An Idea: How about Gravel for AK-Sen in 2008?

I was pleased to see former US Senator and current Presidential candidate Mike Gravel dish out some raw straight talk at the debate tonight.

The idea then occurred to me that perhaps he should run for US Senate from Alaska, once the primary season for the Presidential race is nearly over (and as expectd, barring a major miracle, Gravel is not headed towards the nomination), as we could certainly use his unfiltered talk in the US Senate.

I checked and found that Ted "The internet is a series of tubes" Stevens' seat is up next year, and he apparently intends to seek re-election.

While Gravel's presence plays a vital role in the Presidential race to the degree that we need someone to say what needs to be said without the fear of consequences, he may present an opportunity to gain a senate seat as well, while in process attempting to unseat someone whose life mission seems to be dismantling the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

The filing deadline in Alaska is June 2008 and the primary is in August 2008. By then, quite likely, the primary process will be nearly over unless we're headed towards a brokered convention. Since it is quite safe to predict that Gravel will not be getting the Presidential nomination, he could at that point shift to the US Senate race.

The attention he is gaining by being in the Presidential race will probably help him with the primary, where Mark Begich, the current Mayor of Anchorage, is mentioned by the wiki page as a potential Democratic candidate. I must admit to not having any idea which of these two would be the stronger general election prospect, but Gravel having had won for US Senate before there should be in a pretty good stead to win the election.

Finally, of course, we cannot have a diary talking about Ted Steven without enjoying (yet again) DJ Steven's Techno Remix! Here it comes...

•  tips?

  by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:16:43 PM PDT

  •  I like the national sales tax idea

    Even though others don't. I've argued for experimenting with it in previous posts. It would be worth a try. It's interesting to see that 9 percent of Kossacks think he won the debate. He came in fourth out of eighth. That means he should be allowed in future debates.

    by extratime40 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:24:42 PM PDT

    •  Most kossacks

      think giving huge tax cuts to the rich and tax increases to the poor and middle class is a bad idea.  

      by Mia Dolan on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:34:00 PM PDT

      •  Oh, but Gravel's plan is different!

        Boortz and Lindner and all the Republicans pushing a national sales tax are trying to create a regressive taxation system to benefit the wealthy.  But Gravel, on the other hand, is proposing a "progressive" taxation system to...uh...benefit the wealthy.

        See, I know that Gravel's national sales tax isn't regressive, like every other national sales tax plan, because you see, he calls it a Progressive sales tax.  So it's completely different.  Q.E.D.

        by JR on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:05:14 PM PDT

        •  a '4' for proper use of Q.E.D.

          /

          by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:08:49 PM PDT

    •  I have arraneged for a duel for you

      below on national sales tax :)

      by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:36:33 PM PDT

•  Eh, why the hell not

  The debates would be entertaining as hell, that's for sure.

  by PsiFighter37 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:18:25 PM PDT

  •  damn right

    Fred Sanford against Grampaw Simpson.  My money's on Fred.

    by dougymi on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:27:07 PM PDT

•  It'd certainly be much better than

  Vondersaar or Obermeyer

  by RBH on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:18:40 PM PDT

•  He lives in Virginia now...

  Gravel may not have residency anymore.

  And he is 76 years old (although he seemed younger.) I am not into age (since I am of AARP age) but many are.

  In another diary, I wrote he should be on the next President's policy team. I like his ideas.

  by vassmer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:21:33 PM PDT

  •  So a different brainstorm...

    if Mark Warner passes in Virginia, he could run against John Warner.  Clash of the septuagenarians!

    by VirginiaDem on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:33:48 PM PDT

  •  He could move back

    His bigger problem is that he is an ultra lib running in one of the most wingnut states in the country.

    by davybaby on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:45:41 PM PDT

    •  I don't know a lot about Alaska------

      Has it been tending more blue or is it hopelessly red?

      by vassmer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:49:30 PM PDT

      •  I'll tell you this much

        Gravel is no more likely to be elected to anything in Alaska than an egg is likely to be fried on the Arctic pack ice.
        There are many actual real live politicians in Alaska, currently active and currently living here. Gravel is not one of them.

        by mtn mama on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

  •  You're right, I took for 74, 75 tops

    ;)

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:47:49 PM PDT

  •  Considering that Stevens is....

    ...in his 80s, that wouldn't be such a big issue. Plus, Gravel looks fairly spry for a man in his mid-70s.

    by metal prophet on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:53:07 PM PDT

    •  he reminded me of Henry fonda in

      'On Golden Pond,' talking to the kids who were making fun of him... 'I'll fight ya right now!'

      by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

•  You gotta wonder

  If there's not something in the water under that bridge to nowhere.

  by sgary on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:23:59 PM PDT

•  If Gore is nominated...

