Ron Paul Fumbles on Glenn Beck
December 19th, 2007 at 06:34pm Matt Margolis
I didn’t see all of the interview, but I did catch the part where Ron Paul advocated abolishing the IRS. And wasn’t impressed with Ron Paul’s response.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ohglJS3ltM 350 350]
Hey, the idea sounds great to me. But, as I was watching, I was struck by the fact that when Beck asked Ron Paul what would replace the IRS — a flat tax, a national sales tax, or something else — Ron Paul really had no answer. He basically said he didn’t want it replaced with something else or with more spending. Here’s the video:
His response to “What is your proposal?” was weak. Paul basically said he had no proposal. “Anything would be better.” Well, that’s great, but that doesn’t solve the problem, or answer the question about how the federal government would get tax revenues to pay for the things it’s suppose to.
Michael Illions over at Polipundit noted that Ron Paul looked uncomfortable at this point, and I have to agree, but I’m not sure whether it was because Glenn Beck was fawning over his desire to abolish the IRS, or if it was because he had no plan to explain what he believes the federal government should do to generate revenue to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
16 Comments
1. Ryan | December 19th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Paul said “[My proposal] is to get rid of the IRS but not replace it with anything by cutting a lot of spending.” before Glenn started interrupting him.
I believe Ron Paul views getting rid of the IRS as a long term goal, not a first week as president proposal. First he’d have to build support for constitutional(limited) spending.
Our tax dollars are currently used for more than “pay[ing] the debts and provid[ing] for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” They are used to perpetuate unconstitutional war and unconstitutional federal programs.
The income tax is not the sole source of government revenues. And if we stopped having unnecessary wars and expansions of bureaucracy we could bring spending down to the levels of 1997 which is the level needed to completely do away with the income tax and “not replace it with anything.”
2. FZappa | December 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Heaven forbid Matt should Google 5 minutes before posting.
Ron Paul has been crystal-clear on the issue of eliminating the IRS for 3 decades. That Matt did not get the gist of Paul’s 30-second response, and then could not be bothered to Google the details, is not Ron Paul’s fault.
Getting rid of the income tax would reduce federal government revenues by 40%. Reducing fedgov spending by that same 40% only takes us to reducing fedgov spending to the amound spent in 2001, when Bush took office. Surely this can be accomplished — and when it is, there is no need for the IRS.
Not that complicated, and easy to Google.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=199
3. Uncommon | December 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
FZappa, the reason Matt didn’t take the time to Google on the topic is because, like his idol GW and most of his party, he is intellectually incurious. He doesn’t want to look for the answer because one that would involve some effort and two he might find something that challenges the BS misconceptions he has allowed himself to be fed. Since I know the hard line Conservatives on this site do not watch CNN nor Glenn Beck I have to assume that Matt was looking for something negative on Ron Paul. Yet he found something that wasn’t negative and tried to turn it into such because he is unable to listen to the 30 second clip he chose to exploit. Nice try Matt but you’ll need to look harder than that to tarnish Dr. Paul.
4. ABCDEFU | December 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Cavuto and most of main stream media can try to make him look bad. I am still voting for Ron Paul. When will the spin die? When can we hear from journalists again. People who look for truth without first considering which side of the isle it is about.
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson
5. Uncommon | December 19th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
ABCDEFU,
Nice quote sir. That is more true today then at any other time in the history of the United States. One comment though, while news does have its political slants I think we have to worry more about media pandering to special interests and advertisers than government lackies. The majority of the MSM is controlled by a handfull of media barons and it is they who choose the views presented in their mediums.
6. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I use to listen to Glenn Beck back in 2002 when he was an unknown radio talk show host, I like him.
But Ron Paul is a half-baked schizophrenic conspiracy theorist that is a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Which makes Uncommons support of him completely understandable.
7. bongoman | December 19th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Neocon, what conspiracy theories have you heard Ron Paul subscribe to?
8. Ali A. Akbar | December 19th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, nor do I have any intention of voting for him if my guy McCain shall take a serious fall.
With that being said I think there is a serious political misunderstanding. Ron Paul isn’t running on a policy campaign. Matt, good blog however you and I both know that as far as political stragety, policy doesn’t always work. Fred is the most policy oriented candidate, however cannot climb up, but was surging when we saw him as the Conservative ideologue.
