Herman Cain improvises

Maybe this isn't fair. Candidates often haven't worked out their policy positions before they run for office. On the other hand, Cain was mostly retired, was doing political commentary, and then decided to run for president, only the highest office in the entire country. So, yes, it is fair to expect him to have his plan worked out a little better than it appeared this week.

Monday - He says there will be tax relief for poorer workers living or working in "empowerment zones."

Friday - He announces the 9-0-9 plan for workers at or below the poverty line, meaning that they don't pay the payroll tax. Change of plans, I guess. The benefits for business of empowerment zones, well that's still being worked on.  (By the way, this website hasn't caught up yet either.)

Here's what I think: Herman Cain latched onto someone's economic plan. It sounded good in the echo chamber, but not so good out in the real world that contains 1) poor workers 2) noisy liberals in the media that will point out the plan's effect on poor workers.

So Cain conferred with his economic adviser, trying to alter the plan for the real world after the tour bus is on the road. Between Monday and Friday somebody pointed out that poor workers may live somewhere outside of an "empowerment zone." Cain, as a former poor child, should have known this already. Actually, everyone in this country should know this.

Soon we'll hear about problems with the 9-0-9 plan. I've got two already:

1. How does the government know you're under the poverty line unless you file a tax return? 
2. If you're under the poverty line, you don't have any incentive to get slightly over the poverty line unless the income tax is phased in. So there be 9-1-9 plan, then 9-3-9 plan, etc?

Maybe this commentator is right--Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan Is Disintegrating In Front of Our Eyes.

Herman with his favorite focus group

9 + 9 + 9 Doesn't Equal a Plan

Unfortunately, I have to do more debunking. This time the topic is Herman Cain's 999 plan. He's touting this plan quite a bit, and the press is falling down on its job of checking his claims.

Broadly, Cain's plan is to tax all sales 9%, all wages and salaries 9%, and business profits 9%. There would be no other federal taxes--no other payroll taxes, no capital gains tax, no estate tax. Deductions would be severely limited, maybe only charitable gifts would be exempt.

With such major change to the tax structure, would the federal government be collecting the same amount of tax, or would it create even larger deficits? According to Cain, this plan provides the same revenue. But he doesn't provide analysis.

So the analysis is left to motley horde of the internet, which is my favorite horde. Think Progress estimates this:

• $665 billion from tax on wages/salaries
• $112 billion from tax on business
• $500 billion from tax on sales
• $1.12 trillion total

Bloomberg News has this estimate:

• $913 billion from tax on wages/salaries
• $128 billion from tax on business
• $920 billion from tax on sales
• $1.96 trillion total

Critiques of this plan are so rare, I have to include this one from either a joke or racist site:

• $1.13 trillion from tax on wages/salaries
• $270 billion from tax on business
• $378 billion from tax on sales
• $1.78 trillion total

Now, I'm rather ticked that I can't find more information on this plan. In fact, one of the best sources is the Christian Post. That isn't totally surprising, since Cain first explained the rate for his plan at a Christian conference. Cain says in his video introduction of the plan "If 10% is good enough for God, then 9% should be just fine for the Federal Government."

That statement doesn't allay my doubts, maybe because "trust me" or "God will deliver" aren't reassuring to the hard scientist in me. On comment threads, Cain's supporters even throw out this one:

Let's see. Herman Cain has a degree in mathematics and a Master's degree in computer science. You have an English-major understanding of math.... What is more likely is that Herman Cain explained his economic policy quite clearly and ... anyone with more than an English-major understanding of math would understand....

Look, don't whip out your degree from Harvard or Yale or wherever and expect me to stop asking the question. Instead, go borrow Glenn Beck's unused chalk board and write up your figures. I'm completely capable of checking the math... and of calling bullshit on a candidate who won't give us the math. I'm waiting, Herman...

Major Update!!!!
And Correction

10/12/11 - Cain's economic adviser finally released some figures to Bloomberg. For people like me, who like tangible things like pounds and dollars and hard numbers, this was big news. To most of the media... I guess they gave up on math long ago. But bear with me.

• $7.7 trillion in wages/salaries x 9%  =             $693 billion
• $9.5 trillion in business gross income x 9% =  $855 billion
• $8.3 trillion in taxable sales x 9%     =            $749 billion
• Total   $2.3 trillion --on par with current revenues

But look again at the numbers. Cain's plan overestimates sales by 35% over Bureau of Labor stats. Wages/salaries are on par.

Now the correction: I had written that the business tax was on profits. I was wrong. The tax is on gross income minus certain major deduction. I haven't been able to check whether $9.5 trillion is reasonable or not. I tried, and found that the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported $21.6 trillion total private industrial output in 2009. Now, that confuses me because I thought our annual GDP was approximately $14.6 trillion. So where does the extra come from? Trade deficits? I've reached my limit on trying to understand this on my own. I hope some journalist with real economic understanding will clear this up.

Update 10/21/11. I finally noticed the inconspicuous links to the plan details on Cain's website. But they just lead to more confusion. Good luck if you go there.

Republican Goldilocks

Not too hot, not too cold, just right.

It's so hard to find a candidate who's just right. The Republican have been trying to find and draft "President Right" since 2009. Think of all the names that have been floated: Palin, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Mitch Daniels, Huckabee, Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Perry. Now there's talk of drafting Christie because he maintains his bulldog demeanor in all circumstances and no one can imagine him getting flustered.

This is reminiscent of 2007 when the Republicans went through these front-runners: Fred Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee (any others?). When they eventually decided on McCain, it was with great reluctance. I remember long-time Republicans talking about holding their noses when they voted in the primaries, and again, if less so, in the election. Just after the election, they were again complaining that McCain wasn't a real Republican, and that's why he lost. If only the Republicans knew the same sentiment is endemic among the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, and their words are practically interchangeable with the words of their prime target.

Nothing cures that longing better than giving in, going whole hog, and picking a really strong conservative candidate. So the Republicans shouldn't pick Romney. He may be more electable, but he's walking buyer's remorse. They should choose a through-and-through conservative like Perry, Cain, or Bachmann. Then they'll either win the presidential election, and they can celebrate without reserve; or there will be a rocky campaign as the candidate either flubs the message or the country rejects the extreme version of conservatism.

If the election is lost with a strong conservative at the head of the ticket, Republicans will get the lesson they need: You can nominate a candidate who is too far right. Democrats got this lesson back in 1972, and they've never forgotten. That's why Nader or Kucinich can run in the Democratic primaries, but they'll never get close to the nomination. The Democrats learned that lesson but good. No repeat needed.

In A Progressive's Dream

Update 9/29/11. You have got to watch Jon Stewart's much funnier take on the Goldilocks situation. If you watch from the beginning you'll get to enjoy some ribbing of teachers, then continue with the clips for edgier jokes about Santorum, Perry, and Brit Hume. I recommend watching the whole thing.

Update 10/24/11. I've changed my mind.  The Republicans should think long and hard, realize that they are not doctrinaire in their conservatism, and pick Romney. There is no candidate who is both "very conservative" and "intellectually coherent."  It should be possible for the Republicans to find someone who is both, just as there are people who are both kind and beautiful. But it isn't happening with the current crop of candidates. No more names are being tentatively floated. I draw the conclusion that the Republicans have gotten so extreme that they've spooked their own best and brightest. Time for some balance, guys, though it looks like it's too late for this nomination. Romney is your punishment.