The FairTax received a significant endorsement today from Louis R. Woodhill, an entrepreneur and member of the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth:
Mike Huckabee’s recent surge in the polls has focused attention on the FairTax, which would replace personal income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate income taxes, and the death tax with a national retail sales tax.Read the full article...
There are many benefits to the FairTax, but the most important one is economic growth. By replacing taxes that burden capital investment with a tax that falls 100% on consumption, the FairTax would produce dramatically higher levels of investment, productivity, wages, and GDP growth. You would hear a “great sucking sound” as investment was pulled into the U.S. economy, not only from the rest of the world, but via the savings of our own people.
Right now, the Social Security Trustees forecast the real long-term growth rate of the U.S. economy at about 2.0% per year. This is a reasonable projection of what current policies would yield. However, I believe that adoption of the FairTax would increase growth to at least 3.5%.
How significant is the difference between 2.0% and 3.5% real growth? Let’s look at the numbers over a 75-year period, the way the Social Security Trustees do.
Our economy would be almost three times larger in 2082 if we average 3.5% growth than it would be if growth averaged 2.0%. The “present value” of our GDP over the 75-year period would be more than 70% larger. The implications of this difference are staggering.
For one thing, the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare, which seem overwhelming today, would simply disappear.
In a WorldNetDaily column titled, Is it Down to Mitt and Mike?, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan weighs in on the Republican race and the importance of winning Iowa:
Though the 2008 GOP race may seem wide open, it is already probably down to three candidates, could be over by Jan. 4 and will probably be down to two by Jan. 9, the morning after New Hampshire.Read the whole thing...
Two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.
Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.
Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.
And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.
Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen.
Another new Iowa poll from Strategic Vision:
Mike Huckabee 31%A Zogby match up poll released yesterday shows Hillary losing to Huckabee in a general election, 48%-43%, while Romney loses to Hillary, 46%-44%. All the GOP candidates trail Obama, but with a margin of error of +-3.2%, Huckabee's deficit (5%) looks much better than Romney's (18%), Giuliani's (9%), or Thompson's (16%).
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 16%
John McCain 8%
Rudy Giuliani 6%
Ron Paul 5%
SurveyUSA just released some new state match up polls: