The debate was intense. I’ve been in nine televised political debates since 2004. Last night’s debate was the most intense and combative.

I’m a fiscal conservative who realizes that the federal government has tremendous financial problems. I propose solutions, and summarized my proposal for a simple income tax system in reply to a rebuttal question by Saxby Chambliss as to a better tax system than the Fair Tax bill (which Mr. Chambliss co-sponsors).

In my question to Mr. Chambliss, I said that the Joint Committee on Taxation (an arm of Congress) and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform both said the “revenue-neutral” rate is roughly double the rate in the Fair Tax bill. I noted that I’ve thoroughly studied the Fair Tax and: (a) have written articles and a book (called “Why the Fair Tax is a Sham”) on the topic; and (b) participated in a CNN debate with Neal Bortz and John Linder on the topic. I said either: (a) you don’t know that the revenue neutral rate is double the rate in the bill, meaning you’re incompetent, or (b) you know the revenue-neutral rate is double the rate in the bill, meaning you’re deceiving the voters. I asked: which is it? (I noted that the Fair Tax could work if spending was cut by 40-50%, but the record of Mr. Chambliss shows he has never proposed any significant spending cuts.)

Saxby Chambliss tried to claim he was opposed to illegal immigration. I proposed a solution to the problem that involves pursuing employers. Twice I noted that everyone knows that Saxby was ready and willing to sign Ted Kennedy’s amnesty bill.

Regarding the “Gang of 10” proposal, I said it’s probably one of the worst deals in the history of deals. I noted that the offshore drilling ban was scheduled to expire at the end of September. I also noted that the proposal got little (in terms of drilling rights) and gave away a lot of things to Democrats (such as energy subsidies)-so the proposal was a real win for the Democrats.

In reply to a question, I said that electing a Libertarian would send shock waves through D.C. I said that with my employee benefits/CPA background (I work as an employee benefits attorney) I could propose solutions to the health care problems and the entitlement problems. I said that starting to solve the entitlement problems now would require sacrifice, but not pain, whereas waiting 5-10 years to fix the problems will produce pain.

I said I would have voted against the bail-out because it: (a) did not place only those responsible (i.e. responsible borrowers, lenders and buyers of toxic securities) for potential risk of loss, when the bill could have been crafted in such a manner—and I have given two potential means via press releases; (b) included $150 billion in tax cuts without spending cuts (a Saxby standard); and (c) included pork. Saxby said Jim Martin and I would have stuck our heads in the sand. I said, no, I’d have voted for borrowing the $700 billion as long as the only persons potentially subject to risk of loss were those persons responsible for the mess.

I also said that the current mess was caused by the Federal Reserve’s “putting the pedal to metal” earlier this decade and tax cuts without spending cuts. The economy was overcooked. I said that whether that was done to send Alan Greenspan out as a hero or keep George W. Bush in power, or both or for other reasons, I don’t know. I said the Federal Reserve needs to be regulated and its sole objective should be stable prices. I said the government should not try to create prosperity, but rather should protect people, their property and the environment.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized .