« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Santorum is Right on His “Manufacturing Zero Tax” (Or How to Show You are Not an Economic Idiot like Obama)

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  March 15th, 2012 at 06:59 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As a professional economist that me state that the parts of the mistakes in logic by mbecker908 in his Diary “Santorum is Wrong on His “Manufacturing Zero Tax” is understandable. It is common, even for economists, to only examine one part of a complicated system and come to completely wrong conclusions.

First, while mbecker is correct in stating that environmental restrictions (or more accurately the time and cost of compliance) is very harmful to manufacturers locating in the US, He (or she) is completely mistaken when he states: “Federal taxes, by and large, don’t impact manufacturing in a way that will accomplish an expansion of the manufacturing base and create jobs.” You sound like Obama who recently stated that increasing the supply of oil will have no impact on price. (so basically he is showing either bias or a complete lack of knowledge of basic economics)

I am going to explain why Santorum’s plan may make sense. First, let me provide some economic insight into two key issues of establishing a lower tax rate on one sector of the economy. There are two economic issues here that are well known in economics:

1) Misallocation of resources– Favoring one sector of the economy over another with lower taxes may cause a misallocation of resources away from more profitable industries to lower profit ones (Perhaps in his view manufacturing).

2) Tax distortions. This is the point he misses. Taxes change peoples’ behavior. However, each market/firm/industry is harmed to different degrees by high taxes. Taxes on some markets may cause little change in the behavior in those markets. The result is few lost jobs, little output lost, and little harm to consumers. In these markets, the government obtains tax revenue with little harm to the economy.

However, not every market is so unaffected. Some markets are very sensitive to tax policy and taxes in these markets can cause significant job losses (or transfer of jobs/firms/industries to other locations)

For example, one city whose travel market is made up mostly of business people flying for business meetings might find that it is able to collect significant revenue with little damage by taxing air travel. While another city’s travel market might be made up mostly of people traveling for pleasure. A tax on airline travel in the pleasure seeking travel market might cause serious reductions in air travel by budget conscious vacationers— causing layoffs, reduced airline travel, and reduced happiness among city residents.

In the latter case, the city might choose to reduce or even eliminate taxes on air travel–not to pick winners or losers but simply recognizing that in their particular market, taxing airfare is a poor method of collecting tax revenue.

Santorum is simply arguing that manufacturing is an industry that is sensitive to high corporate tax rates–thus causing firms to relocate outside the country.

Here is the conservative economics behind Santorum’s thinking.

Re-industrialization 101: “Get Government Out of the Way”

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a fundamental principle of conservatives. Manufacturing is a very competitive business. High taxation can cause companies to leave the country unlike other types of businesses. So simply allowing them to keep more of what they earn will promote the re-industrialization. From an economic viewpoint goods that are cheaper to produce, ship and deliver here in the US are now, instead, being produced overseas because of our high taxation (and as mbecker points out paperwork intensive/ time consuming EPA regulations.) This is not subsidizing or preventing competition like others have proposed. This is getting government out of the way.

This is sensible tax policy. The same way I support Gingrich and most conservatives who supporting lowering taxes on capital gains. Ssome think this is unfair, but it is smart economic policy to encourage people to invest in the creation of new businesses. Santorum simply applies this logic to the manufacturing business. Not a subside..simply a recognition that our economic performance might be enhanced.

Do I know how many jobs will come from this? No. But I know many companies have been looking to locate here in the US. I have heard corporate executives say that are not locating in the US because of our high corporate tax rates. I also know there are 7 million more working age people not working today than 4 years ago that could be utilized by companies to produce goods.

If they can do so profitably, companies will come. In fact, the more profitable they are, the more likely they are to come. (since only those companies that have really high profits will benefit from a 0% tax rate) Therefore, it is likely that these will be high paying jobs. Because while many people think of industry as low skill, this is not true. Many manufacturing jobs are now done with more automation and these require very high skill / high wage workers.

Besides the focus on regulations by mbecker, there are other issues keeping manufacturing out of the US as well. Many manufacturers actually pay the individual rate and not the corporate rate. Santorum’s reduction in these rates to 28% will help all companies who pay the individual rate including manufacturers. Additionally, the Obama administration’s failure to make appropriate trade agreements with other nations is also a big deterent to jobs here in the US. Moreover, our legal environment also discourages companies from locating here (Santorum also plans to address this problem as well)

Finally, if you are a Romney supporter, Romney’s suggests a plan that is likely to start a trade war with China. This is a far more dangerous proposition— A position that is far more likely to lead to economic catastrophe than simply allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • civil truth

    …where you suddenly made a logical leap to an unwarranted conclusion and broke your arm on the landing (figuratively speaking).

    How we go from different opinions about industrial tax policy to a conclusion that mbecker’s disagreements with Santorum’s policy proves a hostility towards social conservatism escapes me. Why can’t he simply disagree with Rick’s policy?

    • garfieldjl

      I really don’t like Romney.

      That said, China has more to lose in a trade war because we’re the ones buying their products.

    • quill67

      His own words show that he views the social conservative movement with contempt. I did not want to include them in my diary and so you are correct that unless one has read his diary, it does seem like a jump. Here are his words:

      “He does have a strong record on issues that are near and dear to the hearts of the so-called Social Conservatives (Emphasis mine), but if you look at what the people who front that movement espouse, they are anything but ?conservative?. They basically want the government to provide the community support that the church used to when they still had a clue what their mission was. The Catholic Church and the Evangelical Movement, for the most part, supports the social welfare side of government expansion. There is nothing conservative about that. ” (
      Emphasis Mine)

      • quill67

        And since I am unwilling to quote him and the logical jump is not explained. I have removed my reference to his obvious hostility toward social conservatism. (although my comment quoting him supports my case)

        Thanks,

        Quill67

        • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

          after people have seen it, make sure to note how you’re editing it. Also, it’s better to add than subtract.

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

      Was there something edited out of the post? I see nothing about social conservatism.

      That said, you may be on to something when you say that Becker’s post is really about Santorum’s social conservatism. That level of anger comes from somewhere, and it’s probably not from a disagreement on tax policy.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      personalities, name calling etc. Its why I spend less time here that I used to, for years now. Who cares what anyone here particularly thinks? Its the issue that matters and America had many successful decades becoming the exceptional nation with tariffs to protect manufactures and domestic taxes to do the same and both and given the state of the economy here and worldwide and given all our less-educated people, we need to re-explore policies like this on the merits and not as free trade ideologues that makes many sound like liberal Utopians…imho

      • aesthete

        The principle of free market economics rests on the principle that both parties in a trade will benefit, because they wouldn’t have traded otherwise. There is absolutely no evidence in economics in favor of tariffs as improving the economy on net, and no causal relationship between tariffs (which every country on Earth, not just the US, had in the time period given), and increased productivity. If you’re going to throw out free trade based on a very weak and very general correlation, then we might as well throw out the rest of the free market, as well: I mean, why not? Maybe the whole shebang about strong unions and the New Deal being responsible for the post-War success of the US is right — has about the same much evidence as that proferred for tariffs. And if you don’t agree, I guess you’re just being utopian.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          I do think that those that would deviate from free trade do bear the burden of proof given the massive good qualities under free trade.

      • honoraryintern

        …well said.

      • Scope

        that college is not the answer for everyone as Obama has been pushing. Santorum said Obama was being a “snob” in implying that if you don’t go to college you’re a dummy. There really is a great need to increase trade schools who certify electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, craftsman, machinists, etc. They are not all college graduates, but they are not low paying jobs either. Our local auto mechanic’s hourly rate is $65. per hour. In addition, we don’t hire a plumber or auto mechanic from China to come to repair our vehicles, or to replace broken plumbing pipes.

        I understand the topic is the tax rate for manufacturing, but I just wanted to point out that Santorum has in fact been focusing on the middle class where the dinner table discussions are in the kitchen, rather than under the dinning room chandelier. That is why you see in the exit polls, Santorum claims the majority of support for those earning $50,000 or less, and likely income brackets up to $100,000 where the Romney voters take over. Since the onslaught of Obamanomics, there are far more voters in the Santorum brackets, rather than in the Romney brackets.

        • Flagstaff

          that manufacturing may well NOT be the best type of industry to bet our future growth on.

          Manufacturing tends to become more and more automated as it matures, so if the objective is to keep more of the US population productively employed, favoring manufacturing with tax breaks could turn out to be counterproductive. As you (Scope) point out, service jobs can’t be exported.

          This brings me back to the original argument posed by Becker–selective taxation is just a means of enabling the government to interfere in the free enterprise market by favoring one sector over another, picking winners and losers.

          In your final paragraph, are you suggesting that Santorum is simply a populist, shaping his message to “aid manufacturing” as he targets a large population demographic?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I do think that Santorum’s affection for re-establishing a manufacturing break is deeper than merely to “aid” them. To be our best, we need a middle class, and this is the best way to get it for the masses that can’t make money on computers and for which a service job would be menial…more later

          • civil truth

            Social engineering posits knowledge and wisdom beyond the scope of a small elite group of deciders.

            Dressing a wolf in sheep’s clothing doesn’t protect the flock.

          • demsaresatanic

            illegitimacy rates, welfare dependency rates, test scores of our public school students, etc. before and after the complete leftist takeover of the democrat party in the 60′s. These are all the result of liberal social engineering.

          • civil truth

            …which in my mind is incompatible with conservatism. But that conclusion rests on the definition of social engineering, which in my usage of the term includes coercion, utilitarianism/collectivism, and intellectual elitism.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Given a very broad and not very useful definition of social engineering.

    • ZootSuit

      but then I remember that Paul Krugman (and a Nobel prize winning one at that) is also an economist and I wonder whatever happened to that science. At least you are in “good” company.

      Bluntly, you are illustrating what is wrong with conservatism today. Rick Santorum is no different from Barack Obama: both want to pick winners and losers in the economy. The only distinction — and it is a distinction without a difference — is that they “may” want to pick a different set of winners and losers. Neither trusts the free market.

      Heck, give credit where credit is do. It was Obama (and not the GOP) that came up with the payroll tax reduction of 2%. As problematic as that is, it still makes more economic sense than Santorum’s “0% manufacturing tax” plan. If you’re going to be principled, why praise Santorum without praising Obama, too?

      That’s what gets me with so-called conservatives today. Why is it when Democrats and liberals want to interfere with the free market and personal freedoms it’s the end of America as we know it but when Republicans (or at least, the Republican candidate of their choice) and conservatives wants to do the exact same thing, it’s “defending American jobs and values” and “getting back to our rots” and so forth?

      The Republican Party and the conservative movement has become just as ignorant, stupid, narrow-minded, and bigoted (and “success-averse”) as the Democrats and liberals are. If not more so.

      • civil truth

        …conservatives vs. liberals

        Among Republicans and conservatives, there still is a debate over the merits of government interventions, with a fair number giving pushback and criticism of our leaders who want to rearrange the deck chairs. But it will take time to get our leaders to change their ways – at least several more (2-year) election cycles of voting in new blood.

        Among Democrats and liberals, there is no debate – except over how far to go with increasing government interventions, how fast to move, how much money to spend, and what regulations/laws to write.

        Saying “they’re both equally bad” is too easy an escape – and just not true.

        • ZootSuit

          that it’s the conservatives who are the ones arguing about the government needing to interfere more. No, their rhetoric is still right (and Right) but the practice is still wrong (and Left).

          Seriously, how are Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich attacking Mitt Romney?

          But arguing against his business success. By claiming that Romney is “unfair” and whatnot. These so-called conservative alternatives to Mitt Romney are actually running to the Left of him. And the sad thing is, it’s working.

          And I utterly despise Mitt Romney. In fact, all in all, I think (and always thought) that Mitt Romney is to the Left of John McCain. Indeed, at the risk of digressing, let’s look at how Romney trumpeted his conservative bona fides against McCain: by running push polls against McCain’s opposition to Medicare Part D in Florida and supporting auto bailouts in Michigan. And again, the sad thing is that it worked: there was Mitt Romney being cheered at CPAC in 2008 and all the “conservatives” crying and jeering when he quit the nomination race.

          Don’t kid yourself, civil truth. The only difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals say the wrong things but are less hypocritical.

          • civil truth

            I see the presence of raging debate among conservatives regarding government interventions (including RedState) to be a significant difference from the universal approval of governmental intervention. I see the challenging among conservatives as the harbinger of change, you see the persistence of big government rhetoric among political leaders as evidence that nobody anywhere among conservatives is sincere.

            But a bit of historical perspective – it took many years to shift the political spectrum leftwards, and thus it’s going to take time to reverse that movement. The people who will be leading this are not going to be the political leadership who owe their success to the status quo and thus find change threatening, but from outsiders who engage with the system and make openings.

            So you can either be part of the tunneling crew undermining the walls of Jericho, or even part of the crew marching around the perimeter – but there’s no virtue in standing apart as though the walls will come down all on their own.

          • civil truth

            Let’s see if this helps downstream

          • ZootSuit

            A debate in the larger society about whether G-d exists or not may be an interesting and someways even a healthy debate. Although even that is debatable, it very well may help the believer to better understand and articulate why and what they believe.

            But a debate within my church about whether G-d exists or not makes me think it’s time for me to look for another church. No, I would not be joining the American atheist society or whatnot but I would neither be attending that church myself nor recommending that church to others.

            Interesting that you mention Jericho. Remember that there were no “tunneling crews” or whatnot.

          • acat

            (nothing further)

          • civil truth

            Do you stay within a flawed organization and seek to reform from within?

            Or do you leave to form/join a new group to challenge from the outside?

            Each must discern where is their break point, a process fraught with peril. An apt metaphor you’ve made here to illuminate your position.

            The challenge is not to impugn those with a different break point just because of they weigh matters differently. As I thus need do with you.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …both political and [ostensibly] non-political.

            For example, I’ve been in-conflict with the GOP-organization @ multiple levels for years–despite having been a committeeman for two decades–and, unlike ZootSuit, I’d not necessarily resign from a religious organization that allowed for the questioning of the existence of the Deity.

            The former is policy-driven [and I'm an activist fighting the RINO's legally] and the latter process can be uniquely revelatory [yielding enhanced philosophical commitment to moral principles].

            Both allow for internal-change, both of the individual involved [moi] and of the organization [which can suddenly be triggered, assuming one waits long enough...].

            Although one encounters potent reaction intended to preserve the status-quo @ all costs–and the effort is tiresome @ times–my approach is generally to function as a truth-teller. My mini-lectures @ the end of meetings of the Abington Board of Commissioners during the past three years [spiced-up by pungent commentaries on selected topics during them, as well] have attracted [occasionally] both media/citizen comments. [See "Abington.org."]

            Guzzardi and I have waged this debate for years, his perspective being more of the external bomb-thrower [such as against the state-level legislative leadership, which is now being successfully prosecuted for corruption]; I still prefer internalizing….

          • ZootSuit

            You said it yourself, my break point has come. That is the major difference between us. As someone recently sad here on RedState — it may have been somewhere in this thread I’m just too lazy to look — if you don’t say they all suck, then I’m don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

            Here is a confession that may surprise everyone here. In South Carolina, I supported Rick Santorum as the least evil of the alternatives. I don’t think that now but I thought so at the time. Indeed, from the information I had at the time, I will still say that I made the right decision. It’s not that any of the other candidates have gotten better, quite the contrary, it’s that Santorum has gotten even worse.

            But to me, what is worse is that, what is my breaking point, is that conservatives are now using THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS AS LIBERALS. And I am not talking about the candidates, I am talking about their rank-and-file supporters.

            It would be one thing if Newt or Romney or Santorum were saying that the Republican Party is moving too far to the Right and then saying, proposing and supporting the things they are, that would be one thing. I would adamantly disagree with them but at least they would be consistent. But the thing is, they are calling those ideas conservative now. And even worse, a disturbing large percentage of the conservative movement is calling their liberalism conservative, too.

            I’ve considered myself a conservative for about twenty-five years now (wow, I’m getting old) but I still have many liberal friends and family members. I have been arguing for many, many years with them, even wining a few to the conservative line. But these days, I am hearing from conservatives the exact same liberal arguments that my liberal friends make. THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!

            Only now, they calling those arguments “conservative”.

            Heck, even many of my liberal friends are laughing. They recognize the arguments they make are now being made by conservatives for them.

            It’s like in 2008 when conservatives (correctly) were saying that Barack Obama did not have the experience and gravitas to be President but then many of those same conservatives were saying that Sarah Palin was exactly what we need. Experience (and intelligence) no longer matters with conservatives.

            For the more religiously inclined among us, dare I say that hypocrisy is one of the things that made Capernaum even worse than Sodom (cf. Matthew 11:23-24). Indeed, conservatives need to obey the admonition in Matthew 7:3-5.

          • acat

            It’s definition is to preserve and protect that which should, or must, be preserved and protected.

            It’s foundation is intellectual rather than emotional, what moves its’ adherents should be ideas and ideals, not individuals.

            Looks to this cat like many of the newer adherents – the self-identified “conservative” who’s really a Moral Majority voter, or the college libertarian who just figured out the difference between a basketball bracket and a tax bracket – have no clue of the depth and wealth of intellectual conservative thought .

            The only thing wrong, in the general election, with these two voters is their choice of term. They’ll both side with the GOP .. for very different reasons .. but neither is a Conservative.

            This media-driven dumbing-down of “conservatism” is what’ll eventually require another 40 years in the wilderness. I’d prefer it to come later, if we can arrange it.

            Mew

          • ZootSuit

            Because, although you are probably not as pessimistic as I am, it sure sound like it.

            Just to take my analogy one step further, it’s not only that my “church” has become the home of atheists. It’s that the atheists in my “church” are now calling their atheism the one true faith.

            Actually, a point where we may sincerely disagree. Now, despite everything, may be the best for conservatism to spend another 40 years in the wilderness. If not now, when? And if it happens later, it may be even worse.If not too late.

            Than again, considering what’s passing for conservatism among conservatives these days, we may already be in the wilderness.

          • acat

            but perhaps not on the course of treatment.

            I believe today’s 20somethings are ripe for a conservative epiphany, similar to what happened to the 20somethings throughout the 1980s… it only lacks a figurehead who is willing to teach the ideals instead of garnering the votes. (i.e. a “Reagan”) With the communications medium the internet provides, this can be achieved much more quickly .. if it ever gets started.

            What I don’t see, this election cycle, is a Reagan… Pence would have been very good, Perry would have been good.. Gingrich is the best of a bad lot, in my opinion, because he at least knows the melody and the lyrics; he’s a lousy singer, though.

            In short, it’s 1968, not 1980 .. and we’re doomed to nominate and elect a Ford at best, or a Nixon at worst. I’d much prefer to avoid Jimmy Carter’s third term .. but I’ll survive it if it comes. I survived the first one, after all.