Ron Paul’s numbers have gone up 5% nationally, because he is capitalizing on what people want to hear. I too believe that “anything” is better than our current state.
He sought not to isolate Glenn Beck as a supporter of the FairTax.
Michael over at PoliPundit might want to take a look at Paul’s campaign schedule to discover the reason of Paul’s look of tiredness.
Let’s just be fair with the guy. He is bringing a level of discussion that hasn’t been heard on our side in a very long time.
I’m sure given the Oval Office, he’ll do just as fine (if not presumably better) than Romney or Rudy when it comes to tax reform.
I personally cannot accept Ron Paul’s “strategy” on Iraq, that is why I’m not supporting him. Many feel the need to attack him on all other angles as well. This simply doesn’t sit well with me or the intellectual toss up that must happen in order to ensure our Party’s continuing survival.
9. Uncommon | December 19th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
uncommon, I have already dealt with you in the other Ron Paul post, but I have to ask - Do you even know what schizophrenic means, clinically? The way you use it I doubt you do.
10. Uncommon | December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Dang, I knew I was going to do that. Post #9 was directed at neocon… oops.
11. Civilian Guard | December 19th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Mad props… you exposed Paul for the crazy insane baby-killing wimp surrender-to-terrorists nut that he is.
Whatever you do, DO NOT go read his writings on these subjects…
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/
Factual evidence is irrelevant. His proposals would only serve to provide solutions, and that’s not what we need! We need to protect babies from terrorists and win this war against those evil moslems. We can keep spending… NINE TRILLION dollars of debt is no big deal… we can just keep printing more money.
Also, I regret to inform you that I am duty-bound to report you to the Attorney General for violation of USC TITLE 18, CHAPTER 33, PART I, Sec. 713. by your display of the Presidential Seal on your website header without executive authorization by the POTUS. (I’ve reprinted it here for your convenience so you don’t have to go out onto the dangerous internets [Ed.Note; we un-printed it here])
Oh, and if you’re wondering… the first amendment is unconstitutional and only aids hippies and terrorists.
God Bless America!!! (Except for Dr. Ron Paul)
12. David Cooper | December 20th, 2007 at 12:29 am
“We didn’t have an income tax before 1913.” Yeah, and I guess our national power around the world showed how great we were because of it, eh? Like I’ve said before, Ron Paul would be PERFECT if he were running in 1900.
However, there does need to be tax reform, less government spending and more utilization of the tax dollars received by the federal government. Sometimes a businessman in office would benefit this country more than an attorney “interpreting the law.”
13. Ian from Ann Arbor | December 20th, 2007 at 2:29 am
The viable plan for abolishing the IRS and addressing the machinery that permits unbridled Congressional spending is Huck’s FairTax.
Economist Dale Jorgensen, Harvard University, was commissioned to find out what portion of current prices were represented by costs for complying with the federal income tax code (i.e., embedded tax costs). He concluded that 22% (average) of every retail dollar, spent by consumers, constituted a price-embedded tax. Thus, in addition to individual income tax and FICA withholding, individuals are unwittingly paying these unseen, embedded business tax costs with every purchase of a new product, or service.
Under FairTax, prices would fall, due to removal of embedded business tax-related costs. Concurrently, wages may rise due to a mix of factors, including reversion of withheld pay (or some portion thereof) to employees, advancement opportunities due to business expansion resulting from retained earnings, and/or increased demand for labor accompanying increased competition (from that expansion). Where profits (or wages) appear lucrative, competition will move into the market space, driving out excesses (immediately present after FairTax is enacted), arriving at new “market-adjusted” prices.
For FairTax to constitute 23% of new transaction cost (i.e., “market-adjusted” price plus FairTax), a mark-up of 29.9% (tax exclusive rate) on the new “market-adjusted” price is necessary. (Before balking, consider what we’re paying now if income tax rates are converted to tax-exclusive sales tax rates on net income instead of percentage of gross income. The following figures can be compared to the 29.9% FairTax mark-up: Fifteen pct bracket = 17.6%, twenty-five pct bracket = 33.3%, twenty-eight pct bracket = 38.9% (! really), and thirty-five pct bracket = 53.8% (! that’s how bad it is).
In order to make FairTax a progressive consumption tax (such as that recently called for by Warren Buffett), all citizen-families are simply sent a monthly consumption [tax] allowance, called a “prebate.” This prebate is intended to reimburse taxes on necessities for every citizen family without need for record-keeping or reporting. Moreover, the direct payment bypasses the creation of a tax code specifying exempted products and services around which a lobbyist industry could grow. The amount is variable, based on family size, and is equal to the FairTax rate on poverty-level spending, as defined by the Dept. of Commerce. At present, a family of one would receive ~$200/month, a family of four, ~$500/month. Thus, the “effective” FairTax rate paid by citizens, will *never* equal the full 23%. Of course, U.S. visitors (legal, and illegal) will pay the full FairTax when they purchase anything new, at retail (used are not taxed again). Under FairTax, working families will have their whole paychecks (minus any state or local income tax withholding) plus their monthly family prebate.
Additionally, citizens will no longer have to spend the average 50 hours per year preparing their federal tax returns. Having more monthly income may result in using credit less, and saving more. Larger savings will make it easier to purchase a home, at a lower interest rate and monthly payment. (Thus, mortgage deductions are no longer applicable when income is not the basis for taxation).
But is FairTax actually “fairer”? To provide substantive answers, Prof.’s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) have concluded,
Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (2005) …
The current income-based tax system is also more expensive to run, because of the manner in which the tax code is gamed by politicians and lobbyists. Politicians realize great power, and attract constituencies for support, by granting tax favors (i.e., credits, deductions, exemptions) through lobbyists. Fully, fifty-three percent of Washington lobbyists are there because of the tax code! The tax code is continually changing, making it more complex - more difficult to understand. And, the salaries and costs of tax lawyers and lobbyists end up in higher prices of the products and services we buy. Additionally, the time and money required to keep records, file returns, report for audits, retain accounting and legal help, pay IRS penalties and interest, is time and money lost for other productive, or recreational, activities. Depriving us of the use of withheld wages increases our expenses through zero-interest withholding, inflation, return preparation time, and interest paid on credit cards and loans that otherwise may not have been necessary. Summed up, the cost of tax compliance, nationally, has been estimated to range anywhere from $265 billion to twice that amount, depending on the extent to which tax-avoidance consultation is sought and utilized. These expenses constitute a substantial hidden tax which is incomprehensible to the average working American. And the FairTax gets rid of all of it for most Americans, and most of it for business owners.
We, as FairTax advocates, believe that government should serve We, the People, with a fair tax system that will not enable politicians to pit poor against rich (creating barriers to achieve wealth, adding tax penalty to the sacrifices made for personal success). Nor do we want politicians to continue using business as a tool to hide taxes from consumers, often villifying business, which discourages entrepreneuship, personal achievement, economic growth. Liberty and happiness depends on restoring the fruits of labor to those who produce them. We believe that the tax function should align with economic growth, not against it, that government should be paid for in the same manner as working Americans - when, and because, something is sold!
As things stand at present, the system primarily benefits politicans who cater to special interests through lobbyists who game the tax code. The politician seeks to capture them as constituent voting blocks, dependent on continued syphoning of taxpayer dollars to their members’ benefit. This is increasingly repugnant to the average working American who often finds it difficult to meet the needs of his, or her, own family in an environment where federal and state business income taxes substantially contribute to trade inequities resulting in the loss of American jobs! Thus, the Sovereign are continually degraded by features of Congress’s income tax policy. The most rapidly-growing needs-based “special interest” group has become the Citizens! You see? Congress has nearly all the power; and We, the People, have become We, the Serfs, robbed and enslaved. Getting the federal government’s hands out of our family paychecks is the single most important reason to replace the income tax with a consumption tax, the FairTax.
Many of us have joined FairTax.org in order to build a national movement to free ourselves, our family pocketbooks, and our businesses from confiscation of income, and punishment of productivity. And this we say to our federal representatives,
“Either scrap the code and enact the FairTax, or we intend on replacing you with someone who will.”
(May reproduce in whole or part. - Ian)
14. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
What if they stopped taking income tax out of my paycheck and what would you spend it on?
15. SteaM | December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
haha, wait, let me rephrase that…
What would you do with the extra money if income tax was not taken out of your paycheck?
16. gpglklea&hellip | January 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 am
gpglklea
gpglklea