Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute wrote an op/ed for Forbes which I believe deserves some attention. He said since former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is willing to consider a value added tax (VAT) should libertarians and conservatives being willing to consider him? First off I’d ask what libertarian would support him anyway? Secondly, I’d say no, it should be disqualifying for a candidate who is running on job creation to then support what would be in effect an economy killing measure. Mitchell points out Romney’s openness to the VAT in a recent Wall Street Journal interview (need subscription):
He says he doesn’t “like the idea” of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, “particularly at the corporate level,” as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.
If you’re not familiar with what a VAT is – think a national sales tax that is applied at all stages of production. Companies ultimately won’t pay this tax, but instead pass it off onto us. It is an awful tax, and one no self-described “conservative” should ever support or even be willing to consider (that goes for Congressman Paul Ryan as well).
The second bit of Romney news that I read over the weekend was his milquetoast response about tyrannical judges. One of the primary reasons, I believe, Newt Gingrich was able to gain traction in Iowa was his stance on judges (he’s not the only candidate with plans to reign them in). Look for Congress (and State Legislatures) to truly bring about reform on a plethora of issues such as protecting traditional marriage, immigration laws, Second Amendment issues or even a voter ID law the judiciary needs to be reigned in.
“There are a lot of decisions by judges I vehemently disagree with,” Romney said on Fox News. “But I also agree with the Constitution. The solution to judges-out-of-control is not to tear up the Constitution and say the Congress of the United States becomes the now ultimate power in this country.”
Actually what Gingrich has suggested is fidelity to the Constitution, he’s offered in the debates Constitutional solutions, and ones that have actually, historically, been implemented. What we have is a judicial branch that has grown too big for its britches, and the balance of power needs to be restored. Because right not the judicial branch acts as though it is the superior branch and that is simply not what the Founders had in mind.
What would Romney do? Nothing. Apparently he doesn’t mind an oligarchy.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Five Principles That Iowa Legislators Should Consider for Sound Tax Policy - November 17, 2017
- The Iowa Senate GOP Needs HR Help and Transparency - November 15, 2017
- This Is Not How You Debunk Roy Moore’s Alleged Yearbook Signature - November 14, 2017