            Mew

          • ZootSuit

            Rick Perry was the originator in “vulture capitalism” charge against Mitt Romney while Newt Gingrich has a long history of talking the conservative talk while simultaneously promoting his own big intrusive government initiatives. “Government doesn’t know best, unless Gingrich is leading it.” Indeed, if Rick Perry was the ringleader of the “vulture capitalism” charge, then Newt Gingrich very early took over as ringleader.

            And these are the “conservative” alternatives?

            The problem is not our candidates — who I like to refer to as strychnine, cyanide, and arsenic: take your pick as to which is which.. The problem is that to appeal to conservatism, each one comes up with their own big “government knows best” program.. Look at the original poster of this diary, quill67: his “proof”that Santorum is not an economic “planner” opposed to free markets like Obama in choosing the “winners” and “losers” is that Rick Santorum comes up with an economic plan that, just like Barack Obama’s chooses the “winners” and “losers.”. And many conservatives even here on RedState argue that that is conservative.

            Check that, the real problem is that to varying degrees, that strategy works. It is the “conservatives” in the GOP who are the most vociferous supporters and apologists of the big government programs of the candidate they suppotr the most.

            That’s the thing, acat. The problem is that “conservatives” (not the media, not the Democrats not liberals, and not even the so-called GOP “elites”) have redefined conservatism to mean … well .. liberalism.

          • acat

            was hardly “invented” by Perry .. although he was the first to use it against Romney in the 2012 cycle.

            Further, while I understand the intellectual objection to the bit, I don’t see a problem with demanding that Romney explain how he proposes to answer the inevitable general election attack – especially given the whitewash the #OWS has received.

            It seems an uncomfortable but fair-game question to me .. after August I’ll need to know what the talking points are, eh?

            See if this works with your ongoing analogy; suppose you stop attending the church .. what do you say to someone who asks why you didn’t go to your atheist brother, taking with you another of your fellowship who is respected, and asking him to repent? ‘s a fair question a new congregation member may ask, in light of your decision to leave.

            Mew

          • ZootSuit

            It looks like, despite my protestations to the contrary, that I am back on RedState. At least for a while. I like to think that I am not proven wrong often {grin} so congratulations on proving me wrong here.

            It’s all your fault for providing intelligent commentary.

            And you are correct that Rick Perry did not coin the phrase “vulture capitalist” but that’s besides the point. Indeed, although I personally think their line of attack was in many ways reprehensible and silly at best, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich calling Mitt Romney a “vulture capitalist” is not even my real issue.

            The major problem I have is that their “vulture capitalist” line of attack worked with many “conservatives”</b.

            And indeed, when a few Republicans came to the defense of Mitt Romney on this issue, many “conservatives” and TEA Party supporters started decrying those defendesr as “Establishment Republicans” and “elitists” and whatnot. I would expect such rhetoric from the Left but this was coming from the Right.

            Okay, I may agree that the “vulture capitalist” line of attack is “fair game” — I don’t necessarily do agree but I can agree — but the fact that it was raised by the supposedly conservative alternatives to Mitt Romney is somewhat disturbing. However, the fact that that line of attack resonated and still resonates with many so-called conservatives is VERY</u disturbing.

            It’s like in 2008, when Romney was being toted by many as the conservative alternative to John McCain. Okay, if you think that Romney is or was more conservative than McCain, fine. I don’t but you can. But then how does Romney run against McCain and solidify his “conservative” support?

            He comes out in support of auto bailouts in Michigan and conducts push polls against McCain not voting for Medicare part D in Florida. All while being lauded by many conservatives for doing so. Indeed, in fairness, there was a diary or front page article here on questioning about how Romney won Michigan but the majority response was something along the lines of “I don’t care.”

            As to what I say to my atheist brother after I leave my “church” that begins preaching atheism: I say, “Repent!”

            G-d saves people, He doesn’t save churches.

            And what good would taking my atheist brother to an atheist church do?

            NONE!

            In fact, it would create a whole lot of evil. And far more likely to confirm my atheist brother in his unbelief than not taking him to the atheist church.

            If the salt lose its savor…

          • acat

            The Vulture Capitalist argument is a fairly obvious general campaign criticism, especially given both the #OWS and the nature of Obama, so it is something that Romney must respond *effectively* to.

            Romney seems cursed with a tin ear in this respect as he has not responded well .. having proxies call those making the argument “anti-conservative” is not *effective* .. not many conservatives in #OWS tents, after all.

            That said, I think we agree that it should not be a problem to a conservative for Romney to have been a Vulture Capitalist, however it is Romney’s lack of an effective response that is the problem.

            If a “conservative” refuses to back Romney because he was a Vulture, that’s on the “conservative”, but if a Conservative refuses to back Romney because of his weak reply .. that’s on Willard.

            Mew

      • quill67

        Suppose a city puts a tax on alcohol of $2 for each six-pack sold. In the city last year, they sold 1000 six- packs. How much tax revenue will the city government get from this tax?

        Please solve this simple question and explain to me your answer

        • civil truth

          Unless you’re a Democrat and/or under the thumb of the Obama administration. Then it will be whatever they tell you it will be.

          • quill67

            Yes, less than $2000. Why? If suppliers tried to “pass the tax” along to the consumers (the people who buy the six packs) then those customers will switch to a different city to buy their drinks. Sales will fall and the city might actually get $0 tax revenue if no one buys any in this city.

            OK. So now that we understand that taxes may change people’s behavior, let’s change the example a little.

            Suppose the city now recognizes its mistake and decides to lower the tax to just 60 cents (10 cents per 12 oz unit) but decides to be fair they will apply the tax to all beverages (it’s not fair to pick on alcohol producers and not tax Coke and Pepsi.)

            The bars and restaurants see little change in their sales and pay the 10 cent tax on each unit sold. The grocery stores however are bitterly upset. They had been charging $1.50 per six pack and they tried passing the tax onto the consumer by raising their price to $2.10 but they lost almost all their sales. Their profit margin on these drinks had been very low before and now they are losing customers to grocery stores in other cities. Existing stores are stuck, but A&P had been thinking of renovating their store, but given the lost sales they have decided to close their store in the city with the tax and reopen in a adjacent city.

            When the residents complain to Zoot Suit about the lost jobs, stores and the decay caused by the tax and ask for its repeal (at least on the grocery stores) he tells them ” How dare you pick winners and losers” and tells them to let the free market work. (Not recognizing that the government tax interfered with the free market in the first place)

          • Flagstaff

            Your example is not what he wrote about. Beyond that, he can defend himself. After all, he used you, “economist,” and Paul Krugman all in the same sentence. Them’s fightin’ words!

            Here is what is wrong with your exposition:

            “to be fair they will apply the tax to all beverages (it?s not fair to pick on alcohol producers and not tax Coke and Pepsi.)”

            Strange logic, but that is the kind of reasoning that goes on during some city council meetings, probably every day in San Francisco. But now it’s no longer a tax on alcohol, it’s a tax on liquid. Will they add 10 cents to the cost of each 12 oz glass of water? Would have to, to be “fair” under this logic.

            But, so what? The tax isn’t “creating winners and losers” under the accepted definition, unless it is imposed with the intention to help or hurt one or the other. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

            The fact is, it wasn’t the fairness or the unfairness of the tax that caused your disaster, it was the tax itself. The most “fair” tax is no tax at all. The next most fair tax is one based on a percentage of the price of the item being taxed. The next most fair would be one assessed on an equal quantity of a commodity–90 cents per gallon of gas, 2 dollars per barrel of beer–but not 10 cents per 12 ounces of liquid. The less homogeneous the commodity (liquid vs. beer), the less fair. The far end of this spectrum is perhaps our property tax. That tax is adjusted every year to try to bring in the same revenue, and it’s based on a subjective estimate of value that can be jiggered six ways from Sunday.

            Every tax interferes with the free market. Some interfere more than others. But when a tax policy is intended to interfere, it has become either a subsidy or a penalty. Do you not agree that the help for GM and Chrysler simultaneously injured Ford?

            Since this thread is about Santorum’s proposed tax policy to help manufacturing, a report aired on NPR today said that manufacturers themselves say that neither taxes nor labor costs are their primary stumbling blocks or reason for locating in a particular location–it’s primarily the logistics involved and convenience of interaction with their suppliers. Those details are far more affected by infrastructure and regulations than by T and L. Which brings us back to “Santorum’s policy is wrong–or nearly useless–or both.”

          • ZootSuit

            And I say “thank you” not so much for your defense of me but for defense of truth and the truism you write. Please allow me to quote you for effect:

            Every tax interferes with the free market. Some interfere more than others. But when a tax policy is intended to interfere, it has become either a subsidy or a penalty. Do you not agree that the help for GM and Chrysler simultaneously injured Ford?

            The sad thing is that many so-called conservatives evidently see nothing wrong with that, as long as it is a “conservative” who is recommending it.

          • quill67

            Just as a city might find it needs to adjust taxes because businesses might leave so might a nation.

            What has made this harder is that it has happened over time. The US used to be able to charge very high tax rates and not lose much business because we were only game in town (WWII left US very well positioned) But now we face stiff competitition from around the world. We now are paying a high price for our high taxes (and regulations) Tax structures that were fine 40 years ago are creating terrible outcomes today.

            Yes, and the impact of these has hurt people with different skills differently. Unlike some (Romney and Democrats) who seem to propose trade restrictions, Santorum has said “Keep more of what you earn”

          • ZootSuit

            Yes, the tax code interferes with the free market by “rewarding” suboptimal economic decisions. But the solution is not distort the market even more by even more asinine “tax incentives” to distort market behavior further.

            What is needed is more broad-based tax reduction and, perhaps even more importantly, regulatory simplification. Whatever else, even Obama’s payroll tax reduction distorts the market far less than Santorum’s manufacturing plan.

            If “services” as opposed to “manufacturing” (and I put them in quotes because ultimately it will be the lawyers and lobbyists who will determine what these are) generates more profits and quantitatively and/or qualitatively improves the lives of more people; what’s so special about “manufacturing” that it deserves tax advantages over “services”?

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …because “services” can’t be provided abroad, whereas “manufacturing” can be.

            Of course, he’s wrong…but so what else is new?

          • JSobieski

            Legal, accounting, marketing, graphic design, etc.

            There was a time when Michigan was thinking about enacting a business services tax. My response would have been to rent office space in nearby Toledo, Ohio. Of course, Windsor, Canada is just as close by.

        • aesthete

          I think the problem here is that the dispute in question is not strictly about the positive economics of the situation, but rather about the feasibility of implementation and the general merit of using the tax code as a tool of social or economic engineering. While both questions have been addressed by economists, they are not strictly economic questions.

          I appreciate the economic discussion, but I think you and ‘becker are talking past one another.

          • acat

            Hint – there’s a reason why there are lots of gas stations just outside the Chicago city limit .. and just outside of Cook County.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            Maybe relocation is better. The city would lose all the revenue

          • quill67

            The price the consumers might pay for their drinks might not go up —because they no longer buy their drinks in the city with the high tax and over time there might be no grocery stores (or very few) in the city with the high tax.

            The consumers are not harmed by price but they are harmed by now having to travel longer distances to buy their food and perhaps their kids find it harder to find work (because many of them used to work in grocery stores that have since left the market)

            The analogy I am making is to the manufacturing business. It might be easy for them to avoid High US Corporate tax rates by producing in other countries while other sectors of the economy may be less likely to leave.

            If this is true, then Santorum’s 0% plan may make a lot of sense.

          • civil truth

            Then market forces can work best, and comparative advantage gets its full due. And consumers don’t pay the price of tax inefficiency (such as the example above of traveling longer distances to avoid local taxes).

            It does seem that your larger point is that in a strict sense, any taxation disturbs a “pure” free market economy. But since we need taxation to have any government (and in the world we need some government) then somebody has to decide what kind of taxes to levy, which means there will be discussion as to what is the best way to go about it. And some deviation from total “purity”.

            And then there’s the whole issue of bidding wars over tax incentives for new businesses (or keeping existing business) between communities. Throw in power and corruption and we’ve got reality intruding in upon theory.

            Which is why muddling through and kick the can down the road seems to be the usual outcomes when it comes to government/politicians.

          • quill67

            Reducing government spending is therefore critical so taxes can be reduced to minimize the arbitrary power of men to pick winners and losers.

            This is why we must whenever possible be responsible our themselves.This is also why I prefer, when possible, to have the people who are benefiting from government spending paying the taxes. (or fees)

            P.S. Love the C.S. Lewis quote.

          • acat

            Santorum’s historical big-government pro-union background?

            Mew

          • aesthete

            This is the problem, methinks.

      • jamesm

        .

        • civil truth

          .

          • jamesm

            ,

          • acat

            Cheshire grin

          • jamesm

            I was going to answer but I saw Quill already did. Clever cat.

        • ZootSuit

          I believe I did answer

    • http://www.steinforcongress.com/ steinforcongress

      and not able to “add” a comment of my own?

      I’m new here having recently been banned over at the blog Blue Jersey where they are at a loss what to do with me, a Democrat who has genuine affection for many Republicans. Anyway this if my first post here and I, btw, agree with Santorum on cutting any or all corporate business taxes to zero.

      • quill67

        You can add a new comment at the end of the discussion if you are logged in. Reply’s are done with the comments.

  • aesthete

    but I highly doubt that this little plan of Santorum’s was based on actual statistics.

    This seems like those arguments I see out there defending politicians who want certain regulations or min wage hikes based on advanced economic analysis regarding labor policy, externalities, or recent studies on the empirical effects of the minimum wage: sure, there are arguments that *could* be made for Santorum’s policy, but when you step back and look at the rhetoric, basis, and stated intent it’s just a bunch of DEY TURK UR JERBS nonsense — which is exactly the sort of demagoguery you’d expect from a lawyer turned politician.

    Do you really think that Santorum has the sort of economics or quantitative background or learning to evaluate whether his claim is true or not? If he does, why doesn’t he explain it on the campaign trail? Paul Ryan and others have been able to demonstrate such knowledge in an approachable way. This sort of rationalization, I have to say, is the sort that can be (and has been) used to justify every sort of nonsense from politicians: since economics is not a physical science which allows for repeated experimentation, there will always be some doubt, and thus some wiggle room for any sort of policies. It’s incumbent upon Santo to tell us why he thinks that the marginal impact of a decrease of the tax rate for manufacturers (define “manufacturing”, please!) is such that it is stronger than arguments regarding a misallocation of resources.

    • quill67

      Here is the way Santorum explains it:

      ?Why are we going to treat retailers and Wal-Mart and restaurants and florists different than we treat manufacturers? Because retailers don?t move their operations to China. They don?t move them to Mexico. Because we have to compete for those jobs, and if we don?t effectively compete, we lose those jobs?

      Ever wonder how Mass. can get away with their high income taxes on businesses? Why don’t the pharmaceutical businesses ( a big part of Mass. economy) move away to where taxes are lower? Because Mass. has a lot of research institutions centered in the Boston area that make producing medical research cheaper in Mass. even though wages and taxes are higher than other parts of the country. So even if taxes were raised again in Mass., they might not lose very many phamaceutical companies BUT they might lose companies that do not benefit as much from the proximity to research firms.

      That is, the same tax rate may not harm one industry (pharmaceutical) but the same tax might cause great harm in another industry–causing them to leave.

      Thus, it might make sense to tax the two industries at different rates. After all the purposes of taxes is to collect revenue –not promote fairness.

      But

      • aesthete

        It would make some sense to change tax rates if these two corporations were being taxed in a way that was disproportionate: i.e., if manufacturing and the service industry are labor-dependent, and the tax code is (I would not necessarily agree with the conclusions of such an argument, but I would agree that such an argument is not in favor of a misallocation of resources, but correcting for a tax which is inherently distortionary.)

        As is, what Santorum is saying is simply that any industry in which foreigners have competitive advantage should be free of the duty to pay any taxes. That *is* an argument for misallocation of resources, as the motivation is not to make sure that the tax code is as frictionless as possible, but to tilt the tax code in favor of any industries which are adversely affected by *competition*, and not tax codes. In essence, Santorum is saying, “let’s turn up the screws on pharmaceuticals and others; they can take it — it’s not like they can go anywhere, right? And let’s make it so that American manufacturing has an easier go in an environment where it’s losing market share.” Clearly, that’s an argument in favor of allocating resources to an industry that can be challenged by competitive advantage of other countries — not an argument in favor of making sure we have a tax structure that taxes wealth creation in a non-distortionary way.

        It is revenue-generation in the same sense that taxing the h*ll out of dhimmis in Islamic states, and taxing Muslims not at all, is: the revenue generation takes a back seat to intentional outcome-based scenarios which may very well create perverse incentives.

        • quill67

          That is what I’m believe needs to be corrected. If another country can produce goods at a lower cost—fine let them produce it. But if the only reason their cost is less is because we have too high a tax rate then we should adjust our tax rate.

          Your argument seems to assume that if jobs are lost in one industry, that they will be made up for in a more profitable industry. This probably not the case. When a company (excluding taxes) thinks the US is the best location. This means they believe they can attact labor to work for them. And why will they go work for the company? Because it offers better pay/working conditions that the other options available (otherwise they would not be willing to work for that company) But if that company doesn’t locate in the US, workers are forced to choose their second best option which by definition will be less favorable.

          • JSobieski

            There is a lot more at work here than tax rates. Regulations play a larger role.

            North Carolina and Tennessee are growing auto industry jobs despite federal taxes.

            California lost auto industry jobs under Reagan.

            I think you get the picture.

          • acat

            and see the Hyundai plant off I-65 in Alabama.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            for automobiles are manufacturered overseas. Those parts could be manufactured here.

          • JSobieski

            You aren’t ever however going to bring everything back, and the number of jobs per $1B of output will contiue to shrink.

            I acknowledge the importance of manufacturing to the economy. I futher acknowledge that Rick’s 0% taxes for manufacturing is a good POLITICAL idea.

            Too bad I didn’t hear a SINGLE AD in Michigan touting this policy. Nor did I hear any ads for Toledo Ohio (same media market as Detroit in a lot of ways) mentioning this aspect of his plan.

          • jamesm

            But the companies that I work with in the Silicon Valley are working on it. Sincerly the sheet metal and machine shops in the bay area are some of the best in the world.

          • acat

            No “seas” but still non-US… do you want to bring those back as well?

            IIRC, the last “new” Oldsmobile, the Alero, was sufficiently foreign-manufactured that it didn’t qualify as “Made in the U.S.A.” so was sold as “Made in America”.

            Mew

          • redmymind

            Build quality was crap and it was an IIHS disgrace! . . . Great cupholders, though!

            Wuff!

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            the Mercedes plant off I-59.

            “Drive South” is one of my favorite John Hiatt songs.

          • aesthete

            I wanted to touch on inter-US differences, but my OP was already getting quite long in the tooth. This is indeed compelling evidence that there is more than federal tax rates at play (though I agree with quinn that generally, high corporate taxes, and Fed policies besides, are to blame for at least some of our poor performance wrt our exports).

          • quill67

            1) Lower logistics cost (shipping of materials and completed cars)
            2) Foreign companies avoid exchange rate fluctuations. Foreign companies try to avoid exchange rate risk. One great way to do that is to buy more inputs in the country in which you plan to sell.