  Let's say he picks (name who you want that's not Gravel or Dennis), I think he'd win in a cakewalk.  Having Gravel in the Senate would be quite an improvement, and he's probably crochity enough that he would keep a Gore administration's feet to the fire, and we need people like that.

  Dennis could then be named as the Secretary of the Peace Depatment (newly created).  I'd then split the Defense department into a War department and a Defense department (I think the two are different and probably require a different category of leaders for both).

  by rjones2818 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:25:11 PM PDT

  •  BTW, I was talking to a Republican

    the other day and I was trying to persuade him to support Gore for 2008.

    He came up with the usual GOP memes about Democrats and taxes, GWOT etc etc, but I think I was able to get across some good rebuttals, and he seemed quite receptive to them. I may also have made some progress in the direction of thawing his feelings towards Gore; a couple of more sittings and some emails with useful info may get Gore a hard earned vote :)

    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:51:21 PM PDT

•  The guy seems to be a bit unhinged

  by v2aggie2 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:29:03 PM PDT

  •  more 'unhinged' than Stevens actually is?

    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:31:16 PM PDT

    •  Stevens is the standard we should follow? n/t

      by JR on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:52:47 PM PDT

      •  Actually, I am not subscribing to the notion

        that Gravel is unhinged. I'd have to go over the debate again to assess that.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:00:26 PM PDT

    •  No

      but surely there a more "hinged" candidate in Alaska than Gravel

      by v2aggie2 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

      •  Gravel did win there twice

        Have the Dems won a US senate seat from Alaska after him?

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:50:50 PM PDT

  •  If its unhinged

    to tell the truth:

    "And you know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? It's more soldiers dying in vain. That's what's worse."

    I'll take unhinged any day.

    by Night Owl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:19:51 PM PDT

•  As long as he dumps his

  batshit crazy insane national sales tax proposal.

  by clonecone on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:31:21 PM PDT

  •  I haven't looked at what he said,

    not have I thought about national sales tax much. At the outset, unless it's designed to tax luxury items more, we'd lose the progressive taxation system, which would suck, as that would assuredly shift the burden to the ones that are the bottom of the economic ladder. Perhaps you could post some thought about it here, with extratime40 arguing for a national sales tax.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:35:40 PM PDT

    •  Like you said

      a sales tax shifts the tax burden down the economic ladder.  People who live paycheck to paycheck end up paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes while the rich pay only on what they choose to spend.  

      by clonecone on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:42:08 PM PDT

    •  His plan includes

      a flat credit per person, so it doesn't kick in until a certain income level.

      by ben masel on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:48:31 PM PDT

      •  How about the middle class?

        It seems to me (at first thought) that this national sales tax  idea with "flat credit" would become a heavy burden on the middle tier as they would be past the threshold and will be paying at the same rate as the really wealthy. In many ways, the middle class struggle is harder because the expectations are much higher and more complex.

        I am thinking that I should sit down one of these days (or months/years) to go over the progressive taxation curves that are currently being used and crunch some numbers and plot some curves etc. This should be an interesting project to study for a non-economist like myself to look at independently.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:59:15 PM PDT

        •  I haven't crunched his numbers myself...

          I gather he set it to hit upper middle, but not middle middle.

          by ben masel on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:01:14 PM PDT

          •  the effective tax burden should be

            graded (i.e. progressive) even upper middle class upwards. Otherwise, uppder middle being taxed the same as the real wealthy would break the necks of tht former group, essentially pushing them down towards middle-middle and hence cearting the  "Two America" gulf there. All in all, a smooth curve beginning with middle-middle (but working towards freer healthcare and college) might work best. It depends on the numbers at hand.

            Brian Williams cut off Kucinich when the latter was about to make some important arguments about how the 2 trillion being spent in healthcare already should pay for universal care but it isn't. I could never stand Williams. He always came across as haughty and subtly offensive to me.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:35:34 PM PDT

  •  National sales tax

    exist in most countries that have universal health care...just sayin. Luxury items, yachts, private planes, call it a luxury tax. I think you will find food and prescriptions and necessities are not included in those national sales taxes.

    I realise this is heresy to say this, but it needs to be said. Nothing wrong with luxury tax.

    by ohcanada on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:38:11 PM PDT

    •  Gravel isn't proposing a luxury tax.

      He's proposing a national sales tax.  They aren't the same thing.

      by clonecone on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:39:53 PM PDT

      •  A variant

        of the two could and should  be addressed. So many will dismiss it, I think he was brave to mention it.

        by ohcanada on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:52:39 PM PDT

        •  No, he was clueless to mention it...

          ...or he was duplicitous, because he's trying to sell abolishing the income tax and establishing a sales tax in its place as a "progressive" plan, despite the fact that there's nothing progressive about regressive taxation.

          It may have been "brave" to mention it because it's a losing issue and instantly highlighted how incredibly poor a candidate this guy is, but it didn't make his plan any less batshit crazy.

          by JR on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:00:00 PM PDT

          •  I didn't watch the whole thing

            so I apologise, I had no idea he had intended abolishing income tax, when I read your comment I had read it as an additional tax..Abolishing income tax does seem a bit bizarre.

            by ohcanada on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:09:50 AM PDT

            •  You know, I've heard the idea for years

              I grew up in Atlanta, so I had to deal with Rep. Linder and Neal Boortz screaming "fair tax! fair tax!" for years.  It's an interesting idea, but not one that I think will either simplify taxation or create a more equitable tax burden.

              What gets me, though, is that Gravel is trying to market this as a "progressive tax," when sales taxes are, by definition, regressive (i.e. place a greater burden on lower classes).  If he wants to think that a complex sales tax mandating mounds of bureaucracy and providing no relief from a cumbersome agency is a good idea, more power to him--but he shouldn't try to call something like that "progressive."  That's just asking for it.

              by JR on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:43:10 PM PDT

  •  Thank god I'm not alone on this

    I'm sorry, but if you're calling yourself a Progressive, you don't get to endorse as regressive a taxation plan as any we've ever seen.  Someone should mention that to Gravel.

    by JR on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:54:04 PM PDT

    •  Sorry but you should do more reading ...

      First, "the rich" don't pay taxes. They have accountants and lawyers figure out ways for them to bypass taxes. That is why we have a mess of a tax code. It needs to be scrapped. Why not try it for a year? If it doesn't work, change it back to the lousy tax system we have.  

      Second, since the tax is based on consumption, those who consume will pay the bulk of the tax. If you don't earn a lot of money, you don't spend a lot of money. If you don't spend a lot of money, you won't pay much in tax. Since most of us poor and middle class folks don't spend a lot - or try not - we won't pay a lot. It's simple mathematics.

      Third, as has been stated before, some form of a consumption tax is used all over the world and it works, for the most part. Since essentials will be exempted from the tax, most of us poor and middle class folks won't be "harmed" by replacing the income tax with a sales tax. If anything, we will be HELPED by the national sales tax - by giving us ALL of our money and allowing us to do with it what we choose. It will also increase savings rates - which are dismal for most Americans. This CREATES wealth at the bottom earning tiers.

      Lastly, take the blinders off and do some reading. Don't just assume because a few rightwing cranks like the idea that it isn't a good idea. Rep. Ron Paul is against the war. He is against the Patriot. We don't immediately say those are bad positions just because a rightwinger takes them, do we? Why do you immediately take offense to Gravel's version of the idea just because some rightwingers like a similar idea? Read Gravel's plan for yourself and see how it works. Educate yourself and don't just shoot something down because you don't understand or haven't really looked at it.

      by extratime40 on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:05:54 PM PDT

      •  Christ, this is how Ezra felt about Schoen!

        Do you not see how many holes there are in what you just typed?

        sigh, I should be working on my thesis, but...

        "the rich" don't pay taxes. They have accountants and lawyers figure out ways for them to bypass taxes. That is why we have a mess of a tax code.

        You have this backwards--our messy, complicated tax code is the reason those accountants can find methods of tax avoidance.  But how is Gravel's plan any less messy than the current one?  In his efforts to take an inherently regressive taxation system--a non-luxury sales tax--and make it into a marketably "progressive" tax system, he bases taxation on certain goods on things like (surprise!) income.  So we're still tracking income, we're still itemizing expenses, and we're still using an individual accounts system, and now we're also tracking consumption to determine what items are and are not necessities that qualify for reduced rates.  This is not a prescription for a less messy system.

        Second, since the tax is based on consumption, those who consume will pay the bulk of the tax. If you don't earn a lot of money, you don't spend a lot of money. If you don't spend a lot of money, you won't pay much in tax. Since most of us poor and middle class folks don't spend a lot - or try not - we won't pay a lot. It's simple mathematics.

        This part is just sad.  It's quite possibly the single most ignorant statement about tax burdens and mathematics I've ever read on this site, and I've been here since before Scoop.  Follow me closely here: people with LESS money spend a GREATER proportion of their income on consumer goods.  You will be taxing the people who have LESS at a higher rate than the people who have MORE, since rich people can afford to NOT spend all their income on consumer goods.  The PROPORTIONS matter--and that's simple, fifth-grade math.  If I make $25,000 a year, I'm spending every cent on food, clothing, rent, fuel, etc.  If I make $250,000 a year, chances are I'm squirreling some away for a rainy day and won't use it on consumer goods, since I can live on less than I make.

