which is hidden in the shelf price of goods and services.

4) It's a flat income tax. This is terrific- I'm a flat income tax advocate. However, as I have warned before, authorizing the federal government to collect both income and sales taxes simultaneously is dangerous. Does any reasonable person honestly believe that Congress, once authorized to tax both incomes and sales (and clandestinely embed the sales tax in the cost of goods and services), will keep the rate at a mere 9%?

There are two other points which need to be made about 9-9-9:

5) It's unconstitutional. The Constitution does not authorize the collection of a sales tax. Period.

Additionally, part of Cain's plan is the creation of "empowerment zones"- areas of the country where tax rates are lower, or special incentives would be offered. This clearly violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "...all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

We have enough Constitutional violations embedded in Federal law today, without adding more.

6) It's regressive as hell. While it would cut taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers- which is fantastic, because they pay too much in taxes as it is- it shifts the tax burden toward the poorest. Indeed, an estimated 84% of Americans would experience a tax increase. While it's true that 47% of Americans pay no income taxes (other than payroll tax), what about the other 37%- the middle class who pay income tax now and will pay more under 9-9-9? One goal of tax reform- and of government spending reform- must be to reduce the tax burden on all taxpayers, without incurring more national debt.

So, there you have it. 9-9-9(-9): an unconstitutional, regressive plan which will embed taxes and endanger our economy. It's ill-conceived, unnecessarily convoluted, and potentially dangerous to our economy.

Which is why I'm voting for Rick Perry, who supports a flat tax. (UPDATED 10/25/11)

Romney On Guns: Like Father, Like Son

Mitt Romney says he "supports the Second Amendment". And, based on a casual glance at his record, you could almost believe him. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed some laws to protect hunters and clarified some language in the state's gun laws.

On the other hand, he signed an "assault weapons" ban. As Mitt has said, he was a Republican governor in "a tough state", and he had to make some compromises on these issues.

Naturally, there is some back-and-forth about Romney's gun views- were his actions a "net positive" for gun owners in Massachusetts, as he claims, or were his efforts cleverly-disguised gun grabs?

Let me ask you, the reader, a question: Who was the most influential in forming your political views? I'm willing to bet most of you answered "my parents".

Mitt Romney's father, George, was governor of Michigan from 1963-1969; Mitt has often said that his father was his greatest inspiration. And if we compare the gun laws each Romney passed while governor of their respective states, we find some telling parallels.

Handgun Ownership: In order to understand Mitt Romney's actions here, it is necessary to give a little background information about Massachusetts gun control laws: In 1998, Massachusetts established a list of "safety" criteria for handguns sold in the state. The criteria were designed to disqualify most handguns. The Roster is the list of those few makes and models which have passed the testing requirements.

Mitt Romney created two exemptions: One for handguns already licensed in the state prior to October 21, 1998, and one for "match-grade" pistols (high-dollar handguns purpose-built for shooting competitions).

The 1998 exemption is significant when one understand the "preban effect": Some gun laws are written with an effective date, where firearms sold after the date are subject to the law, while those sold before the date are "grandfathered". Since there is a limited supply of grandfathered items, the sale price of those items skyrockets.

The net effect of Mitt Romney's exemptions was this: In Massachusetts, a person now has three options for legally owning a handgun: 1) an expensive pre-1998 handgun; 2) an expensive "safety-approved" handgun; 3) an expensive match-grade handgun.

Compare this to George Romney's "safety" law- Public Acts 215 and 216 of 1964- which required all handguns to be submitted, within ten days of purchase, for inspection by a law enforcement officer in order to obtain a "safety certificate". "Safety", however, was undefined, and determining that a handgun was "safe" was left entirely to the discretion of the officer conducting the inspection. In effect, law enforcement could determine any handgun to be "unsafe", and confiscate the handgun on the spot, without compensating the buyer for his loss. This provided a disincentive for unpopular persons and minorities to attempt to lawfully buy handguns, knowing their handguns would be confiscated. Likewise, a lower-income person would not want to take the risk of saving money to buy a handgun, only to have their investment confiscated in this manner.

Like father, like son: Both Romneys used the guise of "safety" to deny the right to own a handgun to lower-income persons and "undesireables".

Carrying Handguns: Before George Romney became governor, Michigan had created a very restrictive licensing law for carrying a concealed handgun: License applicants had to prove an immediate physical risk to a county license board consisting of representatives of the county prosecuting attorney, county sheriff, and the commissioner of state police. Needless to say, many applications for a carry license were rejected (and this state of affairs led to concealed carry reforms decades later). A concealed carry license was also required if a person wanted to transport a loaded handgun in an automobile, whether or not the handgun was concealed. Open (visible) carry of a handgun was technically legal (outside of an automobile), but in practice, doing it would usually lead to arrest for a "disturbing the peace" type of charge.

So, what was one to do if they wanted to carry a handgun, but weren't politically connected enough to get a concealed carry license? Answer: Get a private security guard license. Said license authorized a person to carry a handgun openly without fear of arrest, carry a loaded handgun in an automobile, and was issued to virtually anyone who applied.

George Romney, however, made that practice illegal. Public Act 100 of 1966 made it a misdemeanor for a licensed security guard to carry a handgun except during work; Public Act 49 of 1967 made it a felony.

Romney did, however, extend concealed carry privileges in Michigan to licensees from other states- understanding that, in the 1960s, almost all states had similarly-restrictive processes for issuing a license to carry concealed. Romney did little more than extend a privilege given to an "elite few" in his state, to the similar "elite few" of other states.

By comparison, Mitt Romney had little work to do in this regard: By the time he took office, Massachusetts already had a two-tiered carry law: Persons with a "Class B" license could "carry" (transport in a box) an unloaded firearm to and from hunting areas and target ranges; the "elite few" granted a "Class A" license (issued to those who could prove a "need" to local law enforcement, as in Michigan in the 1960s) were entitled to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense.

