Jindal: Eliminate Income and Corporate Taxes

Here’s some free market red meat for ya:

Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor’s office confirmed Thursday. The governor’s office has not yet provided the details of the plan.

“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”…

I’ve always been wary of a sales tax and have preferred a flat income tax but lately I have been coming around to the sales tax – and not just to eliminate the income tax, but also to eliminate property taxes (at least on single-family homes:  it irks me that after working hard to buy himself a home an American only gets to keep it as long as he shovels money at the government).  There is a lot to be said for going to a sales tax, but I like it best because it discourages consumption and encourages savings – and savings, not spending, is what leads to genuine economic growth.

Our current model, of course, is spending – spend, spend and then spend some more.  And when people don’t have enough to spend, get the government to borrow and/or print up some money to spend because all spending is good, all the time.  To those who still hold to this as correct, I answer:  Greece.  If spending works, then Greece should be prosperous…but they’ve got 26% or so unemployment.  By saving money we set aside genuine wealth which can then be invested – with great care – in the creation and expansion of successful enterprises.  Investment would become real investment, not Wall Street gambling where pinheads try to guess which way the market will go.

While I know our liberals will go ballistic over the concept of eliminating corporate taxes, this is simply because liberals are too blind to understand that every penny of corporate taxes is paid by the consumer.  Corporations don’t pay taxes – even if you see a corporate check made out to the IRS, rely on it that whatever they paid this year will be tacked on to next year’s products.  They can also wiggle out of tax burdens by bribing politicians and regulators to set up the tax code in the corporation’s interest.  By eliminating corporate taxes we’d not only get lower prices on corporate goods and services but we’ll also make our nation a magnet for foreign investors looking to park their money in a low-tax haven.

Jindal is clearly trying to round out his profound reforms of Louisiana politics – but I also hope he’s got an eye on 2016.

How to End the Argument Over Birth Control

From the Wall Street Journal via Hot Air:

…As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn’t be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.

Let’s ask the question: Why do women have to go see a doctor before they buy birth control? There are two answers. First, because big government says they should, even though requiring a doctor visit to get a drug that research shows is safe helps drive up health-care costs. Second, because big pharmaceutical companies benefit from it. They know that prices would be driven down if the companies had to compete in the marketplace once their contraceptives were sold over the counter.

So at present we have an odd situation. Thanks to President Obama and the pro-choice lobby, women can buy the morning-after pill over the counter without a prescription, but women cannot buy oral contraceptives over the counter unless they have a prescription. Contraception is a personal matter—the government shouldn’t be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman’s employer to keep tabs on her use of it. If an insurance company or those purchasing insurance want to cover birth control, they should be free to do so. If a consumer wants to buy birth control on her own, she should be free to do so…

That is Bobby Jindal.  Have I mentioned that he’s smarter than the next 100 Republicans?  And also smarter than the next 1,000 Democrats?  Just make birth control an over-the-counter medication.  Personally, of course, I think the whole concept of “birth control” to be the most idiotic of twaddle – but its not for me to decide for anyone else whether they want to participate in it.  And if we make it over-the-counter then its like going to buy Nyquil when you’ve got a cold…just go buy it.  And as Jindal points out, if we make it over-the-counter the massive competition for market share which will result will drive down the cost of birth control to the point where if you can’t afford it then its likely because you blew all your money on drugs or gambling.  This takes it entirely out of the debate – no need to mandate it for religious institutions; no need to worry if a woman working at a religious institution should get coverage because any working woman will be easily able to afford it entirely on her own, without the risk of forcing religious people to participate in what some believe to be an evil.  Problem solved.

Now, of course, our liberals won’t sit still for this – and they’ll naturally start to demand that abortion be covered by all insurance plans, but that is a fight we can win as America is becoming increasingly pro-life.   But, meanwhile, by applying our free market principals as well as our demand for individual liberty and freedom of conscience, we can totally destroy this argument which did so much to fuel the Democrats absurd claims of a “war against women” this year.

Jindal to GOP: Don’t be Stupid

Well, that is a bit harsher than he actually was – but its the gist of it.  From Politico:

…“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”…

While our liberal friends were quite dishonest in their characterizations of what, say, Akin said, the fact remains that Akin got in to trouble because he clearly never thought the matter through.  If you are to be a pro-life fanatic (as I am) then you’d better figure out precisely why you are and what your answers are to all conceivable questions.  Heck, for a Christian this is actually a Biblical command (see 1 Peter 3:15).  Because Akin had not thought the matter through he was unprepared for a question which was obviously going to be asked because the DNC wanted their by-lined Democrats in the MSM to ask such questions (the correct answer to that question can be found here, because I’ve thought about it).  Because of boneheaded answers we are at least two Senate seats short of where we would be had we been smarter…and a bit more smarts and we might have retired Reid as Majority Leader.