            Also for the German automakers, labor costs are actually cheaper here in the US than the extreemly high union wages demanded back in Germany.

          • acat

            Heck, why the Boeing plant in South Carolina?

            Because Right-To-Work *matters*.

            Mew

          • quill67

            Whether a company locates in the US depends on many factors but among these are taxes.

            Right to work matters.
            Legal conditions matter.
            Education matters (to varying degree)
            Environmental regulations matter.
            Financial regulations matter.
            Location matters.
            Infrastructure matters.

            I imgaine that if we do get a 0% coporate tax rate on manufacturing, you will be hearing a lot more complaints about these other aspects from companies who would love to move here to take advantage of the 0% rate, but face other issues.

            Right now some companies are not even looking at the US because of tax and EPA regs.

          • acat

            Good.

            Now, let’s talk about Santorum’s record and votes on Davis-Bacon and right-to-work….

            Mew

          • APA Guy

            point out how short-sighted his myopic view of this issue is :)

            Here’s the truth about many “economists” and their discipline:

            Economics is a social science…and nearly completely normative and subjective where conclusions are concerned. There is no “right” or “wrong”. There is only the allocation of scarce resources in one fashion or another.

            When I read one “economist” calling those who do not agree with subjective conclusions “idiots”, i immediately dismiss the validity of that person’s POV. It’s short-sighted…it’s narcissistic…it’s Krugmanesque.

            But most of all, it’s needlessly pointless. Of course lower taxes would benefit businesses, but that barely scratches the surface. Regulations and government roadblocks cost businesses large amounts of operating capital…and Right-to-work opens up business in ways that wholesale tax cuts could only dream of. I live in Indiana…and Mitch Daniels didn’t recently go to war with Democrats over manufacturing tax cuts. He did so over right-to-work and the countless jobs it promises.

            Well, I’ve soapboxed long enough on your dime, acat :)

          • acat

            I need a new scratching post.

            Mew

          • quill67

            Obama stated that increasing oil supplies will have no impact on price? I know I’m an economist but do you want to disagree with me in saying that Obama is flat out wrong? Increasing the supply of any good will lower its price (except in the most unusual of circumstances not seen in the real world)

            Now. I treat the following as just as wrong: ?Federal taxes, by and large, don?t impact manufacturing in a way that will accomplish an expansion of the manufacturing base and create jobs.?

            Because Reagan understood that taxes do change people’s behavior. The above statement is also factually wrong and shows ignorance toward human behavior and economics. I was just speaking to an business developer today who told me that the only businesses that he is looking to create today are ones that have very few employees so he can avoid the taxes charged once a company gets a larger number of employee

            Oh I will also add tell that to the manufacturers who have left Illinois in response to their recent tax increase. If this type of behavior is going on at the state level, does it not make sense that they are also happening on a global level?

            I will also point out that I have been arguing principles and concepts here. If you want to attack go to HuffyPost. If you want to discuss, I am open to any thoughtful disagreement you might have.

          • APA Guy

            on the price of a barrel of oil that recurring deficits and the weak dollar have had. Oil, as you know, is proced in dollars. Obama has so devalued the dollar that we could drill for oil endlessly and it would never reach levels we witnessed in the 90s…when we all paid $1.13/gallon.

            This is why I refer to your approach as myopic. You are lazer-focused on taxes and jobs and supply for oil…when, in fact, there is a confluence of factors impacting both the price of oil and the lack of jobs – not the least of which are the weakened dollar and the fact that right-to-work is not a national law. The states that have put RTW in place are largely more successful than those that have not, yet they pay the same federal tax rates.

            Thank you for the debate…I look forward to the next round on this thread :)

          • quill67

            Many economists believe (and I am close to believing it myself) that the real reason behind the rise in oil prices is US monetary policy (to which you refer) This is a SERIOUS factor in the rise in oil prices. Oil producers world-wide are making the decision to not drill now (this reduces supply) because they believe prices will be higher in the future. So they decide not to produce now but wait until they get a higher prices in the future. Part of the reason they believe prices will be higher is the increase in money by Fed. (although they may also look at our cutting off our ability to get future supplies as reason to think prices will be higher in future)

            But what I think we are disagree about now is real (inflation adjusted prices) versus nominal (current) prices. Increasing oil supplies will reduce real prices even if our money printing has driven nominal prices up. Furthermore, if we don’t increase oil supplies, nominal prices will rise even more quickly.

            Therefore, Obama is still an economic idiot.

          • APA Guy

            Now, in March and over 1000 days removed from the last time a federal budget was passed and signed, is the PERFECT time for GOP candidates to alert the public to the fact that Obama has added trillions to the national debt and artifically devalued the dollar. The tie-in to oil pricing (and, subsequently, gas prices) is not difficult to make from that point.

            Oil supply is a real concern, but the budget is a bigger concern. We can remedy the lack of oil leases on public lands (something that will increase royalties to the treasury…the U.S’s #2 source of revenue) the moment a new president is sworn in. But the budget problem must be addressed by House Republicans NOW…and it can be if they show some sack instead of capitulating yet another time.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Currently our taxes both personal and corporate are pretty low by historical standards, at least they are lower than many of our trading partners. (I know some have lower corporate taxes but the make up for it in other taxes).

            What is killing us right now is the weak dollar, federal debt, and most of all REGULATIONS!

            Business regulations have increased steadily for decades and rose exponentially since Obama came into office. Particularly onerous are hiring regulations and energy regs.

            These have big big impact on manufacturing right now, And a big impact on energy prices as well.

          • quill67

            First, you are absolutely right. Regulations are killing us. We need to address both taxes and regulations. But taxes are also a big problem. You mention that our rates are better than some of our trading partners. This is not correct and it also misses a very important problem that ALL (including Romney) have agreed to address. Other countries do not tax foreign earnings. So if a company in Germany refines products to be sold in Asia, it does not pay any tax on those earnings. But if those goods are refined in the US, they have to pay US taxes even if they are sold overseas.

            Additionally, one of the biggest problems is that while the rest of the world has been lowering coproate rates we have not been. We are like a restaurant that keeps the same prices before we faced any competition and after. Yes our tax rates our lower, but high relative to rest of the world.

            Our tax rates may also be lower by historical standards, but comparing tax rates is very difficult (and in many ways foolish) because while the stated rate may be X, the actual rate paid may be much lower because of special excemptions written into the law. For example, our 35% tax rate, is not 35% for everyone–only those who congress do not favor pay 35%.

          • aesthete

            and T Sowell’s views on globalization? I ask because they both make compelling arguments for why there is a fundamental shift towards high-end manufacturing in this country (think Boeing), and away from the low-end manufacture of consumer goods and the like that — which is independent of government policy. Personally, I can live with that, and think that it would be great for us if we would remove regulations that stifle growth in this sector of the economy — but people who are saying that they can bring back the halcyon days of manufacturing jobs for everyone are living in the past. Santorum is doing just that: he’s not saying he can make a marginal improvement — he’s saying he can bring it all back with that tax cut. That’s nonsense.

            Personally, I think that ‘becker is right: state-level regs and taxes, and labor policy, are what matter, more than tax cuts. Detroit is a wasteland today; the federal government didn’t do that, its various state governments and terrible union contracts did that. The thing to help Detroit would be a repeal of almost every policy that’s been enacted there for the past 20 years, and a dramatic restructuring of the Big Three or bankruptcy for the ones that can’t get their act together. I would rather eliminate regulations and build up support for a reduction in the corporate tax rate, than try to play industrial policy lite in the hopes that a tax cut for the rest will follow.

          • quill67

            They raised taxes people moved out. The tax base got smaller but they still wanted to spend so they raised taxes again and more people left, tax base got smaller so they raised taxes again.. etc. etc.

            I agree with you on the change in structure and I do not expect low wage manufacturing to return. But what annoys me is the high-end manufacturing that is choosing to locate in other countries because our tax and regulation structures.

          • aesthete

            of over-regulation and collusion. Granholm didn’t make the min wage highest in the nation because she loved lower-class workers so much: she did it because many of the union contracts peg wages at a given multiple of the minimum wage, or X amount of dollars above minimum wage.

            Suffice it to say, it’s nothing short of amazing that Democrats have been able to take some of the most productive regions on the planet (California, Detroit) and turn them into complete wastebaskets in less than half of a century.

          • WillWong

            “Also for the German automakers, labor costs are actually cheaper here in the US than the extreemly high union wages demanded back in Germany.”

            Note….extremely high union wages demanded back in Germany!

            Wouldn’t the unions here demand higher wages than non union? Maybe not extrememely high compared to Germany but the idea is the same!

          • APA Guy

            Well, the 2/3 of them that approve of RTW do…including me :)

          • funwithknives

            finally chose Chattanooga,Tn. There are ample not-in-use plants ready for start-up, throughout Michigan and VW was here looking them over.
            The Ex-Ford- Wixom Road Plant{ Adjoining I-96 ,west of Detroit) is just sitting there, waiting. It could have easily handled The Passat and Audi’s plans too.Second and Third tier suppliers abound, yet they walked away.

            As for Boeing, they looked “GM Hydramatic” over in Ypsilanti {first use was Ford B-24 production in WW2} and chose S C .

            Michigan is Blue and Union, in spades. No R T W . Are these happenings Coincidence? Hardly.

          • Flagstaff

            than financing and distribution costs (and labor costs, particularly in unionized industries).

          • garfieldjl

            Taxes is one factor in this.

            But so are unions demanding ridiculously high wages, yeah unions once had a place and possibly still do, but they really need to be cleaned up.

            Regulations is another factor.

            Logistics is another factor.

            There are a whole host of reasons, I would argue that regulations are hurting manufacturing more than taxes.

          • Flagstaff

            But the argument is whether it is the other factors or taxes are what should be “fixed,” and whether the “fix” should only be directed at manufacturing enterprises.

          • APA Guy

            …why do Right-to-work states report more successful labor numbers than non-RTW states? Don’t they both pay the same federal income taxes?

            No one disputes that lower taxes are better for creating jobs. Removing labor roadblocks and regulations that hamstring businesses are MORE important, IMHO.

          • quill67

            Suppose it is extreemly advantagous for a company to produce here in the US (because of supply chains, resources, skilled labor needs, etc) While a company does not like to pay higher taxes at least higher taxes do not prohibit firms from opening a facility—while regulations can and do keep this from occuring. Texas got a lot of jobs (really good ones too) because California requires an environmental impact study and some of these studies were taking a couple of years to create—high tech firms could not wait that long so they moved to Texas.

            Of course the problem in comparing states is that it is not just labor laws that are different. Taxes also tend to be lower in RTW states and they also tend to have fewer regulations. That being said, too much union power does make firms less likely to locate in those states. Why? Because it raises costs. But taxes also raise costs.

          • Flagstaff

            went even further. It claimed there are estimates that the iPhone made in China would cost only about $10 to $40 more to make in the US. What they can’t get is suppliers sitting right next door to provide their parts and modifications at a moment’s notice.

          • aesthete

            and find it a compelling reason to cut or eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a different tax, if we need the revenue.

            I don’t think it follows that we should be carving out exemptions only for politically-relevant industries sensitive to tax rates on

            First of all, this seems terribly regressive: we’ll only know which of these industries is sensitive after it has been happening for some time — assuming that it ever becomes clear at a political level. Hypothetically, if a less nostalgia-inducing industry started to get off-shored, would we reduce tax rates for them, too? I doubt it.

            This connects with my second point, which is that if circumstances in the market change or are not as one predicted them (and in a dynamic market, that’s always the case to some degree), you are going to get distortionary effects from selective tax policy — there’s no way around it. Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit” looms large, and guarantees long-run distortionary effects from such policy.

            It then becomes a question of whether or not marginal benefits (probably short term ones) are worth the distortionary effects — IMO, they are not, especially since there are other actions that we could take which would be less harmful from this perspective, such as a wholesale cut of the corporate tax rate or a reduction in regulations and compliance costs.

            My concern isn’t strictly short-term employment (though I don’t think that the policy in question would dramatically affect same in the regions Santorum’s talking about) — it’s the health and stability of the economy in general. It’s hard to say whether the US benefits more from cheap imports or better wages in a specific industry, but I’m not convinced that we should be trying to force a preference through the tax code. I think we both agree that low or non-existent corp tax > current (high) corp tax. What we seem to disagree on is whether selective corp tax cut only for manufacturing > other potential schemes. I think long term, the answer is no — though I’ll give myself some wiggle room for short term effects.

            I’m personally convinced that the Federal Reserve’s policies have more to do with our long-run trade deficits than tax policy or even regulatory policy. Our balance of trade deficits makes quite a bit of sense in the context of a fixed exchange system.

      • tnguy

        Because I believe in freedom. So because Walmart doesn’t move operations overseas we’re going to punish them?

        This is just a different side of obama-ism . Picking and choosing winners, just as the gov’t has in the last 5 years with the auto and financial services industries, should be repulsive to each of you.

        As I see it, the conservative movement is essentially lost. That anyone who counts theirself as a conservative could think this is a good idea is extremely frustrating, yet many do. There has been no consolidation behind a single candidate, not just because of how poor the candidates are, but because the common beliefs of “conservatives” are fraying. Our beliefs are too varied to come together, I guess.

        This not a conservative idea: it’s a centrist/populist idea. There’s little conservative about it. Targeting a tax cut of this magnitude to only certain people strikes me as almost authoritarian.

        What are we lauding Santorum for next? Tax cuts for people who wear khakis on friday? Tax credits for guys named Fred? There’s already way too much of this in the tax code.

        Your principle should be freedom, Rick. Not you + 535 cohorts in congress – who are mostly buffoons – dictating who should and shouldn’t have freedom. That you don’t understand that the best thing you can do is get out of peoples way is evidence enough for me that you aren’t worthy of my vote.

        • quill67

          Remember in the 1990s how they imposed a luxury tax. This tax was on luxuries such as higher priced cars, jewelry, furs, private planes, and boats.

          While the luxury tax did not have a large impact on jewelry or fur sales and thus employment in these industries were not harmed. In the boating industry, however, sales plumeted. The boating industry was DEVASTATED. Employement dropped by 100 thousand jobs out of a 600 thousand job market

          What if high corporate tax rates have the same type of effect but it just simply takes longer to cause the harm and so we do not see the connection?

          What if manufacturing is like the boating industry (harmed significantly by the tax) and other sectors are like the fur and jewelry business (Not harmed significantly)?

          The luxury tax was eventually completely repealed and the boating industry recovered.

          Suppose, however, it was politically impossible to repeal all luxury (corporate) taxes, but it was possilbe to remove some (manufacturing)?

          Would it not be smart to eliminate the luxury tax on the industry hardest hit by the tax?

          Many peoples’ attitutude seems to be: ‘well if you only repeal the tax on the boating (manufacturing) industry, you are being unfair to the fur and jewelry (other sectors) business.’ and you are picking winners and losers.

          Well, the losers were the 100K people who lost their jobs in the boating industry (jobs lost in manufacturing) and if the entire luxury (coporate) tax could not be repealed, well then yes, I would repeal the tax only on the boating (manufacturing) industry because they were harmed the most.

          This is not about picking winners or losers. When the government imposes on us high tax rates we are all losers, but we can at least try to figure out a way that the fewest people are harmed.

          • acat

            Just not as granular a matrix as Obama is using.

            That’s the root problem I have with “0% tax on manufacturing”.

            Why not just jump straight to “0% corporate tax rate” ? It would save far more money, no complex definitions of “what’s manufacturing?” and .. if it’s good for manufacturing, it must be good for other sectors too, right?

            Mew

          • acat

            I note, quill67, that you’ve answered many others on this thread but not the post I’m replying to.

            Mew

          • civil truth

            It sounds we’re all not as far apart as it may seem

            http://www.redstate.com/quill67/2012/03/15/santorum-is-right-on-his-manufacturing-zero-tax-or-how-to-show-you-are-not-an-economic-idiot-like-obama/#comment-1263

          • acat

            and is still the wrong-headed.

            Mew

          • tnguy

            “Try to figure out a way that the fewest people are harmed.”

            You say it isn’t about picking winners and losers, then identify the people you’re trying to help win.

            In spite of what Santorum (and you) might think, there is no holy grail of industrialism. Manufacturing, ultimately, is no more important than any of the numerous service industries that support it. And none of them are any more important than the agricultural industry that feeds them. Or the oil industry that fuels them.

            I’m astounded that this discussion is actually taking place at Red state. It’s as if it’s slowly becoming Moderate State.

            It’s a reprehensible idea, to tax one profit-seeking business, but not another. All in the name of the good of the country. Sort of lilke Obamacare. As I said above, it’s no wonder the primary is going so poorly….conservative ideals are dying. You use the luxury tax as a lesson, but then prescribe something similar as a solution. Any way you slice it, you’re taxing one sector and not another.

            It’s not government’s job to pick winners and losers, and if conservatives can’t even agree on that, we might as well throw in the towel

          • quill67

            You would have thrown 100 thousand workers out of work just so you could not pick winners or losers.

            Well, our high corporate tax rates are throwing people out of work. The government picked the loser: manufacturers and now you defend the attempt by Santroum to reject the government’s choice of losers.

            Our current tax system should not be the basis of comparison.

            So by the logic you provide, I assume you oppose eliminating alcohol taxes? If you eliminate those taxes, you are picking a winners—people who drink.

            When we eliminated luxury taxes, we picked winners—those who consume luxuries.

            When we reduce capital gains, we picked winners–those who own capital.

            Try to expand your thinking a bit. Propose a tax system that is better AND can be passed by congress

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            You and Rick are just picking a different winner.

          • jamesm

            and then when someone comes along and says “your killing manufacturing” accuse them of picking winners and losers

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Manufacturing isn’t dead, and isn’t dying.

          • acat

            Totally different problems.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Lets ad a couple of criteria to your criteria:

            (1) Better tax system
            (2) Can be passed by Congress
            (3) Won’t trigger a lobbying bonanza
            (4) Simplifies code and REDUCES IRS regs

            MBecker’s plan is superior to Santorum’s in every respect.

            The way to argue against leftist arguments is NOT to embrace the rationale they give for things. Would Barack Obama have answerd this question any differently than you did?

            You sound like the D Senate candidate who will be running against Brown in 2012. In her mind, picking winners and losers is inevitable as well. That attitude is diametrically opposite of conservativism.

          • jamesm

            is not up for dog catcher. We only have three imperfect choices.

            Santorums or Gingrich’s plans are better then Romney’s

          • JSobieski

            I nominally support Newt, but I am not going to go around praising his marital fidelity, personal stability, or the charisma of his sunshine personality.

            Frankly, and advocacy of any candidate that doesn’t include “all three of these guys stink, and the 2012 field is a big disappointment given 2010″ makes the speaker suspect in my view.

          • jamesm

            Definetly Not Romney. The truth is usually somewhere to be found. Romney is too far left. At least I believe that Rick means what he says.

          • garfieldjl

            If Romney can’t cross the finish line this turns into a brokered convention.

            If Newt leaves it is rather likely that Santorum could be pressured by Romney into dropping out.

            Anyone that favors Romney over Santorum if Newt wasn’t in this should keep voting Newt.

            Newt’s targetting areas that Romney typically does well in (urban areas),

            Folks it’s highly unlikely that Santorum can cross the finish line.

            With Newt still in this, it’s unlikely Romney will either.

          • jamesm

            Newt wins if Santorum wins. Newt will have a role. If Romney wins then nothing for Newt

          • garfieldjl

            I don’t think I’ve seen a candidate with the level of tenacity that Newt has.

            Ronald Reagan may have been but I don’t remember much about the Reagan Presidency.

            If Newt was paid a dollar for every time people have said his campaign is finished, he probably would have enough money to outspend Romney in the primary and outspend Obama in the general.

            Any other candidate would have dropped out long ago, but Newt just refuses to give up. I think he’s probably starting to get under Romney’s skin, that no matter how hard he tries, he can’t get Newt to get out of the race.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            I cannot think of one reason he would do such a thing. Gingrich is not going to be the nominee. If we have a contested convention, the delegates will not go to Newt. It has already been proven that he cannot win over his own base, why choose to go to him again. Gingrich got beat in the south by an underfunded Santorum, so why would the delegates even believe that Gingrich would be the right one to take on Obama.

            The party leaders will wield a lot of power, they will pressure people to pick Romney, and if that seems like it won?t happen, they will go to Santorum. It would be a huge mistake for the party to run someone who could not even win in the primaries. I know Gingrich supporters like to say it is because of Romney?s negative ads, but that is the point, Obama will have even more resources to bash Gingrich with.

          • garfieldjl

            Santorum doesn’t have enough Delegates to make it to the magic number from a realistic standpoint.

            Right now Gingrich is playing at trying to go after Romney’s base of support.

            If Gingrich gets supporters of Romney to start voting for Gingrich, he could peal off enough support that Santorum ends up winning said state instead of Romney.

            Santorum is also not on the ballot in some upcoming locations, but Gingrich is on the ballot.

            Santorum would have every reason to want Newt to stay in for that reason alone. If Gingrich ends up winning those places instead of Romney, that is denying Romney delegates he would otherwise pick up.

            Since Gingrich is specifically planning to try to eat into Romney’s support and is on the ballot in places that Santorum isn’t, Gingrich is more apt to prevent Romney from being able to cross the finish line.

            Santorum supporters and Gingrich supporters both would have no problem with a Gingrich/Santorum or Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

            If Romney can’t hit the magic number, Santorum and Gingrich will probably be able to get the magic number when they combine their totals.

            If Romney can’t cross the finish line (and Gingrich is specifically trying to erode Romney’s support in order to ensure this), then we are very likely to see a Gingrich/Santorum or Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

            I would further argue that the media threw the election in Alabama and Mississippi by releasing phony exit poll or skewed exit poll data claiming that Romney was winning before polls closed.

            Many people supporting Gingrich with a 2nd choice being Santorum panicked and voted Santorum hoping to stop Romney. However, the media waited too long to spring this, because if you look at the results in both states, Romney came in 3rd, not Gingrich.

            So that indicates to me that something smells about those exit polls and the fact they were released before polls closed further indicates that my suspicions are correct.

            I think they had planned this to knock Gingrich out of the race to help Romney.

            What they ended up doing was prove that Romney couldn’t have won either state even with the Conservative vote divided.

            Santorum and Gingrich were close enough in the results that the release of these “exit polls” before polls closed could have thrown the election.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …as he is doing [now, with Puerto Rico] and The Newt picks-up the slack, then it could become one-on-one within a month, with those who are disgusted with Mitt’s elitist-quotes becoming inured to the intelligent/articulate alternative…prior to Texas and long-before California.

            Let’s watch Santorum start losing in Louisiana/Illinois and watch the pundits pivot yet-again.

          • tnguy

            ….thrown anyone out of work. The market would have done that. As it should. Those people wouldn’t have been “thrown” out of work, but rather their inefficient, unprofitable jobs would’ve eventually been filled elsewhere.

            Your argument is, no offense, ignorant. There is no logical reason you can give why a guy who makes XXXX product should not pay corporate tax, but theother guy down the street selling him insurance has to pay at the highest possible rate. In my opinion, that isn’t just bad policy, it is blatantly immoral and just as intolerable as the nonsense we see from Obama. Every corporation pays a 34% tax rate (except those in the lowest bracket). It isn’t just manufacturers who are taxed. If only manufacturers were being taxed, then I would agree that tax should be abolished.

            Basically, this is a populist ploy that for some reason, Santorum thinks will get him traction. Ultimately, he’s just further showing his stripes as a big gov’t liberal, who just happens to be pro-life. He isn’t any more worthy of the nomination than Romney is.

          • quill67

            Suppose a city puts a tax on alcohol of $2 for each 6 pack sold. In the city last year, they sold 1000 6 packs. How much tax revenue will the city government get from this tax?

            Please solve this simple question and then explain to me your answer.

          • Flagstaff

            More on the subject here, but I don’t think I’ve ever read a series of comments that are closer to my own thoughts.

            You nailed it.

          • JSobieski

            It is precisely your way of thinking that led the democrat party into the intellectual ditch. Are you trying to lead Republicans into the same abyss?

          • demsaresatanic

            who advocate partial repeal of Obamacare.

        • Finrod

          Your principle should be freedom, Rick.

          There’s the rub. Rick Santorum doesn’t really believe in freedom or liberty or anything like that (just look at the nasty things he’s said about libertarians); he believes first and foremost in using the power of the Federal Government to enforce what he believes is Right.

          And in that, he’s exactly like Barack Obama.

          (Note to Mitt fans: Romney’s the same way.)

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            which is the real problem with this cycle.

          • garfieldjl

            Newt has pointed out that he is alarmed at where the country is heading, and he has praised Paul for seeing the warning signs that he missed.

            Newt’s made it clear that he intends to put a stop to run-away Government.

            I also believe Santorum is similarly alarmed due to what’s happened while Obama has been President.

            Romney is the only one that doesn’t seem like he finds what’s been happening to be disturbing.

          • Finrod

            Mitt won’t even admit that either RomneyCare or strapping his dog in its carrier to the roof of the car were mistakes, and I don’t think that Rick has ever admitted in his life to making a mistake.

          • garfieldjl

            He did it last debate on certain issues.

            The candidate that hasn’t been able to admit mistakes is Romney, as you’ve pointed out.

        • bk

          As long as the feds are picking winners and losers we’re in trouble.

        • ZootSuit

          For me, the real tragedy and idiocy is not that Rick Santorum came out with a stupid idea. Let’s face it, all politicians come up with stupid ideas every now and then. Some more than others.

          The real tragedy is that many conservatives are calling Rick Santorum’s stupid idea … conservative.

          • Finrod

            The problem I have with many social conservatives like Rick and his supporters is not that they’re social conservatives, it’s that they’re very frequently not fiscal or defense conservatives, and expect us to treat them like 3-legged conservatives instead of 1-legged.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Reagan explained supply side in simple terms. Feels right…

      • Flagstaff

        one which is more central to the solution of the problem of “exported” jobs–how do we correct the imbalance within our capital/investment/management/labor system that has made it more profitable for US investment dollars to be spent in foreign countries when it comes to the manufacturing aspect (and some other aspects as well) of businesses? Capital- and labor-intensive activities are simply more economically pursued in some other countries. One can’t just postulate that the magic bullet that ends our employment problems is tax relief for manufacturing industries.

        Logically, it would be better all around to get rid of all “high” tax rates, and tax everybody at the same, low (or zero) rate, giving all businesses more to work with in solving its other problems.

        Production costs vary for every industry, and for every company within an industry. It makes no sense to claim that the government should be trying to counter the effects of those differences for a particular type of industry by tax policy. Conservatively, tax policy should be used to raise money to pay for the essential responsibilities of government, nothing more. If it were restricted to that role, taxation could be a lot lower in both rate and revenue than it is, releasing more of the wealth-generating capacity of the economy to allocate itself to more productive enterprises.

        You want to increase manufacturing? Eliminate federal taxes on all business profits and make the entire country right-to-work. The result would be an influx of foreign investment in all types of US industries, including manufacturing, as well as increased incentive for domestic investment, simply because there will be increased domestic demand for the products as a result of lower prices made possible by lower production costs.

        Axiomatically, if tax rates are so high that they adversely affect the success of any enterprise, they are “too high.” And there is no good reason to penalize an industry, such as your pharmaceuticals example, in order to support another one that has higher internal costs of operation.

        As it might be cheaper for pharmaceuticals to be located near Boston, it is well-known that the iron- and transportation-intensive auto industry flourished in Michigan, convenient to both of those necessities. Neither taxes nor labor costs were excessive at the time. But should the government have attempted to match that economy of location for another company (say
        Studebaker, in South Bend) by lowering its taxes to compensate? Should Marion Labs in Kansas City be given a tax break because it’s so far from Boston and therefore at a competitive disadvantage? IMHO, unequivocally, “no.”

        Furthermore, you are simply supporting a theory I proposed a few weeks ago–”Government taxes are set as high as they can be, because the government simply can.” Lower tax rates for everybody, let the market flourish, and take what is needed for necessities out of the increased volume of wealth.

        IANAE, but mbecker908 wins this one hands down, IMHO.

    • littlehouse18

      So he does have some economic background and has been dealing with these issues politically for some time.

      • acat

        is like a med school grad on his or her first day of residency.

        Lots of vocabulary and theory, no clue how it relates to actual patients.

        Santorum’s plan, politically, is appealing .. but it looks to this cat like a misdiagnosis.

        The lack of unskilled-labor positions is a feature of cheap automation, and lowering the tax rate to zero won’t bring back those jobs… although it might increase the number of automation-maintenance positions.

        Mew

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    A large portion of mbecker’s article says that Santorum supported regulations during his years in Congress. That is largely incorrect. Santorum opposed all unnecessary EPA regulations since he never bought into the global warming hoax like Gingrich and Romney had. Gingrich demanded government to intervene and place regulations, wrote “The Contract with the Earth”, made ad w/ Pelosi, and was to the left of Kerry regarding environmental regulation during a debate with Kerry.

    Santorum also never voted for any tax increases.

    Would like to add that whenever a candidate which had received the support of a majority of the Red State members had begun to implode, the majority of the diaries became extremely hostile to the other candidates, especially those who performed well.

    This was seen after Iowa when Santorum emerged victorious and Perry received a mere few percent and is visible now with Newt’s implosion. The people need a couple of days/weeks to come to themselves from the shock and accept the reality, and then things will be back to normal.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      their aggregate dollar effects. Bravo.

      • JSobieski

        on the issue of pushing back on regulations.

        He has provided goals, but he hasn’t identified any means or specific approach to achieve those goals.

        The problem with regulatory policies based on financial amounts is that financial values can be calculated in creative ways, which generally sparks more laws and regulations to address the problem.

        The only candidate I have heard talk specifically on the issue of regs in a meaningful way is Newt, who had some clever ideas about reforming the EPA by limiting much of their power to limited geographic zones.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          the private sector in this area and trying to parse the differences is quite a puny and inconclusive exercise absent a truly massive scientific undertaking that we shouldn’t expect from any man!

          All 3 of these guys would get out of business’s way in a way that is foreign to Obama.

    • bk

      Definitely true … if you only go back to 2007.

  • rhampton

    >>Santorum is simply arguing that manufacturing is an industry that is sensitive to high corporate tax rates?thus causing firms to relocate outside the country.

    And the problem with that statement is that it is overly broad.

    Are we to believe that consumer electronic manufacturers have the same sensitivity to taxes as textile manufacturers or commercial chemical manufacturers? How are we to explain, then, the success of the manufacturers who have stayed in the U.S.? Furthermore, a consistent economic policy that applies to all businesses would is the better (and more fair) option:

    “…Economists favour support for research, recognising the positive externality of general knowledge creation. They favour infrastructure investment on public good grounds. They welcome investment in training, given the spillovers from increased human capital investment. They favour a streamlined regulatory environment and a simplified tax code with more competitive corporate tax rates . . . it’s very difficult to make the case that manufacturers are deserving of special treatment, apart from the normal, growth-boosting interventions economists generally support. It’s obvious to me that American economic policy fails in important ways. It’s not at all clear that a reluctance to target support to manufacturers is one of them.”

    • quill67

      You are absolutely correct that not all manufacturers have the same sensitivity to taxes especially in the short run. The reason is that for some, moving to another location is very easy while for others it may be very difficult to move to a new location. For example, carpet is still made here in the US because it is so heavy that it cannot be cost effectively moved by cargo containers used to import goods from China. This protects US carpet producers from China’s carpet producers but it also makes it difficult for the US carpet producers to sell in China (even though US carpet producers are far more productive than other parts of the world —even with their cheaper labor)

      By the same token, a chemical manufacturer may continue to stay in America for one of two reasons 1) Stranded capital. They built a billion dollar facility and it would be too costly to build another one in a lower tax region 2) They may have access to inputs that make it cheaper to produce in the US.

      Interesting that you mention chemical manufacturers. I heard an interview with a chemical producer who said “We will NEVER produce another processing facilty in the US” He gave two reasons 1) Regulations 2) taxes. He said that 85% of their business was outside the US and while it would be cheaper to produce here (given access to needed resources) that the taxes and regulations made it cost prohibitive. He went on to explain that in other countries they do not tax income earned on overseas sales, but in the US we do. So even though he said it cost him MORE to produce chemicals in Germany, it made sense to produce there because any earnings they made elsewhere they did not have to pay a tax on.

      As to the quote you provide. Actually, it is quite easy to make the case that manufacturers are deserving of special treament. Manufacturers are far more likely to move overseas because of tax rates than other industries.

      Let me also add this: . If the government spends 80% of GDP, any tax system you can devise will still be very burdensome. On the other hand, if the government needs to collect only 5%, practically any form of taxation will not seem so bad.

      The real problem here is that the government is attempting to collect so much tax revenue and thus requires high tax rates

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        but that by eliminating corp taxes on domestic manufactures, it levels the playing field somewhat w/o adding to the cost of the imports. more later

        • JSobieski

          eliminate corporate taxes all together and rely exclusively on federal income taxes from individuals.

          • honoraryintern

            … That taxes have an effect. The 99% have to get booted first.

          • acat

            Did Reagan re-educate the voters?

            Mew

          • honoraryintern

            …

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            tea

        • rhampton

          …by shifting the tax burden onto everyone else.

          It’s no different then having subset of American who do not have to pay any income tax because their income is below an arbitrary threshold.

          • jamesm

            into the system will reduce tax burdens. If a company does not exist it does not pay taxes. If a company has 40 employees it pays less in taxes than a company that has 400

          • rhampton

            …no matter how noble the intention. And it disregards the fact that there are many manufacturers that do exist, that are profitable, and do pay taxes. Any way you slice it, it’s still a redistribution of income that punishes all those businesses who have done the hard work and made the difficult decisions to remain in business through these difficult years.

            Lastly, this form of corporate welfare assumes – hopes – that these manufacturers lured to start operations in the U.S. will do the best possible thing with the benefit and thus grow the economy. However, what is to prevent an unethical, inefficient, or unwise business from wasting their entitlement? Are there any protections and/or guarantees?

          • jamesm

            Having people keep more of their own money is not redistribution. Companies invest and create jobs to make a profit.Entrepreneurs take a risk and create jobs. Manufacturers earn their money. This is not the governments money. Sure there is some level of taxation but redistribution is missing the mark.

          • streiff

            in our tax code. You get deductions for children. Interest and cap gains are treated differently from ordinary income. I don’t see the redistributionist scheme here as the people earning the money get to keep more of it.

          • JSobieski

            Doesn’t make it right.

            Interest and cap gains are treated differently becaues corporate profits have already been taxed before.

            Deductions for kids can be justified on the basis that a family of 5 would have a different tax/capita basis than a family of 2 with the same income. The role of the individual in the tax paid/individual equation is unique in comparison to ancillary factors.

            That said, I would be in favor of removing deductions for children as well. Taxes are attributable to tax payers, not each and every citizen. Will we ever get rid of the deduction for kids? Probably not. However, we should avoid adding junk to the tax code and move towards a broader less exception based code.

            The delta between 0% for manufacturers and 20+% for non-manufacturers is the mother of stimulus plans for tax lawyers and lobbyists.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            all rates are lowered. And the US has a rich history of historic growth in standard of living and exceptionalism during the “age” of tariffs, ie all of our history until the…

          • elizaliza

            I’m rethinking this one, after I read this discussion.
            http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html

            And with the one that said:
            If the water that car dealer uses should have gone to water a farmers crops, I’m with the farmer, not the car dealer. Can’t eat no cars. Can drink washed cars neither.

            So if you put in water in stead of wealth, i guess no one disagrees, right?

          • JSobieski

            The demand for food is a t a certain level inelastic. Prices will be impacted accordingly.

            Markets “redistribute” wealth based on the marginal cost/benefit analysis of what people do and product. Over time, that is how wealth is created, and explains why the US is prosperous and Russia is not.

            Government efforts to redistribute wealth interfere with that process, and are a recipe for poverty.

          • elizaliza

            I am pro redistributing water when it’s a scarce good, like in Utah or Colorado,

            When it would just disappear into sea, i’d say let people collect whatever.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            You want it, you pay for it or trade for it. And we’ll decide how much is for sale/trade.

          • elizaliza

            haven’t ever lived in drought state,now have you?

            is that guy a Utan first, or a car dealer first?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Actually, we don’t care much for Texans around here anyway. If they want water and don’t have it, they can buy it like everyone else.

      • Flagstaff

        Actually, it is quite easy to make the case that manufacturers are deserving of special treatment. Manufacturers are far more likely to move overseas because of tax rates than other industries.

        That’s like making a case for giving your money to the guy with the gun, but I get your point.

        The problem with your statement is there are way too many conceptual problems with taxing different industries at different rates. Far better to tax all of them at a lower rate, or not at all.

        We have tax policy that says, “tax the source of the wealth,” and it used to also include “and do it in a way that doesn’t interfere with the production of more wealth.” Rates in general have gotten high enough to negate that second part. So lower them. Or eliminate them. Don’t do it selectively.

        The government doesn’t do anything very well when it has to be selective. My Air Force photo-mapping pilot, long ago, used to say that we “measured [lines of flight] with a micrometer, marked ‘em with a grease pencil, and cut ‘em with a hatchet,” (in our case, the hatchet was a C-130). That’s the way it is with most government programs, only they don’t cut them with anything!

        So, tax everybody at the same rate, don’t bother to tax companies and corporations, and if you must have a graduated tax (which may be true), keep it simple. The first income tax rates were two: 1% for income over $20,000, and 7% if over $500,000. Today those levels would be about $400,000 and $10,000,000–the rich and the very rich. Only about 2% of the population even paid income tax. The tax collected wasn’t nearly enough to support a BIG government, and government did far less for the people then than it does now. But it did coincide with the birth of big government.

        Rates were raised for WWI, but reduced afterwards.

        Santorum’s plans are addle-pated, just a different version of what is causing our current problems.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          “here are way too many conceptual problems with taxing different industries at different rates. Far better to tax all of them at a lower rate, or not at all.”

          Agreed with all that except that, for many mfg firms, the zero tax would make them competitive given the current market and trends; thereby making the concept acceptable as an intermediate measure before the zero corp tax nirvana we all crave! smile

        • elizaliza

          We have tax policy that says, ?tax the source of the wealth,? and it used to also include ?and do it in a way that doesn?t interfere with the production of more wealth.? Rates in general have gotten high enough to negate that second part.

          nah. Corporate Taxes are very low in the US compared to other countries. GM doesn’t pay taxes at all.

          okay they might be high nominally, but every one gets away with not paying, except small business.

          lower taxes should be okay, but no taxes means anarchy, which is dumb.

          • quill67

            Fact: US Marginal Tax rates are the highest in the world.
            But it is also true that corporate tax collections are among the lowest in the industiralized world.

            There are two reasons for this: 1) Our tax rates are so high but we build in special deductions for politically favored corporations 2) Tax avoidance and corporations that would have to pay high taxes—leave or don’t locate here in the first place.

          • JSobieski

            Santorum’s plan satifies #1 but makes a mess of #2.

            One step forward, one step back.

          • quill67

            And once a rate is at 0%, congress has no power over that industry using the tax code. If one sector of our economy can be set free, that makes me happy even if others will day of freedom will come later.

          • JSobieski

            It dwarfs the green energy, export, and other little giveaways that we complain about.

            Corporate tax laws have created one prominent GE-like example . .. GE.

            Santorum’s plan will create 2 classes of US companies, large companies that will inevitably be classified as manufacturers and small companies that won’t.

            GE classified itself as a bank when TARP dollars were being handed out. To think that similar things on a larger scale won’t happen as a result of a 17.5% delta is to ignore the ingenuity of tax lawyers everywhere.

          • JSobieski

            Congress would inevitably tinker with the definition of “manufacturing” just as the IRS would.

            It speaks well of you that you don’t think in K Street terms, but Santorum’s plan is just a stimulus plan for lobbyists and tax attorneys.

  • jamesm

    Taxes and regulations have worked together to cause many manufacturers to leave the State of California. Countries are competing to take manufacturing jobs overseas. Profit margins are tight when competitors have the advantages of subsides and lower taxes. Every business has to make a profit. U.S manufacturers are taxed and regulated making it difficult to make a profit. Manufacturing jobs are relatively higher paying because of the skill set now required. Getting the government off the back of manufacturing will allow America to compete at the highest levels.

    • quill67

      The problem was that the arguments (and mud) started flying over social conservativism rather than the economics of the matter.

      • jamesm

        always wins in the long run. I like when a person has well thought out positions and defends those well thought out positions. Santorum represented a manufacturing state for 16 years. He understands what the issues are affecting his constituents. Yeah ,tossing mud at Santorum’s social conservatism is a tactic left wing pundits use. Not reducing taxes is a liberal position. Not understanding manufacturing, throwing mud at social conservatism and creating innuendo that Santorum was not adamant against over regulation was ridiculous. I found that lacking logical analysis but was full of misplaced emotion.

        Good job on this diary.

        • bk

          He understood business in general well enough to vote for Sarbanes-Oxley? Knee-jerk reactions like that can be counted on to end up badly.

          • jamesm

            “Santorum represented a manufacturing state for 16 years. He understands what the issues are affecting his constituents.”

          • bk

            who wants his pet constituencies to get special government treatment vs the pet constituencies of other politicians? You don’t need to have any more understanding that to parrot what your biggest contributors oops I mean constituents tell you to say.

            It’s barely a step above saying Obama should be a great President because of all the great stuff about government etc. he supposedly studied at Harvard.

  • honoraryintern

    It seems that Nafta has compounded the transfer of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Just look at the factory towns that have sprung up across the border in all our south-western border towns. In the last year we have opened our highways to Mexican truck companies.

    You indicated taxes are one issue and my question is if its enough, considering the labor advantage and the cross border trade agreements to bring those jobs back?

    Thanks for sharing a well thought-out post.

    • quill67

      Many of the jobs in Mexico are low skill assembly type jobs. The jobs that will likely return are higher skill specialty jobs. For example, Intel’s CEO has said that the US is actually the low cost provider for manufacturing computer chips if it were not for high taxes and high regulatory costs.

      Some of these jobs are coming to the US even with our higher corporate rate. For example, the main processing chip for Apple I-Phones and I-Pads are now made at a facility in Austin, Texas. These chips had been made in Asia.

      By the way, I am not as concerned about jobs going to Mexico, because unlike China, virtually every dollar spent on Mexican goods comes back to the US demanding American made products. (At least the last time I checked these figures)

      • honoraryintern

        Apple Ibook plant and Intel chip plant. Both were built for a single generation of technology that have gone overseas. Intel actually built two buildings for two generations of chips and then were ‘losing competitive advantage’ and moved.

        You spoke to the Apple move back to Texas, that’s the kind of empty manufacturing space we have. So, would the tax plan be enough to make a compelling case to come back? Or is this a marginal impact proposal?

  • JSobieski

    (1) Buy assets when they are inexpensive and sell them when they are highly valued (buy low, sell hi). I can make a lot of money doing this, and use the money to help the economy.

    (2) Eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. This will get the deficit under the control.

    (3) Reduce regulations. Get government out of the way so business can do its thing.

    I call my platform great cliches for 2012!!!!!!!

    Santorum on regulatory reform has all the specifics of Romney’s spending cuts—–GENERIC verbiage with no specifics to back them up.

    Oh, I forgot to mention my plan for beating Michael Jordan in basketball. My plan?

    SCORE MORE POINTS!

    Oh, I forgot to mention my plan for saving Afghanistan. My plan? Get the Afghanis to stop blowing stuff up.

    Anyone else have any problems I can solve? I have some spare time now that I have solved all of the problems identified above.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      what passes for insight and advice here and at many other “political analysis” blogs.

      I refer to it as the “whats” vs. the “hows.” Most writers are long on the “whats,” but short on the “hows.”

      We need more conservatives in the Party leadership! Or something! But how to achieve that? That part is usually left out.

      Now here this! All hands on deck! We need to primary RINO incumbents! But how, exactly, to do that? Not too much concrete advice offered regarding exactly how to increase the chance of that happening in any given congressional or state legislative district.

      We need to put pressure on McConnell, Kyl, Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy to fight harder for our liberties. How to do that? Oh, I dunno.

      We need to pass this, that or the other legislation. But, um, er, how do we get in a position to get that legislation passed in the House and Senate. Hmmm. That part is usually left out.

      All the while our Party operates at the local committee level at about half strength.

      And our GOTV efforts in our neighborhoods are lacking warm, conservative bodies to make phone calls and go door-to-door on behalf of our Republican candidates.

      I hope and pray that changes.

      Thanks for the great comment.

      CW

      • JSobieski

        nt

        • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

          Everyone had said “we need people to step up and fight the Redcoats” and yet no one stepped up.

          This is the problem in our current times. A Solution is there! Behold a miracle can be had, our economy can be saved, inflation could die, Iran would surrender all their nasty stuff, Russia would play fair and Putin would step down.

          And I this messenger from above merely ask you to spend time once a month, and during election…

          “Woah woah, wait a second, spend time? I have no time to spare, life is to precious to waste time”

          And behold the collective sat on its ass and no miracle happened.

          • JSobieski

            Solutions are not the same thing as goals. Buy low sell high is not a truism . .. a cliche . . . it is not a solution.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        based upon dollar amount econ impact rather than saying he will simply repeal all regs promulgated since a certain date. That seems more responsible as a general proposition to me. It amazes me that conservatives who desire less regulation would nitpick over a ridiculously standard of specificity that no candidate would ever meet at this stage. Our guys want to de-regulate the economy. Obama does not. And I haven’t seen any of Santorum’s opponents get more specific that he has about it. I admit I haven’t read Gary Johnson’s book…smile

        • JSobieski

          Its not nitpicking to actually want results in lieu of cliches.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            This one exception along with the several (mortgage interest, charity, etc) retained by all but 9-9-9!, is limited in its possible venality by the fact that all corp taxes are significantly lowered. And it could make the difference in bringing in jobs that many Americans would qualify for. There are good historical and present world, US debt/education facts on the ground, that argue for an emphasis on manufacturing jobs as a key to a prosperous middle class…everyone can’t laptop their way to the good life and there are only so many landscaping, hotel maid and McDonalds cook jobs to go around…

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            “reinvigorate” manufacturing. It will do nothing but empower politicians to fiddle with the tax code and pay off their peons and it will enrich attorneys. You should take classes on tax. Retirement might be at hand.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Cleveland

          • quill67

            Politicians do “fiddle with the tax cose and pay off their peons” We see this very clearly in Illinois where they raised their state income tax dramatically and when Sears threatened to leave because of it and give the governor a big political black eye—–well special excemptions were put into the tax law for Sears. The little guys did not get the break.

            I believe reducing corporate taxes to 17.5% is a very good idea (I like Gingrich’s idea of 12.5 % better, but hate Romney’s 25% which is not much different that Obama’s 28%) The lower the tax rate the less incentive there is to spend money lobbying for special excemptions and the fewer you only get a tax cut if you behave this way.

            The US used to be the only game in town and could get away with high corporate tax rates. Today, that is not the case.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          who supported SarbOx is all of a sudden opposed to regulations? Just look at the pathetic tax plan he’s got posted on his website. It’s nothing but a mixture of same-old same-old tinkering and social engineering using the IRS.

          The only reason anyone would actually believe the bull that he’s spewing, now that he’s seen the light, is that they are dumb as a rock.

          • quill67

            Yeah it is kinda pathetic. He lowers the rate to 25%. Even Obama Proposes lowering it to 28% And Romney only did this when it looked like Newt was about to clobber him.

          • jamesm

            on RedState.

            Your post is pathetic. The infected reasoning in your posts is compromised by your lack of clear thinking and respect for people of differing views. Santorum is not perfect. But I guarantee he is much brighter then the half truths you continually spit out.

            Santorum wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, (but of course you conveniently left this out) What..now your gonna call him more names?

            He stated:

            “We must repeal the burdensome Sarbanes-Oxley law that not only did not prevent the financial crisis, but chased capital overseas. At the same time, we must repeal Dodd-Frank before it can be fully-implemented and start from scratch to enact real reform that ensures the 2008 financial crisis does not happen again but at the same time does not place impediments in the way of capital formation and credit availability for average Americans.”

          • JSobieski

            Rick voted in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley. He didn’t even slow it down as far as I can tell. Of course he now knows that it is “burdensome”.

            Can anyone point to any effort by Rick to engage in regulatory reform while he was actually in office?

            Both Romney and Santorum make a lot out of what Newt has SAID, but both Romney and Santorum seem to have changed their minds on a lot of things that they have DONE.

            Voting and advocacy is all a Senator really ever does.S&O was never intended to avoid a financial crises a las 2008, so that is a straw man argument anyway….

          • jamesm

            scheme in 2003. Voted yes to get rid of Clinton ergonomic rules in 2001

          • JSobieski

            When the majority of Republicans vote the wrong way, Rick does too

            Santorum 2012: Because leadership is really overrated anyway

          • jamesm

            When you are member of a party sometimes you vote with your party. All the people here advocating that you must vote for Romney if he is the nominee but excoriate Santorum cause he made a mistake voting for what the Republican president wanted, Such contradiction.

          • JSobieski

            if you are more consistently a team player than conservative.

            I’m not “excoriating” Santorum—-just pointing out that he is as flawed as Romney and Newt in many respects, while lacking some of the strengths those guys have.

          • acat

            Just wondering.

            Mew

          • quill67

            And are either of these better than a “compassionate conservative” ?

          • aesthete

            DeMint has exerted quite a bit of influence, and voted his principles. You don’t need to vote for everything your party puts up to be a successful politician for our causes — quite the opposite.

            I have yet to hear what conservative things Santo got in exchange for his support of blatantly unconservative legislation.

          • Flagstaff

            All the people here advocating that you must vote for Romney if he is the nominee but excoriate Santorum cause he made a mistake voting for what the Republican president wanted, Such contradiction.

            There are darned few people here advocating for Romney. I defend him, but I don’t usually advocate for him. I haven’t seen any of us say we won’t vote for Santo or Newt or Paul if he becomes the nominee. I have seen comments to the effect that “I won’t vote for Romney,” or “I won’t make any effort to support Romney” if he’s the nominee.

            The fact is, the criticism of all these guys has often been substantive, but Santorum is the one who has made mistakes across the spectrum of his campaign and history. And it isn’t just one thing that he’s voted for that he now renounces, there are about a half-dozen of them. The knock on Newt is more focused, and the knock on Mitt is pretty much that he created Romneycare and hasn’t denounced it. Depending on whom you ask, none of them are electable.

          • jamesm

            there really has not been a much of positive case made for Romney. Advocating voting for Romney (because we need to get rid of Obama) happens here alot.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            that Santorum has put out have all said we’ve vote for the fool if he’s the nominee. Me included.

          • acat

            Santorum is more like our Al Gore.

            Mew

          • texastaxpayer

            That’s quite a smack down….

          • bk

            If Rick is so great for saying he wants to repeal a law that he voted for, you must also love the way Mitt is going to repeal ObamaCare.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Santorum is a Republican with a record that is essential the same as Newt and better than Romney and they all are way better than you know who. I don’t get the singling out of Santorum as especially different than Newt or 95% of all good conservatives since the 80s.

            Yes, I would prefer 9-9-9 or some more radical plan, but to make Santorum’s anathema given his cuts in all corp taxes is not justified and like I said, this debate happens to coincide with a growing intellectual curiosity in a more traditionally American, circa 19thC, way of conducting trade and taxation policy. more later

    • Finrod

      I love this skit:

      Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on ‘How to do it’ we’re going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here’s Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

      Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvelous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there’ll never be any diseases ever again.

      Actually, that’s a bit more detail than some politicians’ plans I’ve seen.

      • aesthete

        Behold, the Underpants Gnomes’ business model:

  • dajeeps

    There could be any number of elements affecting cost that pertain to why a firm would want to locate its manufacturing elsewhere. These issues don’t always have to do with things that can be resolved at the Federal level, nor do they all have to do with taxes.

    There could be something to the combined burden of taxes and compliance from all levels of government that is having a share of impact. Serving too many masters is quite a head ache, and it gets dicey for many types of manufacturing because of the byproducts.

    There is an old argument about taxation that might help clear some of the smoke in this debate, and that was the debate about difference between internal and external taxes in the mid-18th century. An entire ideology was developed around it that says that different governing entities cannot share sovereignty in all things, but can have defined spaces in which they operate that don’t overlap in order to avoid producing an over-burdened citizenry. That was a part of the ideology that lead to the American Revolution and subsequent establishment of our Constitution that formed a government with powers that were few, defined, and supreme regarding those defined powers, with all other essential governing elements left to the states.

    The present situation is an entirely different story with various taxes and compliance issues coming from every direction, with all levels of government exercising sovereignty in all realms. And I think that likely is a major part of what’s broken.

    It might be that playing around with Federal tax rates can have some positive impact. Any relief is better than none. But it could also be said that it would be providing subsidy for other burdens from other sources. Or, couldn’t the Feds themselves just go and pile some other burden on top that negates that effect? After all, they are low tax, they can afford new boiler regulation (that is a hypothetical example, of course). Why couldn’t a state take advantage of it and slap on their own political objects of desire because all of a sudden the money is there to make them do it?

    There are just too many dynamics there to make any kind of prediction. My personal opinion is that the entirety of economic burdens we place on business establishments of all kinds needs to be rationalized, and we need to get back to having as few masters as possible in order to avoid producing an over-burdened society and subsequent economic effects that come with it.

  • Ann2012

    Thanks for the time you took to explain everything so carefully and to present yourself in your original writing and your subsequent responses in a very professional way.

    It?ll be great to finally get this election over with so whatever candidate (other than Obama) wins they can implement their ideas and proposals and we can see what happens.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I asked this on mbecker’s thread but never got an answer. Perhaps since you’re an economist you can answer it.

    Please do so in a clear and concise way that removes any ambiguity while filling out tax forms.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      dealing with these issues in the 19th C and early 20th with tariff law and direct US taxes on domestic companies.

      The larger issue is whether it is a good idea to have differing tax rates for different kinds of companies at all domestically and/o whether to have tariffs or either. I have been a free trader for 20 years with exceptions for national security on steel (and even then warily); but the changes in the world economy and a re-study of the success of the US in the 19th and early 20th C when we had tariffs etc, so that I have been rethinking a slavish adherence to ideological orthodoxy on free trade. We could be making the mistake we accuse liberals of with their Utopianism? In any event, i think its a good subject for serious debate on the merits and that the definitional matter is mostly a red herring.

      In general, I would favor repealing the whole code as I did with my 9-9-9 support and then start over with something like 9-9-9 or a code with few exceptions, and given the good jobs that mfg can provide and looking at thr wages abroad rising, a US policy that gave a tax break just might be the little nudge that we could give to produce better paying jobs that could compete w/o tariffs…thinking and studying, but not responding to gotcha question demands better left to the dweebs in the legislative aide office that draft statutes. I assure you that a good working definition of manufacturing is there to be had, but I would have to be paid to do the drafting, and no one can afford my rates! smile

      • JSobieski

        for a candidate promising to decrease regulations, you just know that the IRS regulations would be substantially “augmented” to address the definitional issue.

        The delta between manufacturing taxes and all others would be so substantial that everybody would be trying to be on the right side of the line. Santorum would be a boon for tax lawyers.

        Rick knows that taxes impact behavior. That impact can be both positive and negative. Any discussion of the policy should include the negatives and administerability concerns.

        I know that I always give such concerns more weight that you do, but I also work with the area of government that Clinton praised so much (PTO).

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          from a conservative perspective and the ground work to sell it needs to be made. All I am saying is that a number of factors that I have been exposed to anew of late cause me to think we need to give a listen to the idea of a nationalistic trade and mfg goods policy rather than a continued slavish ideological view of “free trade”. Experience argues for it, even if reason and logic may not, at some level. The Charles Murray book on the massive underclass, the 19th C success of the US with tariffs, the rising wages abroad, need for a middle class and how mfg and energy policy could be the answert, etc…working on a column

          But I have said that I prefer a zero corp tax across the board. But that seems more like a dream to actually achieve…so in the meantime…thinking

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            which I dismissed out of hand at the time of publication, have penetrated my consciousness of late and I have gone back and watched some C-Span’s on it and gone and read Russel Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and some other books about the 19th as well as Coolidge and it seems that the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill while clearly a major bad move and cause of the Great Depression, has been used to too broadly smear tariffs per se, rather than how it was particularly bad at the time…get my drift?