While running for Governor in 2002, Mitt Romney infamously said: “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” And he didn't.

Like father, like son: Both Romneys supported restricting the carrying of handguns for self-defense to an "elite few" of police and politically-connected businessmen.

Assault Weapons: The firearms we nowadays call "assault weapons"- certain types of semi-automatic rifles which cosmetically resemble military rifles- were extremely uncommon in the early 1960s (indeed, most modern "assault rifles" had not yet been invented). On this point we can't compare the record of the two Romneys, as this is a modern gun rights issue. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' assault weapons ban- and has frequently cited that he did so because such weapons as "especially lethal" and "not sporting" (see below). As I have stated before, this type of weapon is uniquely suited to the growing problem of home-invasion crimes; denying them to the public places a limit on the practical application of an individual's right of self-defense.

Sporting Purposes: George Romney signed only one hunting regulation as governor- Public Act 159 of 1967, which created a regulatory board for hunting and mandated certain hunting safety practices. Mitt Romney, as governor, signed laws to protect shooting clubs, institute youth hunter safety courses, and restored funding to the Massachusetts Inland Fish and Game Fund. Both Romneys used their "pro-sporting" message as part of their election campaigns.

Like father, like son: Both Romneys used "sporting" rhetoric to conceal their gun control agendas.

In sum, it's not fair to say Mitt Romney is "anti-gun". Likewise, it's not reasonable to believe Mitt was merely bending to the political will of the people of Massachusetts (I doubt the will of the people was to rehash 40-year-old gun control ideas from another state). As proved here, the more natural conclusion is that Mitt was emulating his father's beliefs and ideals.

It is fair to say that Mitt is an elitist on the subject of firearms. His record demonstrates a WASP-y, 1950's view of gun ownership: "Decent" people own guns for hunting and sporting, and protecting their homes. "Decent" people don't "need" to carry guns for self-defense. Preventing people who aren't "decent" from owning guns is a good idea.

His dad felt the same way.

Herman Cain: Six Of One, Half-Dozen Of The Other

Herman Cain's presidential campaign has gained considerable momentum since his recent straw poll victory in Florida. This comes as a shock to me, since I have scratched my head to find a reason why Cain generates so much support amongst "conservatives", since his stances on any meaningful issues are anything but "conservative".

To finally put to bed the notion that Cain is a "good conservative", here are his positions on meaningful issues:

Economic Foresight: In 2005, Cain argued our economy was booming. He didn't percieve any signs of looming economic problems (such as a housing bubble). In 2008, Cain again argued that our economy was booming. He didn't percieve any signs of the housing bubble. In his opinion, warnings about impending economic problems were "Democratic deception" (naturally, Republicans and independents warning of the same were "drinking the Kool-Aid"). Cain's main selling point is his business acumen- and this opinion severely undercuts any confidence in that.

Tom Woods has compiled an excellent case of his own against Cain, focusing on his economic positions, some of which I have borrowed here.

Taxes: Herman Cain is an ardent FairTax supporter. Recently, he has introduced his "999 Plan"- which holds the Laffer curve as a "deus ex machina" to solve our economic problems, rather than a realistic rule-of-thumb, and (if passed) would establish a dangerous precedent for the federal government: the authority to tax both income and sales.

Gun Control: Herman Cain's stated stance on gun control is bizarre- he seems to believe the federal government has only limited authority to regulate firearms, while the states may do so without restriction. Prior to Cain, I had only heard this position espoused by anti-gun judges (like Sonia Sotomayor)- people who favor very strict gun control but must appear to respect the Constitution. If we assume for a moment that this wasn't a "gotcha" question posed by Wolf Blitzer, and that this accurately reflects Cain's Second Amendment stance, then this is a problem.

This position also ignores an historical fact, cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in the US Supreme Court's McDonald decision (incorprating the Second Amendment on the states): The basic reasoning behind the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Second on the states. At the time of its passage, southern states were passing gun control laws intended to disarm newly-freed blacks. The fact that Cain- a southern black man who lived through segregation- misses this point, is deeply troubling to me.

Romney: Cain supported Mitt Romney in 2008. Romney, like Cain, has a record of poor economic foresight and bad tax policies, and Romney passed numerous gun control laws in Massachusetts while calling himself "pro-Second Amendment".

Monetary Policy: Cain is a former Chairman and member of the Board of Directors of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. It should be no surprise, then, that he opposes auditing the Fed (or at least, wants to convince the public that an audit would be pointless). Whether you are an "End The Fed!" libertarian, or a money-wise conservative, it should be obvious that a Federal Reserve audit is long overdue.

Foreign Policy: Cain is totally clueless on foreign policy. I need say very little that wasn't already said by Bill O'Reilly in this video (thanks to Mediaite). I will also add this video of the infamous "Right of Return" flub.

Race Baiting: Cain has participated in a vicious, and totally meritless, smear against Rick Perry, described in great detail here (thanks to RedState). This is nothing less than a despicable attempt to play the "race card" to gain an advantage.

To summarize: Herman Cain's gun control stance mirrors the most anti-gun leftist judges; his tax stance is deceptive, and would lead to Americans paying more of their income to the federal government; he supported a candidate in the last election with similarly left-leaning positions (and who is now running from those positions); he has a history of bad judgement on our economy; he believes the Federal Reserve should continue to be unaccountable to Congress; he is clueless on foreign policy; and he plays the race card to attack his white counterparts.

Cain is a social-issues populist. The support he currently garners is based on one quality: He makes some people "feel good" about their convictions. He inspires "hope" in people, and his supporters believe he will bring "necessary change".

In other words, he's the Republican party's version of Barack Obama.