Coming clean before the primary
By Kyle Whitmire
In 2006, a bipartisan effort in the Alabama Legislature moved the state’s presidential primary as far forward as it could go — Feb. 5. After two decades of the lingering in late primary political oblivion, Alabama was trading up. It was a good idea, even if it didn’t last. The state has gotten some attention from the move, but it has been diluted by the 21 other states holding primaries this Tuesday.
We don’t do endorsements at the Weekly, but I believe in transparency. If I’m going to vote, readers deserve to know for whom and why.
REPUBLICANS
Mitt Romney. I have blind spots and this is one of them. I don’t understand why Paris Hilton is famous, and I don’t understand why Romney is such a popular candidate. As governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice and OK with gay marriage. Since becoming a presidential candidate, however, he’s against both those things. He brags on his executive experience one minute and then disavows the positions of that tenure the next. What’s more, the video of Romney from MLK Day proves he might be the whitest man alive, completely oblivious to people who don’t look like him. McCain was right: He’s the change candidate. If you don’t like what he believes, Romney will change for you.
Rudolph Giuliani. Giuliani’s campaign was predicated on fear and bloodlust, so it says something good about the Grand Ole Party that his campaign has imploded. As a pro-life, anti-gun cross-dressing divorcee, the only selling point Giuliani had was that he was mayor of New York during 9/11. However, it seems to me that if Americans cared that much about terrorism, the prime perpetrator of those attacks — bin Laden — would be dead by now.
Mike Huckabee. When I made a snarky comment on our blog about Huckabee’s pet issue, the Fair Tax, I got pilloried by his supporters. In that post, I said that if you want to make the rest of America more like Alabama, then pass the Fair Tax. After spending the weekend learning more about the Fair Tax, I stick by what I wrote. No matter when and how the tax is applied, it’s essentially a 30 percent national sales tax, which would replace most other federal taxes. As the son of a teacher (and an art teacher at that) I got to see up close what happens when government puts a sales tax at the center of its tax structure. Sales taxes are hypersensitive to fluctuations in the economy and too unstable to depend upon.
Unfortunately, Huckabee has made this his definitive issue.
John McCain. In 2000, McCain could have had my vote, but he never got as far as Alabama. Instead, Karl Rove ambushed him in South Carolina. However, he didn’t let anyone take him by surprise this time. When McCain supported the Iraq war — even when his Republican colleagues were getting weak in the knees — it seemed that stand might cost him the White House. With the surge working (fingers crossed), the bet with the longest odds might have paid off. What’s pleasing about McCain is his independent streak. In a recent debate, Mitt Romney implored his fellow candidates not to make prescription drug companies out to be the bad guys. “But they are,” McCain said. The Maverick still has it in him, willing to tempt the wrath of a powerful special interest group, just because he couldn’t resist the powerful urge to tell the truth. I’d vote for him, if I were voting in the Republican primary.
DEMOCRATS
John Edwards. I’d really like to like Edwards. I just wish he’d spent more time trying to convince me, or anytime trying to convince me, or trying to convince anyone else in Alabama. He’s had opportunities. He’s been to our state at least three times this campaign, and this week, he’ll visit Alabama twice. But it’s too little too late. His previous visits, Edwards spent his time here raising money. On top of that, he raises money primarily from trial lawyers, and then he attacks his opponents for taking money from “special interests.” If you’re going to campaign in Alabama, please show up here more than five days before the primary.
Hillary Clinton. Hillary is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party. Is she competent? Sure. Shrewd? Of course. Qualified? How couldn’t she be? But does anyone like her? Or are they voting for her out of a sense of obligation to the inevitable? We’ll see. Meanwhile, what’s interesting to me about her campaign is that, no matter what the outcome, blame or credit will go to how Hillary used Bill. Call it Goldie Locks and the Three Bills. Too hot or too cold, she hasn’t found just right.
Barack Obama. Last week, when Bill Clinton compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, Alabama voters should have been paying attention. This is when we come full circle. Indeed, Jackson won the South Carolina Primary, just as Bill said. And in 1988, Jackson won Alabama, too. In fact, the pols here were so embarrassed that they moved our state’s primaries to the back of the line. It took 20 years for the heebie-jeebies to wear off. And who will we support now that we have emerged from exile? We in the Deep South have an opportunity at a beautifully symmetrical redemption.
No matter his rival’s claims, Obama has proposed a sufficient platform: shifting Bush’s tax cuts to the middle class, ending the Iraq war and giving college students tuition in exchange for service.
But more importantly, he has a charisma quotient all the others lack — that ability to inspire, to persuade, to appeal to the better angels of our nature.
War on Dumb is a column about political culture.
Popularity: 30% [?]
February 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Actually consumption is far more stable a base for taxation then income. Quote from page 32 of:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf
“Additionally, since the FairTax is based on consumption, and consumption expenditures are more stable than income earned, the stability from the FairTax revenue stream is further enhanced.”
Since you mentioned education, be advised that it is considered an investment with the FairTax and thus is not taxed.
I’ll be happy to enlighten you about any more misconceptions you may have about the FairTax.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I’ve had this argument several times already, and again, Alabama’s experience trumps half-baked theory.