        So, to summarize, you're bad at math, the poor would bear a higher tax burden in proportion to the rich, since all their income would be taxed and a higher proportion of their income must necessarily go towards consumer goods.  (Unless, of course, we institute a massive bureaucracy designed to track and categorize each individual and their purchases throughout the year, audit their financial paperwork and receipts, and enforce tax codes against the myriad ways of avoiding legitimate sales taxes like black markets and under-the-counter transactions--but I thought simplifying taxation was the whole point of this scheme!)

        Third, as has been stated before, some form of a consumption tax is used all over the world and it works, for the most part. Since essentials will be exempted from the tax, most of us poor and middle class folks won't be "harmed" by replacing the income tax with a sales tax. If anything, we will be HELPED by the national sales tax - by giving us ALL of our money and allowing us to do with it what we choose. It will also increase savings rates - which are dismal for most Americans.

        What are essentials?  Who determines what qualifies?  Will this be a point-of-sale deduction, or will people pay full price and have to submit proof of purchase to receive a rebate (Gravel's system is a "Prebate"-based one, IIRC)?  How on earth can that work without a bureaucracy at least the size of the IRS?  How will those at the bottom, spending the highest proportion of their income on consumer goods, be able to save any better than they could with just a lower income tax rate?  Doesn't the propensity to save increase the higher a person's income?  So wouldn't this create a greater incentive for the rich to save their riches, thus removing more M1 from the economy, rather than pooling it at the bottom?

        Actually, I can work with more than just those general questions, since Gravel is a "Prebate" guy.  The basic concept is that the government will settle on what the fair price for an "essential good" (no idea what that means), and will multiply what it thinks a person would spend on that good by the tax rate, divides that amount into monthly payments, and sends people checks.  No idea how fuel costs are handled (if they're included in the "essentials" category, if they're applied based on vehicle ownership or fuel consumption, or adjusted based on national prices or indexed to the national average or what), no idea how spikes in food or medical costs would be handled, no idea if rent or mortgage payments are covered, no idea how education or other services are taxes.  All we know is he wants to send a monthly check based on annual calculations--no real details about how those calculations and adjustments would be conducted.

        Why do you immediately take offense to Gravel's version of the idea just because some rightwingers like a similar idea? Read Gravel's plan for yourself and see how it works. Educate yourself and don't just shoot something down because you don't understand or haven't really looked at it.

        And now the insults.  I don't dislike the national sales tax because wingnuts like it--I dislike it because (and this is important, so pay attention) SALES TAXES ARE INHERENTLY, BY DEFINITION, REGRESSIVE TAXES, AND CREATE A LARGER TAX BURDEN ON THOSE WHO SPEND A GREATER PROPORTION OF THEIR INCOME ON CONSUMER GOODS.  It is, though, worth noting that he is endorsing a piece of legislation that's been around for years and is currently sponsored in the Congress by 62 members (58 House, 4 Senate), only one of whom is a Democrat (Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma).  I read Gravel's plan right after I heard about it, months ago when he announced.  Hell, I read it a few years before that when I was working the Senate race in Georgia and Rep. Linder and Boortz were hawking their book at every political event in the state.  Incidentally, I've also studied capital markets and governmental economics, as well as taxation systems, so when someone tells me they have a "progressive national sales tax," I naturally assume that they're either full of it or never managed to take any economics courses past 101, because "progressive sales tax" is an oxymoron.

        by JR on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:39:40 PM PDT

        •  Try to have an open mind ...

          And don't talk in Socialist soundbites which can easily be debunked with real world examples.

          I would contend that in the three months I've been talking about Gravel's tax plan on this site, virtually everyone has posted some wingnut who likes it and uses that as an excuse to not even try it OR to even look with an open mind at it. I apologize if I lumped you into that crowd but it tends to be true.

          I don't have all day to target all of your post since I have a toddler so I will leave a few quick examples.

          First, here is a real world example, from my own taxes, which I just recently finished. I paid more than $8k in tax in 2006. Even if I spent all of the $40k I earned on sales taxable items - which I wouldn't have, because necessities are exempt from the tax - I would have only been taxed about $6k. Leaving me with $2k MORE than I have now! Under the sales tax, I would have probably only paid about $4,500 in tax in 2006, leaving me with $3,500 MORE than I have today. $3,500 more to save, more to put away from my kid's college, more to put down on a down payment on a car, etc. I consider myself lower middle class - family of three earning about $40k. It's practically poverty up here in the Northeast. But, under the national sales tax plan, I would have made out.

