Dave Kopel, writing on National Review Online, says that mainstream conservatives might have underestimated Ron Paul's potential:
Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media. And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The middle and poor class. They're the consumers and would have to pay 14% more for everything. The tax is flat for everyone, but should you pay the same tax rate as some guy who makes 6-7 digit figures every year?
Because the hedge fund jackass who spends a quarter million of his bonus money on a Ferrari will pay more taxes in one transaction than a half dozen Joe Lunchbuckets will all year. And won't be able to hide behind any tax shelters.
I hope he gets the nomination, to send a message if nothing else. But I don't think he'll make it, and it's mainly because he doesn't have the right personality. I didn't realize this until I saw him in a YouTube clip where he was having a heated exchange with Bill O'Riley. He looked exasperated. It's true that O'Riley is a jerk, but presidents have to handle situations like that without losing their composure.
As I understand it, it is not correct that Ron Paul is an advocate of a National Sales Tax. According to the interviews with him that I have seen, he wants to repeal the income tax, and replace it with nothing. Apparently this can be done without any kind of budget shortfall if one cuts federal spending back to what it was in the year 2000.
We have a state sales tax in Pa. but food and clothing are exempt, since they are necessities. If there was a national sales tax a similar limitation could be imposed. Also if you look at the "Fair Tax" plan and other versions, there are exemptions and/or rebates for low income families.
The people who would oppose such a tax are, in general, those who see the income tax not as a way to collect money for the government to perform its services, but as a method of redistributing wealth.
But I agree with Paul in that cutting spending is far more important than changing the tax code, abysmal as it may be.
I think he has the same chance of winning as George McGovern had, something akin to the lifespan of a snowball in hell, but even if he got elected President, what are the realistic odds of any of his ideas getting past Congress?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.