This year alone, Alabama has a projected $800 million shortfall in its education budget. And why? Because because the economy has crippled our sales taxes.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The main benefit of the FairTax is how it will grow the economy. Dozens and dozens of highly credentialed economists doing 20+ million dollars of research dose not imply half-baked theory. Who says it is? Bartlett, Gale and the President’s Panel on Tax reform have been throughly debunked.
The latest available budget info is here:
http://www.budget.state.al.us/BudDoc2008.pdf
Looks to me like revenues from both the income tax and sales tax are rising. Spending for education is also rising. Is it just not rising enough for you?
I suspect there’s a lot more to the story, perhaps over taxation has chased businesses out of Alabama?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Over taxation is not the problem, nor are businesses fleeing. In fact, Alabama currently has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, and manufacturing jobs are on the rise. Our income tax is relatively low and our property tax virtually nonexistent. Sales taxes, on the other hand, are among the highest in the nation.
The problem is a simple one: When people get the jitters about the economy possibly tanking, they tighten their household budgets. When they don’t spend money, the state doesn’t collect sales taxes.
This is a problem we’ve lived with here for a long time, but special interest groups in Montgomery have prevented anyone from fixing it.
Not to be snide, dculling, but I’m guessing you’re not from Alabama, are you?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Also, the budget info above is already out of date, and it was based on Pollyanna projections.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
No I’m not from Alabama, but economics is pretty much universal. Milton Friedman’s teachings suggests your state’s problem is probably due to government interfering in the free market somewhere. It could very well be the result of the sub-prime mortgage problem which is a direct result of government interference.
The FairTax will allow as free a free market as possible while still supporting a large government. The conservatives get a freer market and the liberals get to keep a big government. Not a bad compromise I say. I’ll fight for smaller government another day, although if we are having great economic growth I’ll probably be too busy to worry about it.
With the passage of the FairTax, 10 trillion American dollars will come back from offshore accounts. That will certainly help Alabama. We can expect a lot of foreign money and businesses to come here too to take advantage of tax free investing. How much would, say, a BMW plant help Alabama?
Great economic growth for all Americans is within our grasp. All we have to do it fight for it and get it passed.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
How much would a BMW plant help Alabama? Now you’re really showing your ignorance on this one. True, we don’t have a BMW plant, but I’m guessing it would help about as much as the Mercedes plant we do have. Or the Honda plant. Or the Hyundai plant. Or the Toyota engine plant. But probably not as much as the world’s largest steel plant that Thyssen Krupp is building north of Mobile.
Manufacturing and unemployment are not problems right now in Alabama. That said, not many people are getting rich.
The problem is that Alabama’s tax structure, which is disproportionately based in sales taxes, is not stable and does not provide sufficient funding for education during economic downturns.
Actually the new tax Alabama does need is a real property tax. If you doubled Alabama’s property taxes, it would still be the lowest in the nation.
Again, these issues are familiar as they are insurmountable. In 1991, the Birmingham News won a Pulitzer in editorial writing for decrying the state’s tax structure. Nice prize, but unfortunately nothing changed.
As far as the 10 trillion in offshore accounts, I buy that about as much as Huckabee’s claim that the income tax is preventing drug dealers and prostitutes from paying taxes. Because that’s drug pushers and hookers are waiting for — the right tax structure.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Alabama must be the only state with an efficient education system. Most are bloated with administrative costs and mandates from the federal government that do little to improve the system.
There is no evidence that supports spending more money per child on education is the answer to improving the systems. Most times it is the system itself that is broken.
More likely than not, the reason your state has shortfalls is because of pet projects, poor projecting by your legislature, bloated administrative salaries, and much spending in useless projects.
Do a wiki search on the Austrian Theory of Business and it may help you develop and understanding of how the Fair Tax will improve Alabama.
Good luck, down there. Hopefully you will take a hard look at the economics of the plan and read the two new books. Please be open-minded, it may be the only hope of restoring a free market economy.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
K. Whitmire,
You’re saying more investment in Alabama won’t help? Investments in capital is directly related to increased wages. Capital investment increases productivity allowing workers to produce more per hour and thus earn more per hour.
Since Alabama already is apparently attractive to the Auto industry, it will be attractive to those foreign businesses that will relocate to the US. I suspect you would be in a minority if the citizens of Alabama were asked if they would like more foreign Auto industry in your state.
Your low property taxes are probably why you do get the Auto industry that you do. Changing to a state version of the FairTax you could replace property taxes as well. Other states are already considering this so they would be as attractive to business as possible.
Now I’ve shown you a reference about the stability of sales taxes. I guess you need another: http://www.azfairtax.org/resources/govt.pdf
Your problem in Alabama is something else, Pulitzer prize winning editorial or not.
Well here’s info about offshore accounts.
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore.pdf
The underground economy does get taxed more under the FairTax than with the current code. A good example would be a drug dealer goes to a masseuse for a massage. With the current system the drug dealer pays no income taxes, but the masseuse does. With the FairTax the drug dealer pays taxes when he pays for the massage and the masseuse pay taxes when she spends her profit.
Anything else?