          Second real world example, from the past. In 1991 and 1992, people were saying the same thing about Jerry Brown's flat tax. So, at the end of the year in 1991, I put together two examples: What I paid in taxes that year and what George H.W. Bush paid that year. I earned about $16k and paid 23 percent in taxes. HWBush paid 9 percent in taxes on $2.3 million. This is under the tax code at the time. The RICH - again, HWBush - didn't pay the 35 percent tax. He paid FRIGGIN' 9! The rich DON'T PAY TAXES!
          With Brown's 13 percent flat tax, I would have paid much less - about $1,200 less - and HWBush would have paid 4 percent more - or tens of thousands of dollars. And yet, there was Hillary telling people that Brown's plan was "regressive" and yet, in real world examples, it wasn't. Not only was I allowed to deduct my rent - something taxpayers have never been allowed to do - but it would have eliminated the cost of the IRS and all the loopholes that the rich set up for themselves to NOT have to pay what they should.

          But let's go back to say, the super-poor, folks who make $15k a year or so. Most of those folks - and I can attest because I once was one of them - pay MOST if not ALL of their money on necessities. So they wouldn't get taxed unless they bought non-necessity consumables like Scotch tape or CDs or whatever. Let's stay with this for a sec and look at some expenses which wouldn't be taxed. You make $15k. You live in a studio apartment and pay $500 per month. OK, that's $6k right there which is spent by not taxed. Your grocery bill is about $50 per week. That's $2,500+ not taxed. You're electric is $50 per week. That's another $2,5000+ not taxed. Already, $11k of your $16k isn't taxed. Gas wouldn't be taxed since it is already taxed. You might have other utilities, like a water or heat bill, those wouldn't be taxed. So, essentially, you're left with about $5k a year to spend on other things you need like clothes, transportation, etc. $5k times 20 percent is $1k. That would be your tax bill for the year. Right away, you save $400 because your employee contribution to the FICA bill would be $1,140. This doesn't get into prebates or anything else or the fact that a good chunk of the $5k leftover could be more essentials.
          So, even in an extreme example like this, poor folks would e paying a LOWER tax bill than they do now.

          Back to the rich for a sec. The contention is that under the sales tax plan, they rich would pay less than they do now. Well, most of us know that is folly and I've shown it to be with HWBush. But let's look at some things which would be taxed differently than they are now. It is simple mathematics:
          The rich would pay more than they do now. Every time they buy a big ticket item, it would be taxed more than it is now. Every time a share would be bought and sold on the stock market, it would be taxed. It isn't now! Capital gains on stocks aren't taxed now. Private equity firms would be taxed for shuffling money. They aren't now. A person who bought a BMW vs. a person who buys a Honda, would be taxed more! The rich get hit with the higher tax. Even if you are a working stiff and had to pay a 20 percent tax on your Honda, you still make out! A 20 percent tax on a $20,000 - or expensive - Honda would be $5k. Spread out over a 60 month payment, that would be $1,000 per year. But compare that to paying the $8k in taxes and you make out. So, even if us poor and middle class folks buy a big ticket item, we make out over the long run.

          Lastly, here is Gravel's proposal, which is worth looking at in more depth. It isn't the wingnut proposal. It is totally different and workable compared to the tax code we have now:

          DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

          MIKE GRAVEL IS FOR REAL TAX REFORM:

          · ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX AND THE IRS

          · SET UP A PROGRESSIVE SALES TAX

          It’s called a FAIR TAX.

          The way in which a government raises revenue is a critical indication of how fair it will be to its citizens.

          The U.S. Income Tax system is unfair to its citizens and crippling to the economy.

          Both the Income Tax and the Sales Tax systems are generically progressive:

          · with Income, you’re taxed on what you earn

          · with Sales, you’re taxed on what you spend

          But the U.S. Income Tax system is unfair and regressive because Americans earning less than $97,400 pay a larger portion of their income in taxes than those who earn more than $97,400.

          The following applies to both Income and Sales tax systems:

          · To be fair, a tax system must have total transparency––each taxpayer must know what s/he is paying and what everyone else is paying.

          · To be fair, a tax system cannot have any exceptions. One exception opens the door to those who can afford to game the system.

          · To be fair, a tax system must be simple. The more complex it is, the easier it is to game the system.

          Our income tax code is riddled with exceptions and incentives that the 30,000 lobbyists in Washington have secured and continue to secure for their clients. Little wonder the code is incomprehensible and has a compliance cost to the private sector of $270 billion a year.

          After serving eight years on the Senate Finance Committee, my choice to meet the fairness criteria is to junk the income tax with all its exceptions, close the IRS, and establish a sales tax––without exceptions.

          Much demagoguery swirls around issues of taxation:

          · "Soak the rich" is one approach, but it never happens regardless of whether the liberals or conservatives hold political power. The wealthy have the money to game the system.

          · "Tax the corporations" is another approach, but corporate taxes are built into the cost of products or services, so consumers are actually paying those taxes, too. It’s a hidden sales tax.

          I subscribe to a sales tax system, most of which is included in what is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax meets the fairness criteria: simplicity, transparency and no exceptions.

          What sales tax rate will be applied to all new products and services?

          The goal is to keep tax reform revenue-neutral. It is not a tax-cut program. Whatever the tax rate on new goods and services that will produce the same amount of money currently raised by the income tax is the sales tax rate. Best estimates indicate that the rate would be somewhere between 20 and 25%. Also, best estimates indicate that it would take a year to transition from one system to the other.

          The PREBATE

          One of the most exciting features of the Fair Tax is the monthly payments to individuals and/or families to reimburse them for the tax they pay on the essentials of life (food, shelter, clothing, medicine). The amount of the Prebate is calculated by multiplying the cost of essentials by the tax rate. The resulting tax is divided into 12 equal payments and sent on the first of each month to consumers who have registered annually for the program. The progressiveness of the Fair Tax can be determined by adjusting the amounts selected for the prices paid for essentials, which should not be taxed in the first place. However, giving these essentials an exception from the sales tax opens the door for wealth to game the system and we are back with the problems we have in the income tax system.

          The Congress will never enact such a radical reform because it dilutes their power to control and focus the economy to accomplish social goals and ,of course, limits their ability of Congress to reward their special-interest friends who donate money to their political campaigns. In my judgment, Americans will have to vote to enact the National Initiative, becoming legislators like their elected lawmakers, in order to make the Fair Tax the law of the land. (www.NationalInitiative.us)

          Fair Tax Facts

          · Taxes you on what you spend––not on what you earn. So American consumers with low or moderate incomes will automatically pay less in taxes.

          · Government revenues from individuals are presently funded by payroll deductions from 110 million workers, and from corporate taxes. Under the Fair Tax, government revenues will be funded by more than 300 million consumers, including visiting tourists, and tax cheats who previously reported little or nothing to the IRS.

          · Eliminates federal deductions on your paycheck for income taxes, Social Security and Medicare.

          · Social Security and Medicare will be fully funded by the Fair Tax.

          · Restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to know where you work, what you earn, or what you do with your earnings.

          · Saves up to $270 billion per year that federal tax compliance currently costs our economy.

          · Dramatically reduces the price of new products and services, estimated at 20-25%, because corporations no longer need to hide these costs in the retail prices that are now passed on to consumers. This reduction equals the present income taxes being paid.

          · Creates jobs and economic growth in the U.S. by reducing operating costs to companies.

          · Encourages international investment in the American economy.

          · Businesses, and state and local governments collecting the sales tax will keep a small percentage to reimburse themselves for the cost of collecting and forwarding the funds to the U.S. Treasury.

          · Encourages the re-use products and the purchase of tax-free, pre-owned products.

          · Changes our consumption-based economy to a savings-based economy, warding off the oncoming fiscal crisis over commercial and private debt.

          · Saves about 300,000 trees each year that are currently needed to produce all the paperwork for IRS compliance and tax forms.

          · Makes U.S. goods more competitive overseas and more affordable at home, thereby increasing job creation while reducing our balance of payments deficit.

          · Eliminates corporate taxes and the costs of compliance. These costs are currently hidden in the price consumers pay for the company’s product or services.

          · Changes the American economy – the largest economic entity in the world – into the largest tax haven in the world, enticing international investments in the American economy. Also creates a level of growth (estimated at 10%) and prosperity that will permit the nation to lower government debt and balance the budget, better finance education, health care, transportation, and the rebuilding of our national infrastructure.

          Mike Gravel for President

          PO Box 948, Arlington, VA 22216-0948

          703.652.4698

          www.Gravel08.us

          www.NationalInitiative.us

          Paid for by Mike Gravel for President 2008

          by extratime40 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:24:40 AM PDT

          •  This is just sad

            I'm presenting actual economic theory and explaining why proportional tax burdens are made worse by plans like this, and you're responding with anecdotal evidence and a cut-and-paste of the same lines I just proved economically mistaken as a rebuttal?  