            Pat says something that struck home with me in an interview when he said that he had been almost “religiously” tied to “free trade” and that a true conservative shouldn’t do that. I agree and I am educating myself on history on this matter and asking the question that maybe at certain times, based on changing circumstamces that maybe it is best to use trade policy in this way and certainly tax policy at some level.

          • aesthete

            and as such, should be understood to not apply in absolutely all cases in the real world. That said, the free market is built on the premise of marginal utility and the mutually beneficial nature of trade. The nature of trade does not change because we engage in it with foreigners, and is in almost all cases extremely beneficial. Economically, do you think there’s an argument for restricting trade between the states, between two cities, or between two individuals? Trade at the level of the nation-state is no different, and there is simply no evidence or logically compelling case for tariffs. There is no case for tariffs at all as a general measure from an economic standpoint which does not undermine voluntary trade, and uphold the ability and authority of government to restrict said trade for its own, “beneficial” ends. Once you start talking up the benefits of tariffs, you might as well start arguing that the high marginal taxes on high-income earners in the post-WWII era was responsible for our economic success in that same time frame: it’s the same premise.

    • kipling

      Please see the tax code and/or, as gamecock pointed out, case law.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        You’re living in Neverland if you think that any current definition will stand up to the storm of litigation that this stupidity would bring.

        • kipling

          I hardly think it is Rick Santorum’s fault. Nor do I think stomping your foot and demanding a definition serves any purpose. I think you have beat that horse sufficiently.

          By the way, I fully support a simplified tax code.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        that companies won’t do everything they can to “re-invent” themselves as manufacturing to reduce their tax burden from 35% to 0%?

        See, this is the problem with these idiotic proposals. There will never be a clear definition. There will be endless litigation. It still picks winners and losers. No matter where you draw the line, some legitimate manufacturing companies will be left out, and many illegitimate ones will be included.

        Have we learned nothing from farm subsidies and energy subsidies? Now we want to have manufacturing subsidies?

        I thought conservatives were for a simplified tax code. How does this simplify? Does anyone else see that these sorts of proposals make Santorum more like Romney, not less?

        Dump the gimmicks. Dump the subsidies. Flatten and lower taxes. Even the playing field. Eliminate excessive regulation. Let the market sort things out to get the most benefit out of every dollar. That’s how we improve the economy and get people back to work!

        • kipling

          Just pointing out that the definition issue is a blind alley. We already have a definition. Yes, it will be litigated and possibly changed in some way. Yes, most of us would prefer a simpler tax code. A whole round of stomping feet and asking if bakers are a manufacturing interest is the height of infantile.

          • acat

            by eliminating (or lowering) the corporate tax across the board?

            If not, *why* ?

            Mew

          • kipling

            nt

          • JSobieski

            I thought Rick was in favor of regulatory reform?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            net reductions. But I would favor a zero corp tax for all corps. But if that’s not doable, then I am open to substantive arguments for Santorum’s plan to lower ALL corp rates, with mfg only going to zero. The idea that the amount of regs and litigation is a major impediment is not serious given our history and case law and that manufacturing is not quite as vague as even good lawyers might imagine…imho

            My interest in this plan is due to a combination of Charles Murray’s new book about the growing less uneducated underclass and their need for jobs, the rising wages of mfg jobs in China and how well the US did under tariff and direct taxation by Republicans in the 19th and early 20th C.

            more later

          • JSobieski

            Lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry that is used to creating a small credit there, and small credit there.

            You think that an opportunity to pay 0% taxes won’t result in “foot stomping”?

            You don’t think bakers will assert manufacturing status?

          • kipling

            No one has ever contended that the definition will not be challenged either in court or through the lobbying process. Or even tinkered with in the regulatory process.

            My point is that the foot stomping and demanding a definition here at RedState is a blind alley and really a waste of time, especially, if as you argue, the definition will be changed anyway.

            My other point is that we already have a definition of “manufacturing” in the tax code and the legal code. A fact that you confirmed yesterday by looking at the tax code.

          • JSobieski

            It may be foot stomping to you, but it would set off the largest explosion in lobbying expenses since Obamacare.

            In the context of a policy discussion, it is ESSENTIAL to address the difficulties in administering laws. To do otherwise is to behave as leftists.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Conservatives are now liberals. They want to hand out favors to their buddies, choose winners in the marketplace, and make a ridiculously complex tax code even more complex.

            This proposal proves that Rick Santorum is and always was a Big Government pro-lifer. His supporters are so desperate to find a legitimate Not-Romney that they’ll twist and turn and jump through hoops to make anyone else into a conservative when they are not and never were. You’re so desperate to support Not-Romney that you’ll completely ignore the problems with his proposals. It’s Herman Cain all over again, but without the pizza & beer.

            The same people that railed against Mike Huckabee last time are now jumping on the Rick Santorum bandwagon. The only difference between the two is Santorum didn’t take the furniture with him when he left. Oh yeah, there’s one more. At least Huckabee had run something in his life.

          • kipling

            I have not argued in favor of Santorum or his tax plan.

            All three of the potential nominees are flawed but Santorum and Gingrich are far better than Romneycare/Obamacare.

            I have not jumped on anyone’s bandwagon since Perry left the race. I suggest you examine the facts before you make assumptions about others.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            **no*text**

    • Flagstaff

      Manufacturer: Friend of President Santorum.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        That made me laugh.

        • garfieldjl

          While I don’t believe that is what Santorum intends, the temptation is there.

          Do we really want to keep that door open? We’ve seen Obama do it with Solyndra, trying to pick winners and losers.

          Maybe Santorum can resist that temptation, okay fine but what about the President after him, or the one after that one?

          Santorum needs to drop this idea cause it is too apt to lead to corruption.

          • Flagstaff

            Give my best to Odie. (^;^)

      • civil truth

        A corollary of “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

      • acat

        Might be worth my while …

        Mew

        • Flagstaff

          but less than “Knight of the Coal Field.”

          Way above “Blogger” though.

  • redstateneck

    You all are right. Santorum has finally articulated an inch deep analysis. But you have to admit. Romney’s depth of understanding real markets, real economics, real business makes Rick “the light weight” pale. If the game is make the most money, Mitt Wins. If the game is turn-around a non-profit and represent America in the best light, Mitt Wins. If the game is get along with the liberal state legislature while still being effective and fiscally conservative, Mitt Wins. If the game is counsel with the down trodden and personally make a difference in the lives of individuals while respecting their privacy, Mitt Wins. If the game is beating Obama, Rick get out of the way, Mitt Wins. (Rick actually doesn’t even have to get out of the way. Rick has done well as a politician, nice career Rick. Don’t over reach. The founders always intended for someone like Romney to be the nominee.

    • JSobieski

      He is big on “eliminating waste” from government, but even democrats say things like that.

      Romney’s comments about the minimum wage and how Romneycare appears to be working well in Mass. suggest that his “depth” on economic issues is overstated.

      So do his comments about China.

      Romney may be a profound thinker. . . but nothing he has done or said in this campaign would support that conclusion.

    • quill67

      Many are not. Many of these business people are very statist in their thinking. They believe they know best. They believe because they did well in their industry they know best what the government should do for ALL industries.

      The one thing I have learned as an economist is how different each industry is. What may work great in one industry would be foolish in another. No. Every industry is different. The best thing we can do is get government out of the way.

      Warren Buffet is a very successful businessman, but he think government should dictate our lives. Romney showed he has the same attittude when he mandated government run health care in Mass.

  • Vegas_Rick

    in the US. Federal taxes, while a significant consideration, is not nearly as important in deciding where to manufactur as are labor costs, both direct and indirect, the regulatory environment (both economic and environmental), state and local taxes, regulation and infrastructure.

    We beat up on the Dims for picking winners and losers and for crony capitalism, and then we want to advocate for it? I don’t think so.

    • Ausonius

      Minnesota and Michigan export 28 million tons of iron ore, big customers being Japan, Korea, and China.

      It is roughly a 12,000 mile round trip for the iron ore to go to Asia, be turned into a Kia or a Lexus or a K-Mart toy truck.

      Since the 1970′s, it has obviously been cheaper to ship the raw materials and have it processed on a round trip of 12,000 miles than to ship the ore 200 miles to a factory in e.g. Illinois for that finished product.

      While Chinese near-slave labor wages cannot and should not be matched here, certainly the Koreans and Japanese are not “wage slaves.” So something has been out of whack in American manufacturing for decades.

      Tariffs, however, would not seem to be the answer: a zero tax rate on companies? Obviously it could increase their competitiveness, along with sensible labor unions who worry about quality of work.

      On the other hand, they may not lower the prices of their products, and could pocket the savings. No guarantees in such things: would Apple close down its Chinese connections and build factories here, with a zero-per cent tax rate? I don’t know.

      In some cases, it would be impossible to compete with $10.00 per day wages. But perhaps people would “buy American” if the prices were closer and the American quality demonstrably higher.

      • jamesm

        higher quality than products made in china. China subsidizes many industries and manipulates the value of the yuan. I agree that in some cases it is impossible to compete on pricing. This is why manufacturing is under attack from unfair competition.

  • WmCraig

    There is a huge difference, and while I am not an economist, I have owned a small business and worked for several medium sized business when manufacturing was still viable in the northeast.

    Philadelphia had the absurd idea fifty years ago of banning coal burning, and raising taxes. The result is that the metro area of Philadelphia has lost nearly all it’s manufacturing. Lots of those jobs went overseas, but that is less a matter of taxation and more a matter of “stupid union tricks”. The rest of the jobs went south and west.

    I agree with you that federal taxes do not dictate business decisions but they are nothing more than a symptom of the real problem. An Imperial Washington imposing onerous impositions on American businesses, on the lives of American citizens and on the independence and liberty of America’s elected state governments who are the rightful authority on matters of their internal affairs.

    Santorum does appear interested in imposing a national program to implement social conservatism, rather than liberate us from Washingtons growing imperial indifference towards our liberty.

    And the problem is not going to be solved by Washington when Washington is the problem. A big government program that spends money on conservative issues can be used by Democrats the next time they get power to impose on us progressive ideas that deny us our rights, and Obama proves democrats will get elected.

    Changing the influence over the use of power by Washington will not solve the problem. Washington has usurped simply too much power that rightfully belongs to the states, and our liberty has been stolen with it. Santorum’s big government solutions are not the answer.

    • quill67

      I agree with you. Continuing to empower Washington with power is a weakness of Santorum. However, of the candidates remaining, he or Newt moves the country closer to the right direction.

      Romney has already promised to the Federal Government would in addition to providing funds for Medicaid would also provide funds for the “uninsured”. How long until Washington dictates to the states that they must implement a RomneyCare type approach to health care?

  • Flagstaff

    I read the whole thing. Most all of the comments were to the point and had an appropriate component of reason.

  • quill67

    Flagstaff: “(Taxes are less important) than financing and distribution costs (and labor costs, particularly in unionized industries).”

    Whether taxes are more or important or less important depends upon the industry. The other factors are also very important and in some cases more important that taxes. But taxes are also an important factor.

    Flagstaff: “that manufacturing may well NOT be the best type of industry to bet our future growth on.” This may be a good point, however, there have been some research companies that have moved overseas to be closer to the manufacturers because it is easier to conduct business when they are in closer proximity and makes it easier for them to create prototypes. In other words, while the US might have a competitive advantage in technology development that advantage may be harmed because of our lack of manufacturing.

    Flagstaff: You worry about “selective taxation” I agree 100%, but it is going on right now it’s just that we do not see it because they are hidden in our complex tax code. Also, exemption an entire industry from taxation (as a corporation) actually reduces congress’ ability to influence firm behavor through the tax code.

    Flagstaff: You ask “Should Marion Labs in Kansas City be given a tax break because it?s so far from Boston and therefore at a competitive disadvantage?” And the answer to this is companies like this many times DO get a tax break from the state in which they reside. The state recognizes that the company may be earning smaller profits because of their location so to keep them from moving and losing ALL their tax revenue they lower taxes so at least they get some tax revenue and people are not forced to move out of state.

    The most recent example of this type of behavior is the state of Georgia offers tax breaks to producing films in Georgia, but not nearly as much as Michigan. Why does Georgia not match Michigan’s rate? Georgia knows that there are advantages to producing films in Georgia compared to other locations (although not as good as some locations which is why Georgia offers the tax break)

    • acat

      We’re discussing POTUS hopeful Santorum, not the governor of Georgia or Michigan or Kansas or Missouri or any other State. Tax breaks between the States are a separate issue from Santorum’s proposal.

      Mew

      • quill67

        and jobs, too high a tax by the Federal Government can also cause the US to lose business and jobs.

        Why do local governments punish (create losers) by imposing property taxes (punishing those who like housing more than other goods)? Why don’t they impose higher income or sales taxes? Answer: They know people are better able to avoid these taxes. But at a certain point, even these taxes may be avoided–by people leaving.

        • acat

          Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

          Throwing mud in the water is not helpful to the discussion.

          Mew

          • quill67

            I was also trying to get a concept across that firms will change their locations to avoid taxes if they can. Many acknowledge that the behavior happens a the local or state level, but then think somehow it stops when it comes to a nation. But it does not and thinking that it does, prevents us from taking positive action to at least minimize the damages that taxes, regulations, labor structure have on economic growth in our country.

          • acat

            I will point out, again, that the last Oldsmobile (and several GM products since) are sold as “Made in America”, not “Made in the U.S.A.” because they contain too many parts from Mexico or Canada.

            That said, I ask again… why is manufacturing so special?

            Mew

    • Flagstaff

      it wasn’t posted as a “reply.” In order–

      Flagstaff 1. My comment was a reply to your comment. I agree, but my point was your own comment weakens the premise of your blog.

      Check out the final paragraph of this comment.

      Flagstaff 2. My comment suggested that Santo’ premise is that manufacturing jobs will be the salvation of the middle class. I just pointed out that it may not be. The real point is that we don’t really know, we’re only guessing, just as Obama “guessed” at the viability of Solyndra. (That’s what I call being charitable to the President.)

      Flagstaff 3. The fact that selective taxation already exists proves nothing about whether it is desirable or not. Bad behavior doesn’t excuse more bad behavior. It just provides and example to show why it is bad. And philosophically, I’m against any branch of government using tax policy to “influence” (read “coerce’) certain behavior on the part of any firm.

      Flagstaff 4. Acat already got this one.

      And thank you for reading and replying.

      A cherry on top of this Sunday morning:

      I fully agree with those who say “eliminate the tax on businesses” because what isn’t taken in taxes will be passed on to ownership (shareholders), where it will be taxed anyway. This double taxation is why we have loopholes to favor some companies (but not others) and why companies rarely pay the full corporate tax rate–they figure ways around it, but by the time dividends/profits are taxed a second time at the individual level, the rate of taxation on an individual dollar of profit is much higher than is usually reported.

  • znjs

    How long do you think it takes before a Dem president makes it only 0% for those manufactures that hire only union workers? Or how long does it take before “green” companies are given the 0% rate?

    Even if the idea is sound in principle, exceptions in government treatment of different organizations always and forever end up being special favors to special interests.

    • quill67

      At least with a 0% rate, we are giving them a subside. What is the subside now to buy a Chevy Volt? 5 K or is it now 10K per vehicle. A zero % tax rate would be an improvement over that.

  • steveprost

    One of the main rejoinders mbecker gives here for not believing Santorum is truly anything other than a big govt guy despite his more conservative and more detailed plans than Romney is Sarbanes Oxley in this thread… yet that was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. mbecker, and sobieski, can you not concede this is pretty pathetic proof for you to try to pass off as a primary evidence that Santorum (who has been strong in wanting to repeal this) is a big govt pro-regulation guy esp. when compared to your health-care-mandate-supporting TARP-supporting candidate alternatives? Passing off Romney as more fiscally conservative than Santorum is I suspect a cover for a hidden desire by many (especially here) to move social conservative issues not just to the back burner, but off the stove.

    • aesthete

      Seeing as how there’s almost no connection between what you’ve said and what mbecker and JSob said above.

      It’s sad that you think this is a rebuttal of any sort.

    • jamesm

      destroys the argument agains Santorum. (especially now that he wants to repeal it)

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        If you think this defense makes your candidate look better, you’re doing it wrong.

        • jamesm

          Total humiliation of anyone using this argument against Santorum. Just proves that intelligence and balance are not required from certain members of the commentariat

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Conservative that is. Isn’t much of a leader either if you’re using this argument that everyone else did it.

            We’re interested in electing a leader, not a follower.

          • jamesm

            So who was the court holder and who were the jesters pushing this
            line of argument?

          • JSobieski

            I guess that is better than:

            Romney 2012: Because only I can match Obama’s substantive cliche’s cliche for cliche

            Or

            Newt 2012: Because it will take a huge ego to blow up DC

            There are relatively few people with consistent conservative records in the Senate. I can think of two who qualify–DeMing and Coburn.

          • acat

            Going along with it when going against it wouldn’t have been a black mark shows weakness… not strength.

            Further, what of the rest of Santorum’s non-conservative votes? Does Medicare Part D matter? What about No Child Left Behind? What about his vote against repealing Davis-Bacon?

            Santorum’s non-conservatism cannot be wished away by finding the rest of the people were, at one point, also fooled.

            Further, I’ll note that the Santorum supporters are developing the same tic the Romneybots have .. don’t defend your guy’s vote (by, perhaps, arguing that SarbOx was “good” in some way…) but instead tear down everyone else.

            Is Conservatism reduced to a washtub full of crabs?*

            Mew

            * don’t need to put a lid on a washtub full of crabs, any of ‘em start to climb out, the rest will pull ‘em back in.

          • jamesm

            He wants it repealed! There is a big hole blown in the bow of the Anti-Santorum ship. To use Sarbanes-Oxley is small minded.

          • acat

            Lincoln applies.

            “You can fool all of the people some of the time…”

            Just because Santorum got fished in along with the rest of the Senate does not provide an ideological defense of SarbOx, or of Santorum.

            Your inability to see this calls your understanding of conservatism into question.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            able to see the error is unbecoming. You cannot name one conservative senator that did not vote for Sarbanes-Oxley. He explained why he voted for it and why he wants it repealed.Now if he was still for it (Romney and Romneycare) I would be totally against voting for him. Are your whiskas getting in the way?

          • acat

            If every Senator votes for a non-conservative bill, then *every senator* gets a black mark on their record. Period.

            Is your misunderstanding of conservatism getting in the way?

            Mew

          • jamesm

            voted for Sarbanes-Oxley? Have you ever said that “Santorum wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley? Truth matters. Conservatives are fundamentally about truth.

          • acat

            You keep repeating the lie that “if everyone does it, it must not be wrong”.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            on this subject. Your logic is flawed if you believe that any senator voting for Sarbanes-Oxley was not conservative. You have completely ignored the fact that Santorum would repeal Sarbanes-Oxley.