Don’t get me wrong – Democrats are even dumber than we are.  But they do have this going for them – low information voters can be easily suckered by Democrats especially when GOPers are acting like idiots.  If we are smart then Democrat attempts to bamboozle will fall flat…because sincerity and conviction on well-presented beliefs do actually trump gutter-political appeals to the lowest common denominator.  Think of Reagan:  bags of sincerity and conviction and beliefs which could not be mistaken…they tried a gutter political campaign against him in 1980 and it didn’t work (hard as it is to remember, but Democrats were portraying Reagan as a filthy rich, drooling idiot who wanted to start nuclear war as soon as he got in to office).

Equally important, don’t let the Democrats portray us as something we’re not.  Like it or not, the GOP was successfully painted as the party of the rich and the big corporations in 2012.  Doesn’t matter that there are more rich Democrats than Republicans; doesn’t matter that corporate America is a happy-hunting ground for sinecure-seeking Democrats.  What mattered is that by not clearly showing that we are opposed to Big Corporation and on the side of small and mid-sized business, we gave that part of the game away to the Democrats, too.

Time to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start bringing to the table those shining ideals which lead us to victory in the past…and without giving the game away by fumbling the ball inside the red zone.

A Campaign for 70 Million Votes

As I’m sure most people have figured out by now, turnout in 2012 was massively off from 2008.  As it turns out, Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than Bush got in 2004.  My prediction of a Romney victory was predicated upon taking the 2008 turnout and re-figuring it for both a loss in Obama voters and a return of Bush voters.  The Obama voters were, indeed, lost – I got that right (though, for full disclosure, Obama lost fewer votes than I projected he would).  The problem for us Republicans is that the Bush voters McCain lost were also lost by Romney – and then some; it seems that Romney got about a million fewer voters than McCain.  Had the 5 million or so missing Bush voters showed up on November 6th, Romney would have won…and we probably would have won a Senate majority, in to the bargain.

The big question is just why did these five million voters not vote?  They voted for Bush.  They are clearly ok with a socially conservative man of financially rich background – they should have had no particular problem with voting for Romney.  But, they didn’t.  Why?  Several reasons:

The GOP Debate

I’m afraid I took the Mrs out to dinner, so I missed the majority – but Ann Althouse is live-blogging it and Stephen Green is drunk-blogging it.  So, we’re pretty well covered.

I have to say that I’m not terribly interested in these debates…mostly because the only sort of debates I like are those where the candidates ask each other questions.  With such a large number of candidates, I’d have them draw names at random out of a hat (after having drawn numbers out of a hat to decide who goes first).  It’d be a lot more interesting and a lot less scripted than the way debates are done now…and a lot more fun to watch.

The most important thing to remember is that any of the candidates would be a better President than Obama and any one of them can beat him.  I’m still leaning towards Bachmann (she’s right about vaccines in the sense that everyone should decide for themselves and their children on them…but wow wrong on falling for the old scam story that vaccination causes autism) but I’m not absolutely sold on any candidate.  Even Romney is rising in my estimation of late…seems that all the pressure being brought from the right is forcing him on to more conservative ground; that’s good.  My favorite of all favorites is still Sarah Palin and if she gets in, I’ll immediately be an enthusiastic and horribly biased backer of her candidacy…with the proviso, of course, that whomever gets the nomination will also wind up with my enthusiastic and horribly biased support (of course, my double-plus favorite of all favorites is Bobby Jindal…but he ain’t running…he’s holding off until 2016 if we lose next year, or 2020 if we win; and he’s very much young enough to wait).

Anyways, did any of you watch the debate?  What did you think?  Anyone land any punches?

Jindal Endorses Perry; Pawlenty Endorses Romney

Getting the Pawlenty endorsement is a good thing for Romney – Pawlenty has excellent social conservative credentials plus a reservoir of support from TEA Party activists.  This will help Romney is his now-uphill climb to beat Perry.  On the other hand, getting Jindal’s endorsement helps Perry with more establishment type Republicans…Jindal is very much the rock-ribbed social and economic conservative, but he’s never been noted as some sort of movement, get out there with the TEA Party activist.

I have to say that the Jindal endorsement will be a problem for me if Perry gets the GOP nomination…my two picks for Veep are Jindal and Rubio; with Jindal as the much-preferred candidate.  Nothing wrong with Rubio, at all – in fact, I hope to vote for Rubio in a Presidential contest one day.  But Jindal’s experience is much greater and I want Jindal to be President one day even more than I’d like to see Rubio as President.  These things will work out as they will…but it will be hard for Perry to pick Jindal due to regional reasons.  On the other hand, Bush picked Cheney and it caused no problem in the long run.

Pawlenty, of course, will certainly remain in the top five of possible Romney VP picks; probably remain in the top ten for Perry, too.  Pawlenty just brings a huge amount of strength to the GOP – and will help any GOP candidate.  Can you imagine a debate between Pawlenty and Biden?  We could make it pay-per-view and raise a billion dollars for the GOP!  Of course, Jindal would mop the floor with Biden, too…the really good news is that we can look forward to having both Pawlenty and Jindal in the next GOP Administration (we do have a wealth of talent which Democrats must envy…whom would Obama dredge up for 2nd Term replacements?  Chuck Schumer?).

Next up may be an endorsement by Jim DeMint…who could end up derailing either Perry or Romney by endorsing the other man.  If he endorses someone else, then it would probably be a wash for Perry and Romney and likely wouldn’t greatly help Bachmann or Cain, as they already have the support of those who back DeMint.

 

A Pre-Emptive Strike Against Bobby Jindal

If you’re a Democrat surveying the scene you’ll swiftly note that the two strongest possible challengers to Obama in 2012 are Governors Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA). You can allow these two to slowly build up their contacts and organization in preparation for a run – or you can attempt to pre-destroy them in hopes that they’ll either become too toxic for the GOP primary or, at least, greatly weakened for the general election should either one of them secure the GOP nomination. Which course do you think Democrats have settled upon?

Sarah Palin has been the target of one after another frivolous legal action – designed to take her down a peg or two, tie up her time and funds and generally make political life miserable for her. The Democrats started on her, of course, during the 2008 campaign, but the (very correct) perception of her amazing strength made them keep right at her as if the election had never ended. There was some doubt early on about whether Jindal would seek the 2012 GOP nomination, but once he started making clear preliminary moves, the attacks started to mount. The current accusation – that “Mr Clean” Bobby Jindal, who has worked very hard to clean up Louisiana’s here to for hopelessly corrupt government, is involved in a “pay-to-play” scandal. The accusation:

The first person ever to benefit from economic development aid under Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration was Gary Chouest, owner of Edison Chouest Offshore and C-Logistics in Lafourche Parish. The announcement came last year during Jindal’s second special session. During the governor’s opening remarks, he identified a group of “real people,” including Chouest, and asked them to stand.

The bayou mogul obliged and gave a nod to the new Republican governor. Chouest was a happy man that day, sporting a smile ear to ear. Who could blame him? After all, Jindal had just announced that the state was prepared to invest $10 million into the Port of Terrebonne to accommodate LaShip, an Edison Chouest subsidiary.

That’s big bucks, even for a man like Chouest. Luckily for Jindal, Chouest believes in investing in politicians with whom he agrees. Over the past two years, Chouest’s businesses and closest family members have given Jindal’s campaign at least 18 donations totaling $85,000.

Did that money help Jindal make his decision to back the LaShip project?

Kyle Plotkin, Jindal’s press secretary, calls that a ridiculous notion. “Contributors to Gov. Jindal support his agenda for reforming Louisiana and moving our state forward, not the other way around,” Plotkin says. “In fact, the governor has more than 21,000 contributors representing all different types of people and organizations.”

A search of Open Secrets does show that Gary Chouest – and his family – puts most of their donations to Republicans. But even Gary Chouest donated $9,200.00 to Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) during the 2008 election cycle. Many other Democrats have benefited from Chouest family donations over the years. This indicates that Chouest is a business man and wishes to keep in good with the political powers that be in a State notorious for only allowing politically well-connected businesses to thrive. Should it be like that? Not at all – and Governor Jindal is working to change that politico-business culture…but you can’t uproot a century of Democrat corruption in Louisiana with the snap of your fingers.

As Jindal’s press secretary stated, the accusation against Jindal is absurd – but to make the accusation in 2009 means that by 2012 it will be “allegations of pay-to-play dogging Jindal” and our liberal friends will be on and on and on about it…with, of course, calls from Democrats for State and federal investigations into the matter right in the thick of the 2012 campaign. This is a two-fold effort – to put a shot across Jindal’s bow and let him know that the long-knives are being sharpened for him (and thus, just perhaps, scaring him off) and to generate some fake mud to sling at him, especially as by then we’ll have plenty of real mud to slam on the Obama Administration (unless you out there want to think that the Administration of a Chicago pol will be anything other than “pay-to-play”).

Its a sad state of affairs that our current ruling party can’t seem to admit our side to an open debate about ideas and the people making a carefully reasoned decision about which party would be best – no, our Democrats have to work in the sewer and use mud as their primary means of beating back the strongest of GOP challengers. They know their ideas are bankrupt, and so they resort to gutter politics.