            What's worse, your anecdotal evidence is based on the presupposition that spending and savings habits would be unaffected among the rich, which is patently absurd, AND you're ignoring the possibility of reforming the existing tax code so that George HW Bush wouldn't be able to get away with paying a 9% effective income tax rate--you'd rather throw out the entire system than address its shortcomings, but then you refuse to acknowledge the myriad shortcomings of a sales tax scheme like Gravel's!  You haven't rebutted any of my arguments about how the Gravel Plan would still require a massive and cumbersome bureaucracy.  You haven't addressed how prebate calculations would be made or what goods would be considered "essential" (different definitions of essential goods for people and businesses?  How about regional variations--is AC covered in the Deep South but not in New York?  I could go on).

            And to say that Gravel's plan is different than the wingnut plan is patently false and intellectually dishonest.  I mean, really, do you think Gravel just came up with the idea of having a national sales tax and calling it the "Fair Tax" out of the blue?  NOBODY IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICS HAS EVER STOLEN THE NAME OF A PROPOSAL FROM AN ALMOST IDENTICAL PROPOSAL AND TRIED TO PASS IT OFF AS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAN.  Really, for all the insults to our intelligence that American voters have suffered over the centuries, nobody has thought us so stupid.  It's a bad idea that will have bad results, and just saying "it's completely different than their idea" doesn't actually make it different, just like Gravel calling it a "progressive" tax doesn't make it progressive.  And neither you, nor Gravel, nor Boortz, nor Linder has ever offered any reason to believe that the proposed changes would increase revenues and decrease hassle and bureaucracy.

            Your entire argument would be laughed out of any economics classroom in America.  Not because the idea is without merit, but because you're simply in denial about economic realities and seem to have no concept of consumer behavior.

            All your anecdotes prove is that the tax system needs reform--your conclusions about the efficacy of a national sales tax, however, are unfounded and implausible.

            Try to keep an open and critical mind.  You found a new idea (well, not that new...), but you failed to adequately investigate the claims and implications of said idea.  Getting all huffy because we have good reason to be skeptical of regressive tax systems is a sign of a weak argument.  I'm not insisting that you have to agree with me that a national sales tax is a bad idea, but if you're not at least willing to recognize the bureaucratic clusterfuck this proposal would create or admit the regressive nature of sales taxes, then I'm not interested in talking with you anymore because, you see, I prefer a reality-based discourse.

            by JR on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:03:02 AM PDT

            •  I'm not using anecdotal evidence

              I'm using actual tax returns and actual earnings and actual figures of actual purchases and actual tax bills paid both personally and reported in the newspaper! None of it is anecdotal and it would stand up in a classroom any day to show actual figures versus political opinion and platitudes.

              And it would stand up any day of the week to theory - which is what you forward. Since the nation has never had a national sales tax, there is no way either of us can factual say whether it will work or not. I, at least, come up with examples where a few middle class people would pay less and a few rich people would be more.

              But, we'll agree to disagree.

              by extratime40 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:57:45 PM PDT

              •  You're using one case and generalizing

                It's all anecdotal, because it's one case without evidence of being

                a.) generalizable to the population as a whole, or
                b.) directly related to the sales tax issue.

                It's one case being used to prop up an entire proposal for the abolition of one system and its replacement with another.  But it doesn't account for so many factors (listed in the previous post) that it's meaningless outside the context of being ONE case with vague implications.

                In other words, it's nothing but an anecdote.

                I cannot for the life of me imagine how you can think this would pass muster among people who understand economics 101 as an argument for the sales tax. This is akin to how Reaganomics was sold--cherry-pick one case that seemingly contradicts solid economic theory but is inconclusive on the subject, and argue that the two are equally meaningful.

                And, I note again, you still have left unanswered the points about how Gravel's plan would still require a massive and cumbersome bureaucracy unresponsive to rapidly changing economic conditions.  I also note again that you've only made a case that the current system needs reform, not that a sales tax would be more progressive and efficient than a reformed income tax.

                But seeing as how I don't think we're playing the same game here, I'm moving on.

                by JR on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 03:11:36 PM PDT

•  I got no complaints about Gravel with these

  rethug criminals running amok in our DOJ and entire government framework !

  Justice Dept. withholds prosecutor memos..The new documents were released on the eve of closed-door congressional testimony by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty on Friday. Documents listed as not being released were all authored by Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, who resigned March 12 over the handling of the firings.

  WTF ! What is it going to take to rid ourselves of these blood sucking, perverted parasites..?

  by Johnny Rapture on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:34:06 PM PDT

•  Yes, but I want to see him pass

  a simple mental status exam first.

  "What year is it?" You lose points if you answer "1907."

  "What city are we in right now?" Count how many seconds it takes for him to answer.

  "What's your name?" Any stumbles here disqualifies him altogether.