          • acat

            First rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

            SarbOx is government interference in the private sector. by its’ definition not Conservative.

            That every Senator was scared to death of losing re-election if they didn’t Do Something following the Enron explosion does not excuse poor behavior any more than being drunk doesn’t excuse standing for the national anthem at a Cubs game.

            Mew

          • quill67

            Senators voted for Sarbanes-Oxley because people were demanding it. It was a stupid law but to vote against it probably meant certain defeat. So people who knew better voted for it hoping to keep their jobs and fix it in the future.

            Not right. But the first thing any congressman/senate needs to do is get elected. People may be wrong on 5% of the issues at any given moment but agree with you on 95% of the remaining issues. Do you get throw out of office to temporarily stop a 5% issue so the Dems get the 95% issues that American disagree with them on?

          • acat

            we’ll need for Congress to pass it…

            Mew

          • quill67

            Our constitution is supposed to provide certain safeguards against our Federal Government getting too big. However, once the Feds could raise significant tax revenue, the rest was easy. Just appoint judges who would imagine new powers. The American people did not care and Congress could do whatever they wanted.

            I want someone who will point us back in the right direction. Gingrich or Santorum would but Romney would not because once health care is taken over by the Feds, our ability to shrink government will be lost.

          • acat

            Look ‘em up.

            Mew

          • quill67

            If we can’t win at the soapbox level. And if we can win at that level, we will win at the poll box and then it does not matter. That being said, it is important to have box four in the back of the minds so they never try to get rid of the balllot box (or the soap box)

          • acat

            We’ve had mixed success at the soapbox and ballot box, and we’ve lost significant ground in the jury box.

            I think, in part, this is because our politicians have forgotten that the fourth box exists .. and are thinking themselves masters, rather than servants.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Well, for some people they do.

          • JSobieski

            when what he really means is:

            Good on taxes conservative
            Average conservative on other fiscal matters conservative

            He can call himself “more conservative than Romney” without going two bridges too far with the “consistent conservative”stuff.

            We need to actually cut spending—-the fact that nobody has done that either should not be safety net for not doing it in the future.

          • jamesm

            No one was to the right of Santorum on this! Totally undercuts any other arguments against Santorum on fiscal issues if you can not trust a poster to at least try to be open an honest about regulations. Propounding any other argument has to be looked at with suspicion of overt bias or lack of knowledge of the facts.

          • acat

            Talk about trying to make a mountain out of a molehill…

            Mew

          • jamesm

            for not being conservative. Everyone! If your logic was applied there would not be one conservative senator in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote. Illogical at best.

          • acat

            Why is this hard for you to understand?

            Conservatism isn’t “what everyone else is doing”, it’s an intellectual rather than a mass-appeal movement. If you don’t get this, then you’re not a conservative.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            is not an ideal place from which to draw one’s “consistent conservative” leaders.

            Santorum is either a linguini-spined weakling without the courage of his convictions on this issue, or he actually thought it was a good idea. Either way, it’s a flip-flop in the here and now and one of many black marks on his record when it comes to regulations.

          • JSobieski

            Rick has not been some great force for deregulation . . . until he ran for President.

            Its not what his heart was really into. Its not what he was focused on. Its not really a part of who he was and what he was trying to do.

            To say that the rest of the lot was the same is a great argument for voting in favor of someone who is devoid of Santorum’s “experience” since that experience is for the most part being a by stander and going along with 8 years of bad policy.

            Santorum 2012: Because leadership means voting with the crowd?

            P.S. There were conservative voices in the public square who were speaking against S-O.

  • steveprost

    You seem almost as promiscuous as mbecker with the insults aesthete, and like him you seem to think namecalling substitutes for in-depth analysis. Here are quotes within this thread above:

    mbecker above: Come on gamecock, you think the guywho supported SarbOx is all of a sudden opposed to regulations? ….The only reason anyone would actually believe the bull that he?s spewing, now that he?s seen the light, is that they are dumb as a rock.

    JSobieski (Diary) Friday, March 16th at 1:41PM EDT:Rick voted in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley. He didn?t even slow it down as far as I can tell. Of course he now knows that it is ?burdensome?…

    Others: bk (Diary) Saturday, March 17th at 6:47AM EDT :He understood business in general well enough to vote for Sarbanes-Oxley? Knee-jerk reactions like that can be counted on to end up badly.

    Many are making Sarb-Ox proof of his great love for regulation so much so that it means you do not take him at his word now (or his record where he’s been rated by fiscally conservative orgs as the most conservative Senatorduring his tenure)… instead, with the fact I included it only is proof that he was… a Senator (oh no, lets pick a Mass. moderate-at-best, can’t have that)… and proof that you all are grasping at straws at your weak-kneed untested assumptions that those who are viewed as social conservatives can’t win.

    • jamesm

      This was real foolish for these people to attack Santorum’s fiscal conservativism and him not being adamant against over regulation. Everybody voted for it! Great post.

      • JSobieski

        is that they don’t admit that he stinks.

        I voted for Newt, and I admit all of Newt’s weaknesses—which are legion.

        Rational voters will acknowledge that we have 3 very flawed candidates–each with some glaring weaknesses.

        If in your view, Santorum is marginally better than the rest—that is a position I disagree with, but I can understand it.

        If you think Santorum is beacon of fiscal conservatism–you are deluded.

        Whether its the MSM medias fault or not, Santorum is not associated with driving fiscal policy in a conservative direction.

        The “everyone voted for SarbanesOxley” doesn’t fly any better than any of the other excuses that candidates give.

        Romney has excuses for Romneycare that involve a deep blue legislature. We are supposed to ignore Romney’s excuses while ignoring the fact that Santorum has to make his own excuses?

        How many bad policies and practices are defended on the basis of “everyone does it”? Santorum himself would not resort to such thin rationales.

        • jamesm

          There is no Reagan in this crowd. Newt was best and Romney is worst. Santorum is acceptable alternative. Pushing Santorum’s Sarbanes-Oxley vote has just been delegitimized as a reason to vote against him. Who voted against it? Which conservative? None.

          That line of argument against Santorum has imploded on this site. If people want to keep digging a hole, they can. lol

          • acat

            Get serious.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            but the line of argument that was pushed in regards to Sarbanes-Oxley has proven to be utter nonsense. No conservative likes Sarbanes-Oxley does that make Santorum not conservate? Brings into question whether attacks against Santorum are biased or well thought out. This was nothing but a biased attack on this issue. It should have been swatted down the first time it came up. But the persistence of the anti-Santorum’s. Now it’s proven that what they propagate is a best half truths.

          • acat

            instead of defending one single leaf… and a pattern of blight – pro-union, pro-big-government, pro-tax-and-spend – becomes quite clear.

            The attempt to defend this one leaf because “everyone did it” appears disingenuous in that light, eh?

            Mew

          • jamesm

            first.

          • acat

            Not what you meant? Knew it was too good to be true.

            Look, you have yet to address Santorum’s vote against repealing Davis-Bacon, or his votes for Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind.

            Those, taken together with the vote for SarbOx sure look like a large-government pattern.

            Santorum’s whole record is up for examination, and unlike Romney supporters, you don’t have the “excuse” that any deviations from Conservatism are justified “because it’s Massachusetts” or “because that’s how business gets done”.

            Defend SarbOx. It’s really your only hope here.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            you are getting ridiculous. Are you dense. No conservative senator voted against Sarbanes-Oxley. Now most if not all want it repealed. What you think on conservatism is compromised by your lack of clear thinking on this subject. Time to move on

          • acat

            You are attempting to deal with Santorum’s SarbOx vote by saying “everyone did it, so it must be okay” .. Any parent of a teenager knows this argument is B.S. It will not fly if Santorum is the nominee.

            You need to find a better argument. Period.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Santorum VOTES in favor of S-O, and that . . . doesn’t show anythnig about Santorum? That argument is neutralized?

            A vote for bad policy is neutralized for Rick.
            A public discussion of bad health policy is something Rick and his supporters wanted voters to focus on in deciding Rick was better than Newt.

            You have to admit that the logic above is incoherent.

          • aesthete

            The line of argument was that when Santo was in power, he was not all that concerned about regulations — and that he voted for one of the regulations that he specifically cites as an example of harmful over-regulation. Since he has offered no apology or compelling evidence for conversion (quite the opposite; he’s proud of being a team player!), it stands to reason that his lack of concern when he was in power is not an indicator of greatness on these issues should he get into power again.

          • JSobieski

            these highly artificial “neutralization” arguments are just a way of saying we expect our guys to go with the flow.

            One reason I kind of like Newt is that he has less of that “get along” bug than anyone else.

            Sorry if you think bringing up holes in the “consistent conservative” candidate constitutes an implosion—-but only one of the 3 supported Sarbanes Oxley.

          • trickamsterdam

            Consistent conservative = 87% ACU rating out of a Purple State. I could prove in court that an 87% ACU rating is the definition of consistent and of conservative.

            So there’s no need to put it in quotes as if there’s a logical argument to be made that Santorum wasn’t a consistent conservative…there isn’t.

          • JSobieski

            The problem with ratings is that they are focused on different things at different times.

            What would be Santorum’s rating on regulation issues? On the issue of regulation, can anyone point to anything where Santorum stands out either way?

            Would would Santorum’s rating on spending be?

            If you want to worship at the alter of the ACU rating, Newt is higher so vote for Newt!

            If you want to grade on a curve, you are playing Romney’s game.

            Just what real conservatives want (snarc), Romney and Santorum arguing about who is entitled to more of a curve! LOL

          • JSobieski

            I could “go into court” and prove that the impact of Newt was far more signficant than the impact of Rick in terms of moving government in a conservative direction.

            “But for” the role of Newt, no 1994 conservative revolution.

            “But for” the role of Rick, …..

            I realize that this isn’t some nice tidy ACU metric, but heck, you could go with that as well.

          • trickamsterdam

            No it isn’t because he’s obviously talking about Romney. Newt and Santo haven’t been running against each other since at least MI. Really since FL.

            Santo (whatever anyone thinks) conceded FL to Newt and Newt conceded MI to Santo. They competed in Alabama and Mississippi but are too scared of alienating each others voters to really go after each other. They’re both running against Romney.

            Only the strategy is different. Newt knows he can only get the nomination at a contested convention and Santo wants to win it out-right.

            “If you want to worship at the alter of the ACU rating, Newt is higher so vote for Newt!” – JSob

            There’s no need to deride it as “worship”. It’s objective evidence. And Newt fans in particular should be in favor because Romney’s people are trying to make the case that Newt wasn’t a conservative Speaker. His ACU rating is one of his best pieces of evidence.

            Look if your point is that Newt has the better resume you’re entirely correct. Unless Santorum wins the R nomination he’ll never be anything but a footnote in history.

            Newt will eventually be seen (when passions cool) as the Truman to Reagan’s FDR.

            My problems w/ putting “consistent conservative” in quotes is that it’s Romney’s game.

            He wants to pretend they’re all flawed so he can say “we’re all the same so why not go w/ the one who’s the most electable” (even though he’s not as electable as Santorum and is not much more electable than Newt).

            Santorum and Newt are FAR more conservative than Romney (based on their records). And are both consistent conservatives. The main advantage Newt has over Santorum is that he’s smarter…a truly original thinker (the main quality I look at to determine a person’s intelligence).

            On the other hand Santorum has an infinitely better work ethic and is more humble. The story of the turtle and the rabbit is no children’s story…it’s a real lesson in reality. And maybe Newt should have read it again before he ran.

            As for me I’m going to strategically vote for whoever I think can keep Romney under the magic number of delegates and since I’m going to be voting in PA this year it may well have some effect on the brute’s (Romney’s) momentum as well as his delegate count.

          • Ann2012

            I like that sentiment very much. What qualifies for intelligence can sometimes be nothing more than one is very good at memorizing facts and figures from history, economics, political science or any other field of study.

            But the kind of intelligence that can literally change the world, in my opinion, comes from attributes other than just a photographic memory. Attributes such as what you wrote, ?original thinking,? I would also add creativity, innovation, wisdom, and a rare ability to see things outside of what?s already known.

            Visionaries are unique in politics, and I wonder sometimes if those that dominate politics are far more left brain dominant and that is why we never seem to find better ways to solve problems.

            Left and right brain dominant in this context has nothing to do with left and right politics.

            For example men tend to be left brain dominant. The left side of the brain processes information in a linear manner. It processes from part to whole. It takes pieces, lines them up, and arranges them in a logical order; then it draws conclusions.

            Women on the other hand are usually right brain dominant. The right brain processes from whole to parts, holistically. It starts with the answer and works backwards. It sees the big picture first, not the details. If you process primarily on the right side of the brain, you use intuition.

            I support Rick Santorum but I?ve often thought that Newt has those creative visionary abilities and is more right brain dominate than his brethren.

            When he talks about keeping the space program alive by finding ways for it to become financially self-supporting I understand his line of thinking, but what happens, like clockwork, everyone lines up to ridicule him as usual.

            Rick Santorum should be the nominee but Newt should be in the administration in a very important role, VP or any other role where he can have the most impact.

          • trickamsterdam

            Excellent post. And not just because it complemented my post. Although complementing my post was a big part of what made it excellent. :)

            Seriously though you’re right and I would also add that Newt’s popularity on this site and Santorum’s lack of it is because most political junkies who like to write (i.e. the kind of people who post here) can recognize Newt’s original thinking and Santo’s lack of it.

            When people say Santo isn’t as conservative as Newt it doesn’t make any sense unless you factor in that I think most of the people here are equating Newt’s superior intelligence w/ “conservatism” itself.

            In other words they think Newt is intelligent enough to understand conservatism and Santo isn’t therefore they think Newt is more conservative even though the voting records are virtually identical (88% ACU for Santo/92% ACU for Newt).

            Basically what I think people like aesthete acat jsob neil stevens l.wolf mbecker etc don’t like about Santo is that he doesn’t understand very much.

            But what’s curious is that everyone except maybe becker doesn’t say that he’s just not smart enough they question his conservatism instead.

            I was in PA btw when he lost by 18% (and I’m back now until at least summer) and I can tell you he ran an ultra-right reelection campaign. Too ultra right actually. If he would have backed off his principles in a bad year for Rs he would still have lost but probably by only single digits.

            The last thing he is is not conservative and the last thing he is is not consistent.

            People also don’t understand why he lost (that badly) btw. You need to know PA politics. PA is purple but it leans blue the same way MO is purple but it leans red. But it also has something else. People here don’t like it when its politicians make fools of themselves. Or even draw attention to themselves (E. Rendel is the exception that proves the rule).

            He was going to lose anyway in that bad year for Republicans but the “man on dog” fiasco led to it being double digits. If you notice B. Casey jr and J. Toomey have completely different voting records but almost the same personalities. This new R governor I haven’t literally seen even one interview from (though he’s been instituting reforms on par in many ways w/ the governors of WI OH FL IN etc).

            That’s the way people in PA like it. BTW Santorum’s been totally forgiven by the people of PA (IMO). His underdog campaign never giving up people will lick that up here like icecream….or maybe like Romney’s dog licked up its own drool when the sun beat down on it while it was chained on the top of Romney’s car…IMO Santorum will take this State in both the Primary and the General Elections.

            As to your point about Right/Left side of the brain I agree and I’m the same way. I start w/ the big picture and then work backwards. It’s why it frustrated me that Newt fans wouldn’t vote strategically against Romney since it should have been obvious Romney was more dangerous to Newt than Santorum (i.e. Newt had a better chance in a two man race w/ Santorum than a three man race w/ Santorum and Romney…or a two man race w/ Romney and Newt…because then Romney could’ve crushed Newt w/ his money again).

            But most (virtually all) the Newt supporters didn’t understand that. Being essentially very small thinkers most of them….all their limited minds could contemplate was being the “anti Romney”. Newt thought bigger than his supporters…that’s why he conceded MI to Santo…who couldn’t quite pull it off.

            What’s interesting about women in politics is that either they naturally think like men or pretend to (e.g. Hillary) so even w/ a woman President we may not get the benefit of that “intuition” type thinking.

            But I’ll tell you a dark side of it that’s going to haunt us. Elena Kagan. People thought she was a light weight. She’s not. It was a brilliant selection by Obama. The liberal Scalia. Both or them were really (Sotomayor too, the liberal Thomas). With her intuition and people skills combined w/ the intellect if they add a fifth liberal vote she’ll effective become the Chief Justice not J. Roberts.

            The things Kagen could do w/ her skills and power could bring the American Conservative Movement to its knees.

            So left-brain people might say: “Well then why wouldn’t you support Romney under any circumstances??”.

            Sorry guys it’s just my intuition. ;)

          • Ann2012

            http://www.redstate.com/DefendAndProtectTheUSA/2012/03/20/a-reply-to-a-post-from-another-topic/

          • aesthete

            The magnitude and severity of the trespass, recent trends, and differentiation between the rest of the sorry louts in Congress makes a difference. By that standard, RomneyCare’s basic features were overwhelmingly supported by many conservatives at the time of passage: should this exonerate Romney?

            I understand (and agree!) that we should support Santorum in the primary as a way of denying Romney his victory. I don’t have a problem with people who determine that their candidate is marginally better than the rest of the punks. I do have a problem with people shoveling crap in my face, and telling me it’s conservatism. Defining conservatism downwards, and acting on this debased version of conservatism, is one of many ways that we are suborning principles for the dubious purpose of licking some politician’s *sshole clean.

          • trickamsterdam

            Well Aesthete you’re one of the most intelligent people on the site. And so’s JSobieski.

            But then again I’ve never really been hurting for smarts myself. So since you basically wrote this post to defend JSob I’ll let the point you made in the Title Bar argue w/ his Signature…

            That way not only won’t I have to type I won’t even have to think:

            “Not all ?mandates? are created equal.
            Ronald Reagan supported federal income taxes.
            Jimmy Carter supported federal incomes taxes.
            You want to say that Reagan was no different than Carter on income taxes?” – JSobieski’s sig

    • acat

      which proves precisely nothing.

      Sarbannes-Oxley was criticized by conservatives prior to being passed. Voting for it proves nothing. Voting against it would have proven something .. alas, Sen. Santorum declined to do so.

      Leaving that aside, how do you explain voting against repeal of Davis-Bacon, or voting for Medicare Part D, both increase (or, to be precise, maintain the current artificially high) cost of regulation …

      How am I to square all these votes with Santorum’s small-government conservatism?

      Mew

      • trickamsterdam

        A country of over 300 million people can’t have a small government. So it can’t be squared w/ Santorum or any other Republican. Nor will Santorum admitting that in public get him anything but a Romney attack ad…so that Romney can get elected and do precisely what he criticized Santorum for.

        This site would have to switch from Republican to Libertarian (the Party not the philosophy) to advocate truly small government. No Republican who can get elected President will even try to do what you really want let alone succeed. And the Libertarian who tries won’t get elected (G. Johnson won’t get more than 5% of the vote tops).

        I’m serious. It’s not pretty but there it is.

        • aesthete

          Probably not within our lifetimes — but smaller than what we have now?

          Absolutely, that is possible! Just ask Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, the UK, Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, and several of the other developed (or semi-developed) democracies (or semi-democracies :) ) that have managed reduction of government in real terms just in the post-war era.

          I ask for directional change. Newt, for all his flaws (and they are legion), gave us the most directional change towards smaller government out of all the candidates still in the running. Santo gave us…? We all know what Romney gave us.

          Now, I don’t have a problem with strategic voting: vote for Santorum; take away Romney’s crown and hope for an outside shot at brokered convention goodness. I do have a problem with people telling me that Santorum is the new conservative and that I’m the un-conservative one in the event of a disagreement… just because he ain’t Romney. Sorry, but that’s not how it works.

          • trickamsterdam

            Oh my purpose on this thread is something completely different (Monty Python!) and really involves lurkers not regular posters like you me JSob acat jamesm whoever else.

            The problem w/ saying Santorum isn’t a conservative is it helps Romney and it’s also a lie…I’m not saying you or acat or JSob or anyone else whose posts I’ve read (to be honest I jumped into the middle of the thread and have only read you three) is lying.

            But it’s Romney’s meme. “We’re all the same so vote for me I’m the most electable”.

            He’s not the most electable but that’s his meme. So when people pretend (and it can only be pretend or bizarre definitions) that Santorum’s not a conservative that helps Romney…and I won’t allow that w/out refuting it.

            Romney was a failed one-term governor (w/ a 36% approval rating and it’s not because he was a Republican because the last three terms of Governors in MA had been filled by Republicans) who had no chance at re-election and was barely right of center.

            A two-term Senator out of a Purple State (that leans Blue) w/ an 88% ACU rating beats that by a hundred miles and running as far as conservatism.

            Now that Newt’s on the bandwagon for a brokered convention I don’t care if people vote for Newt…and yeah between him and Santorum Newt is the better man. Although Santorum is more electable because of PA and OH and no young gorgeous wife.

            But if I read it and am not busy I will challenge anyone who implies that Romney is even in the same zip code of conservatism of Santorum.

            It is a lie.

    • aesthete

      because none of those folks above was contending that Ricko is better or worse than Mittens on any of those issues. In fact, of the two that you quoted, I can tell you for a fact that 1) JSob would rather vote Santorum than Romney, and that 2) ‘becker holds both Romney and Santorum in equal contempt.

      You’re an idiot because you either ignored the blaringly obvious about their support for Romney, or because you hackishly fabricated it thinking you wouldn’t get called on it. So take your pick, moron.

      • stricia

        I believe the idiocy is due to the latter “because you hackishly fabricated it thinking you wouldn?t get called on it.” That is the m.o. after all.

      • trickamsterdam

        No. Not only does he prefer Romney to Santorum he openly admitted he’d vote for Ron Paul over Santorum.

        It’s on the Diary Santorumposted about Newt’s Moon colony. Perhaps the Full Moon was doing something to Becker? Tide goes in tide goes out.

        • aesthete

          but I remember him saying the same about Romney.

          Personally, I would rather have Ron Paul over Romney or Santorum, though none of the three are even close to my top choices for President.

          • JSobieski

            that I always supported Palin over Romney and that I would have voted Palin given the current crew.

            It was never a Palin hatred thing–it was always a comparative and hence relativistic analysis.

          • aesthete

            The current Republican nomination is Karaoke amateur hour.

          • acat

            (would still have preferred Pence or Daniels or Perry but .. wish in one paw, spit in the other, see which fills faster…)

            Mew

          • Bill S

            Palin is Einstein, Reagan, Winston Churchill and George Washington rolled into one in comparison to the bunch of no-ops that are left on the ballot.

          • acat

            (digging bombSMOD shelter)

          • David123

            is that, in some future election, we (the American people) wouldn’t have to elect some female leftist nitwit just so we could make history by electing a woman president.

            Another bonus is that President Sarah Palin would make our woman-hating enemies’ heads explode – and if Amoosenutjob is the problem, Sarah Palin is the solution.

            :-)

          • civil truth

            …given the level of invective in the campaign, I’m not ruling anything out. Not even a “draft Sarah” movement (and it’s inevitable parody “daft Sarah”).

            We now return to our regular programming…

          • ZootSuit

            How did we end up with “the bunch of no-ops that are left on the ballot”?

            I’m sorry but blaming the media or the “Establishment” or whatever is both a cop-out and inaccurate. Except for Mitt Romney (and in his own way, Ron Paul), the remaining candidates are the ones that “the [conservative] movement” wanted. Or at least wanted more than the other “conservative alternative” candidates.

            I know I am pessimistic and I know many here disagree but until we admit and address this fact, conservatism is doomed.

          • acat

            by which I mean the fusion of small-ell libertarians, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, moral-majority voters, etc. were – as usual – divided behind a dozen candidates… standing inside a dozen different tents -Pawlenty, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Barbour, Daniels, Palin, Johnson, Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum, Pence- pissing out…

            Meanwhile, Romney spent the last six years consolidating support among those controlling the GOP levers of power… Bolling in VA, for one example.

            It’s the mirror of how Reagan won the nomination in 1980, and it’s exactly how Bob Dole, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, and Gerald Ford won their nominations. The exceptions are Reagan and George W. Bush .. and the latter is debatable.

            The vaunted “fusion conservatives” no longer exist, there’s too much jockeying for control of a failing (arguably, failed) coalition, and not nearly enough effort put into rebuilding it, even here on an allegedly “Conservative Activist” web site.

            Why do we have these loser candidates? Because not a one of ‘em did what Reagan did – start “uniting the clans” in 2006 or 2009.

            Not. One.

            That said, I still think the three (excluding Ron Paul) are better than Obama .. but in a “Nixon is better than Humphrey” way.

            Mew

          • ZootSuit

            It’s the conservatives that are choosing the nutjobs!

            Michelle Bachman. Herman Cain. Consider the subject of this diary, Rick Santorum. I understand it if the “social issues only” type of conservatives want to consider him a conservative but it’s those who are trying to convince themselves (and others) that Santorum’s economic plans are conservative that I have a problem with.

            And many conservatives are doing just that. You want an example?

            The original poster!

            That’s what I have a problem with and why I think conservatism is in deep, deep trouble. A trouble caused not be the media, not ny liberals, not by anything but conservatives themselves.

            Indeed, I find it interesting that you use the example of Richard Nixon (who I think was one of the four worst Presidents in American history). Personally, I think the country would have been a lot better off if Hubert Humphrey was elected in 1968 instead of Richard Nixon.

            It was Nixon how gave us:

            - wage and price controls
            - explicit racial quotas (yes, it was the Republican Richard Nixon instead of the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who gave us explicit racial quotas with his Philadelphia Plan of 1969)
            - the Justices behind Roe v. Wade
            - took us off the gold standard
            - gave us the EPA

            And much more but need I go on?

            And, of course, he did all this as a “conservative”.

            From my point of view, your referencing Richard Nixon actually proves my point.

          • acat

            with Nixon losing to Humphrey. Unfortunately, Wallace made that rather impossible, eh?

            The question today is whether we would be better off – and if so, in the short or long term- with a second Obama term, or with another GOP squishy running the show… and my crystal ball is in the shop.

            If Obama wins, it’s almost guaranteed we’ll have two more young liberal justices on the court .. and they won’t be as good as Kagan or Sotomayor. If he loses, we get … who knows? Sadly, looking at the ones likely to retire, that’s actually an improvement….. Breyer’s 73, Scalia’s 76, Kennedy’s 75, Ginsberg’s 79 .. imagine if all four are replaced by Obama picks. Game over.

            If Obama wins, it’s almost guaranteed he’ll be doing more by executive order and through the bureaucracy .. so we might get some 10th amendment and some congressional oversight jurisprudence … but that would involve .. the supreme court. If Obama loses, we’ll get at best gridlock and at worst the sort of Dem-Lite nonsense…

            I would say it comes down to one important question – are the voters still interested in real change?

            One point I do want to make sure we’re clear on is the definition of terms. The usual “fusionist conservative” formulation lists fiscal-conservatives, social-conservatives, and libertarians.

            I add “moral majority voters” to this, because it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of folks calling themselves “conservative” who aren’t… they’re something else … Their claims to conservatism are weak because they’re missing the intellectual rigor that some of us strive for…

            Eh. Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s better to get the 40 years in the wilderness started. I might just live long enough to see the end of it.

            Mew

          • civil truth

            …for historical guidance as how to preserve conservatism (and its intellectual perigree) through the coming darkness if we as a nation don’t change course. The same may apply to Christianity.

          • civil truth

            Must have had my head in the stars… :)

          • trickamsterdam

            Well you kinda did speak for him when you said he held Romney and Santorum in “equal contempt”. I don’t. I think Romney is a cockroach and Santorum is a King (compared to Romney).

            But now let’s let ‘becker speak for himself:

            “Actually, Rick is the worst candidate of the four.
            mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, February 5th at 11:01PM EDT (link)
            At least Ron Paul has been consistent in his stupidity for 30 years.
            Romney has executive experience in both the private and public sector.
            Newt is the only one of the lot who?s actually ever accomplished anything conservative as an elected official.
            The Senator was a second string Senator who spent his career supporting every big-government program that came along and doing what he was told by the leadership.” – mbecker

            http://www.redstate.com/rjsantorum/2012/02/05/growing-opportunities-on-earth-rather-than-colonies-on-the-moon/

            PS – As far as the stuff down thread I like S. Palin but Newt is basically Palin w/ a higher IQ so I’m not sure where you’re all going w/ that unless you were being sarcastic…always possible on the Internet.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          I’ll take Newt over Santorm or Romney.
          I’ll take Mitt over Santorm any day of the week.
          I’ll take Ron Paul over Santorum even if he is a racist.

          Hell, I’d take Palin over Santorum.

          He’s the least conservative candidate we’ve nominated since maybe Ford. He’s spent his entire professional life accommodating the Washington power structure. His tax plan is nothing more than a paean to them, it increases the power of the Congress and does exactly nothing off the margins for manufacturing. Then there’s his attempt to make nice with unions.

          I’ll vote for him in the general and I’ll likely vomit both before and after. He’s George Bush on steroids without the good parts, zero executive experience, zero leadership experience, spent his life doing as he was told.

          The good part is that he’s got no path victory.

          Oh, and while I am certainly no fan of Romney, he’d do way less damage to the nation and way, way less damage down ticket than the boy in the cheap sweater. Santorum is nothing more than Obama on the right. Never had a job, creature of political power and has an agenda that he’d like to expand Washington to accomplish.

          • civil truth

            Several here have expressed support.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            He’d have a pretty good shot.

    • Ann2012

      But I do have a simple question about following a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

      For people unfamiliar with Sarbanes Oxley here is a brief overview:

      —————————————————-

      The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The era of low standards and false profits is over; no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law.”

      As a testament to the need for stricter financial governance SOX-type laws have been subsequently enacted in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, India, South Africa, and Turkey.

      Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Opponents of the bill claim it has reduced America’s international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, saying SOX has introduced an overly complex regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets. Proponents of the measure say that SOX has been a “godsend” for improving the confidence of fund managers and other investors with regard to the veracity of corporate financial statements.

      —————————————————-

      My question is the following, if one is going to judge whether someone is ?conservative? by using their vote on S.O. then wouldn?t you have to conclude that using the above listed vote tally (only four opposed in the House and Senate)that only those four were conservative. You?ve just eliminated 522 members who voted for it being able to call themselves conservative.

      And if that were true, then almost no one in Congress is conservative and it is a dying ideology. And if it?s an ideology not worthy of support then there must be something inherently wrong with it.

      It seems like this is a no-win situation for those arguing that S.O. is definitional as far as someone?s conservative credentials are concerned and the following must be true:

      1. Virtually no one in Congress is conservative

      2. Conservatism is so inferior an ideology that it cannot find adherents.

      Cat said something interesting:
      ?[conservatism is] an intellectual rather than a mass-appeal movement.?
      That really does explain a great deal. And from that one could add:

      3. Conservatism is a superior ideology but the masses i.e. politicians and the electorate are ignorant of that fact. So the ?true? conservatives will rarely be in a position to govern for a long period of time due to the ignorant masses that they must share a country with.

      • JSobieski

        However, S-O is a black mark against Santorum.

        Campaign Finance Reform passed with a large majority as well, and that statute was blatantly unconstitutional.

        There are few people in the Senate who are reliably conservative.

        If you want to grade politicians on a curve—go ahead.

        But that is exactly what Romney wants and relies on.

        The issue of S-O came up in the first place because Rick’s record of being a crusader for deregulation is . . . scant.

        • Ann2012

          .

          • Ann2012

            ..

          • JSobieski

            3d pick? Any GOP with a pulse

          • Stricia

            Also, I wonder if in a brokered situation if the VP pick comes more to the forefront. We may just find out the answer to that question.

          • Dave_A

            NTXT

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and Newt are much better than Mitt and all three are MUCH< MUCH< MUCH better than Obama. That Other Guy is off the charts a kook.

  • unsk

    Considering the enormous impact of the disastrous depression we are in, neither Santorum’s or Romney’s economic programs even comes close to adequately address our serious economic issues.

    Santorum’s advocacy of a targeted manufacturing corporate tax cut illustrates what is so wrong with his and Willard’s approach to the economy. The government simply should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Government intrusion, cronyism, preferential treatment and insistence on control of the most minute of acts is the real reason we are in this depression.

    Government has just got to get out of the way. The economy will absolutely not get substantially better until it does.

    Neither Santorum or Romney’s programs or histories auger well for getting government out of the way. Both of these two have built their careers on serving the interests of the Big Union, Big Wall Street, Big Government Crony Elite. What is often lost in this discussion of government incentives is that government regulation not only hurts many a small business, but it also helps Big Business squish their competition. The interests behind much of these incentives and regulations are very powerful, and they just happen to be the largely the same interests both Santorum and Romney have been in bed with their entire careers.

    Oh sure both Romney and Santorum say they want to cut back regulation but neither has a well thought out strategy to do so, and neither seems to grasp the difficulty, enormity and gravity of the situation. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of abusive regulations that are strangling business and manufacturing business in particular. These regulations are not just Federally sanctioned; many come from State and Local government as well.

    Many people are not aware, including unfortunately it seems many here at REDSTATE , that the Nanny Police State Regulation Mill has been working overtime for many years -long before Obama took office – to create an nearly unbearable regulatory burden that stifles all but the most resilient entrepreneurial endeavor. The reach, breath and absurdity of many of these regulations is just unbelievable. And the common thread of many of these regulatory abuses is that they violate willy nilly, our rights to life, liberty and property, equal protection and due process. It seems as if our Constitutional liberties have all been rolled up and thrown in the trash. And here again, there is a problem with Willard and Rick. Both over their long careers have joined far too often with the Progressive Big Union, Big Business do gooders to run roughshod over the Constituion. To expect these life long Crony Politicians to now abandon their friends and take up the ugly, difficult and grueling battle to restore our liberties and cut back regulations favorable to their friends is just beyond belief.

    The number and complexity of the onerous, destructive regulations hamstringing our economy is just too great to use a strategy that attacks each one politically. We need a systematic, methodical and effective framework from which we can scale back or hopefully eliminate all the abusive regulations destroying our business environment.

    The only strategy I see working is one based on the restoration of our Constitutional liberties. This is where our government has jumped the tracks into a near Police State, and this where we need to attack to regain some sense of reasonable regulatory review.

    The Constitution was meant to protect our rights and liberties from exactly the tyranny of regulatory over-reach we now face. It seems the only fig leaf of justifications to be found in the Constitution for this regulatory over-reach are the General Welfare Clause , the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause. If any of these present regulations are necessary, ( some are) and we are to again have the constitution reign as the supreme law of the land, what is needed is a due process review that thoroughly and conclusively proves that any regulation is really justified to infringe our rights to Life , Liberty and Property as guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment.

    The onus has to be on those politicians and regulators to prove that any regulation they promote actually promotes the General Welfare preferably through some sort of cost/benefit – risk/reward test that is backed by a near consensus across the political spectrum. If our rights are to be the least bit infringed, then there has to be one hell of a good reason to do it, or it should not be done.

    Over the last fifty years there has been an Nanny Police State regulatory onslaught of our rights and lives. So I believe we need a methodical, lawfully constitutional review of all those Federal, State and Local laws, regulations and ordinances enacted over those fifty years, as well as new ones, to again regain some semblance of reasonable regulatory review. We must fact the fact that our system of regulatory review is now badly broken and is the main cause of many of our economic ills. Unless we fix our regulatory system that is destroying our productive business sector, and quick, we are probably headed for an economic collapse that will likely obliterate our society and our nation as we know it.

    • quill67

      What is the first step to getting moving in this direction that is smart politically?

      Maybe getting rid of Dept. of Educ. and sending money directly to parents as a voucher for their school.

      Maybe moving certain EPA regs to state arbitration boards that could mediate difference between states. (and only states that could show harm by pollution in another state could bring case)

      • Dave_A

        All too often, ‘federalisim’ is listed as the cure for every problem…

        The problem is, if something is messed up when the Feds do it, often the states will just make it worse – especially since the states aren’t limited to constitutional ‘enumerated powers’…..

        The question is ‘should we regulate this’ more than ‘what level of government should regulate it’.,..

        It’s ‘Do we need an NLRB’ not ‘should we have 1 NLRB, or 50 SLRBs?’

  • Dave_A

    He’s half-right in that ALL corporations are overtaxed in the US, and a 0% tax rate is a great way to encourage corporations to set up shop in the USA.

    He’s wrong for only applying it to manufacturing, and for favoring a ‘re-industrialization’ (economic backsliding) over accelerated deindustrialization & the growth of a post-industrial economy.

    Now, I support Santorum, and I’m willing to hold my nose & swallow the pro-manufacturing rhetoric if it gets me (A) not-Romney as the nominee and (B) a GOP victory in November…

    But the fact is, eventually someone has to level with the ‘rust belt’ and tell them ‘Hey guys, high pay for high-school education is dead unless you want to work oil-&-gas or join the Army – manufacturing is gone & it’s not coming back’….

    We need to replace the jobs formerly provided by manufacturing, with an influx of white-collar corporate jobs – the very thing a universal no-corporate-tax would bring (by poaching corporate HQs & other multinational activities from other countries)….

    • quill67

      In England, there did not use to be a “corporate tax” All taxes were paid by the households. A corporation’s earnings would be added to the stockholder’s private income and taxed at that individual’s rate.

      It was changed in an effort to get corporations to reinvest more money in capital; Since the earnings would be taxed twice (once for the corp. and again when paid to the individual) if the corporation paid profits to the stockholder, the thinking went, then the corporation would not pay out as much in profits and reinvest it in new capital helping workers get higher wages—never mind the fact that this kept the money from going to its most highly valued use)

      • Dave_A

        You end up with end-of-year buying sprees & misallocation of resources across the board….

        Yet another reason why the corporate tax needs to go…