  Mind you, I loved what he had to say, but there was just something about him that made me want that mental status exam. Maybe the whole thing . . . "Count backwards from 100 by 7s. Draw a clockface."

  by Hobbitfoot on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:38:21 PM PDT

  •  of course

    I don't think I could pass your test, either...

    by lcork on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:45:01 PM PDT

    •  ah, but now you know what's in it

      and you could cram for it!

      by Hobbitfoot on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:46:53 PM PDT

      •  digital or analog? n/t

        by lcork on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Bush could answer those questions easily

    and still be a complete sociopath. But you are doubting Gravel's sanity?

    by marina on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:21:11 PM PDT

•  How about Gravel for President?

  I didn't watch the debate, but I just saw the clip at C&L of Gravel cutting the war-mongers down by their knees and, damn, that guy rocks!

  by smintheus on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:40:24 PM PDT

  •  I absolutely was loving him

    I'm still hoping Gore enters the race at some point, and I don't think Gravel will get the nomination, but - damn, when he said "We have no enemies" and "We have to start treating other nations like equals" (not an exact quote, sorry to say), it really got my attention.

    by lcork on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:47:18 PM PDT

•  His demeanor tonight...

  Reminded me of the reaction ole Doc Moody gave when a few of us and some friends from our "hah schoo" drove by in our pickup and mooned him.  It was like if he would have been holding a cane up there, he would have beaten the tar out of someone and then broken it over their head!

  We need that!  Somewhere!

  by OleMiss on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:41:47 PM PDT

•  He might be dismissed as a kook...

  ....but in Alaska, that doesn't necessarily disqualify you.

  by metal prophet on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:49:44 PM PDT

•  Whats Worse Than A Soldier Dying In Vain?

  More Soldiers Dying In Vain.

  by LieparDestin on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:52:26 PM PDT

  •  That was a powerful line.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:05:30 PM PDT

  •  I rec'd that...

    ...for Gravel.  Bless him, I wish I could rec it again.  At the same time, I think the the legislative path, putting pressure on Republicans, is the safest way to end the war.  It might take more time than what Gravel is suggesting, but I'm not quite sure how America would react to that kind of government shutdown.

    by Mannabass on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:15:17 PM PDT

•  Something about Gravel's performance today...

  troubles me.  I'm not quite sure what it was.  Maybe his tone.

  by CAL11 voter on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:56:25 PM PDT

  •  His "crotchety old man" act in general? n/t

    by JR on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:02:03 PM PDT

  •  The fact

    that he's batshit insane?

    by Nonpartisan on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:28:40 PM PDT

•  Saying the right things

  by itself does not make one a good legislator.

  by okamichan13 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:58:10 PM PDT

•  Ted Stevens is older than Gravel.

  would make a decent bumper sticker...

  by Ramo on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:59:49 PM PDT

•  An Idea:

  How about never letting Gravel near a mike ever again, Please God?

  by Nonpartisan on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:28:25 PM PDT

•  Mike Gravel and Ted Stevens have a history as wel

  they do not get along... let's just say that.

  I would love, love, love to see that, and I think Gravel '08's fiery populism could most definitely give Sen. " a series of tubes" a run for his money.

  Sadly I think the residency thing makes it a non-starter, and I really think he's only interested in staying on the national stage and pushing the overton window.

  Hopefully our nominee will reward him a cabinet spot or something so he can serve honorably in his last years... or at the very least a job speechwriting!

  -C.

  by Neutron on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:43:27 PM PDT

•  Senate? Hell, make the prez.

  by Intercaust on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:44:23 PM PDT

•  Insane? Gravel insane?

  Not a chance.  His comment about not another soldier dying in vain was brilliant.  Those soldiers who've died in Iraq have died, unfortunately, in vain; in testimony to the insanity of our fascist Decider-in-chief and those politicos and hacks who've enabled his war-of-choice.  Bring it on, Mike!

  by deepeco on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:17:39 PM PDT

•  Age

  He's younger then Lautenberg and Byrd also. Is 77 even considered unusually old for a Senator?

  by FuckDubyaBush on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:19:25 PM PDT

•  granted, i missed the debate

  but from the clips at crooks and liars, the man is nowhere near insane, and i hope to heck he stays in the debates and the race as long as humanly possible. i think that's one of the first times i've ever heard someone on tv, much less a politician, speak uncomfortable truths about this country's behavior, and the knee-jerk militarism that has defined us for decades, if not centuries.

  after he plays that important role of not giving the bigshots a pass on matters of life and death, war and peace, sure he'd be great for senate. but not until he makes the chickenhawks in our party shift uncomfortably for a bit longer.

  by wu ming on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:05:57 PM PDT