The Real Problem with Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” Plan

It may not seem like it at first glance, but Herman Cain’s campaign has a serious problem. I’m not talking about the women making claims of inappropriate behavior. There has been a bigger problem. The interesting part is that Cain is flaunting it, it’s just that most haven’t put two and two together.

Let’s consider Cain’s “9-9-9” plan. It moves us to a 9% income tax, a 9% business tax, and a 9% national sales tax. If you’d like to get an idea of how it plays out, here’s what Cain’s campaign has put out on it.

Whether or not the plan will work out is currently irrelevant to this discussion. But this plan could be said to be THE key plank in Cain’s platform. It is one part of two key things he’s running on.

The other key plank is the fact that he’s not a career politician. Right now, the race is full of those who have been in politics for some time. This is especially true if one looks at the front runners. Mitt Romney’s father was governor of Michigan, he was governor of Massachusetts, and he’s been in this race more than once. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for about a decade. Cain on the other hand, sells himself as being the political outsider. He’s the only one in the debates that isn’t addressed with a title like Governor, Senator, or Ambassador (however, I do wish they’d stop asking the Ambassador questions). Herman Cain is just Mr. Cain.

And there lies the problem with “9-9-9.” It is a radically new tax code. I would argue it’s not that different of a change from our current tax code when compared to our Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. It’s pretty much a complete rebuild with very few elements of the original surviving.

What Cain is essentially doing is proposing a completely radical change to our tax code and then saying he has no experience in such matters. That seems like quite the challenge.

Think of it like this: Let’s say someone came up with a completely new way of building a house. Their design suggested that the finished project would have lower utility costs, would be more secure from buglers, would cost less to build, and was child-safe to boot. It sounds great and I’m sure people would line up to get this design for their next home. It’d be like if Apple was to release a new iPhone, iPad, and MacBook on the same day.

And then let’s say the person who came up with this design said “And I’m going to build it! Even though I’ve got no experience building a house!” I imagine the people in line would lose their excitement and try to find ways to sneak out of line without being noticed. They might think it’d turn out worse than if it was done by Tim Allen’s character on “Home Improvement.”

We’ll be right back after these messages from Binford!

We see this problem with inexperience in the White House right now. Part of the reason Obama can’t get anything done is because he doesn’t know how. His name isn’t attached to any major legislation prior to becoming President and what has his name attached to it now is pretty much universally hated. He didn’t even finish a single term as a senator.

The only difference is I’m thankful Obama has that problem because I imagine when he was in high school, he’d scribble “I <3 Marx” on his notebooks with puppy dog eyes.

But the combination of Cain’s lack of political experience and his bold “9-9-9” plan are why I believe that if he got into office, he wouldn’t be a great president. He would push this one plan and without a clear mandate from the people (which I don’t believe he’s getting and I don’t think he has the talent to get), it’s not going to happen. His administration would be marked in history as a failure and America would look elsewhere in 2016.

Let’s also not forget that the GOP doesn’t have a majority in both houses right now and it’s not a guarantee that they’ll have a supermajority after the 2012 election either. So Cain would have to get this legislation passed with a sizeable opposition, and that’s assuming he can get every Republican on board. Everything is stacked against Cain getting “9-9-9” passed.

Quite frankly, Cain has what could be a great idea that improves out economy. Cain’s video calls it slaying the tax monster. But I don’t exactly see Cain having a history of defeating dragons, Godzilla, or Nancy Pelosi.

The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Is a Bad Idea

Some time ago, AT&T looked to pick up T-Mobile USA from their German parents Deutsche Telekom. Since then, it has hit a few road bumps. While many observers said it would be approved without a doubt, things are looking quite different. The FCC has decided that the merger is not in the best interest of the public. I’ve found I’m on a different page than many people expect me to be on this issue. I’m very much opposed to the acquisition.

The very title of this blog points to why that’s the case. I’m a conservative who believes in the constitution and capitalism. It’s the last of the three C’s that defines why I’m opposed to this merger.

Part of being a capitalist is understanding economics and how economics works. One thing to keep in mind is what a monopoly is and the problems with one. Anyone who has taken ECON 101 knows that a monopoly exists without competition and, therefore, crushes the benefits we get with competition. We lose the battle for the best product at the lowest price.

When it’s something that’s esoteric or something that people don’t depend on daily, that’s one thing. If someone opened a Russian and Indian restaurant in a town, it would probably be the only one and would have no competition. However, most people have no need or interest in such a restaurant and there are plenty of products they could substitute it with (like cooking at home). Chyron has historically been the only provider of on screen graphics for television production. But how many of us need a device to do that? Not many of us produce live television broadcasts. We can’t really say the same with cell phones since they’re a primary tool for communications for many people. I know when I don’t have my Windows Phone in my pocket, I feel lost.

Now someone reading this right now is probably thinking that it wouldn’t be a monopoly. We would still have Verizon and Sprint. Fair enough. But it does leave us with just one GSM carrier in the US. Even for those that don’t care about the difference between GSM and CDMA, their choices are still limited more than they would be otherwise. If the merger went through, Sprint would become a distant 3rd in the race and it wouldn’t take much for them to be forced out. Well then we’d be down to two choices.

The thing about capitalism is that the more players there are on the field, the more competition there is. Not only does a company have to compete with competitor A and B, they also have to compete with competitor Z. But as we slowly remove players in the market, the less one has to work to get and keep customers. That’s the problem we have in the cell phone industry today.

With only two players in the market, or a duopoly, we near characteristics of a true monopoly. It’s easier for two companies to engage in price fixing than if there was more competition.

Look at the market right now. Most people have to pay for a texting package if they want to send SMS messages. These packages currently cost as follows (for unlimited texts on a single plan):

• $20.00/month on AT&T
• $20.00/month on Verizon
• $10.00/month on T-Mobile
• $10.00/month on Sprint

Now here’s the kicker: it costs the cell phone companies next to nothing to send a text message. These rates are about 99.9% profit. That’s not very competitive or consumer friendly. But then that’s what you get when there’s not much competition.

Right now, a cheeseburger and a small fries at McDonald’s costs about $2. That’s about the same price as a Happy Meal, which comes with a toy. Now imagine if for that toy that probably cost McDonald’s pennies to produce, they charged $8 more for the Happy Meal than the alternative of buying the other parts separately. But they don’t do that because they would lose business to Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Chick-Fil-A, Subway, Jimmy John’s, Arby’s, In-N-Out, A&W, Rally’s Chipotle, White Castle, Dairy Queen, Del Taco, KFC, Sonic, and I haven’t even mentioned all the Chinese places out there. That’s the difference when there are a dozen competitors instead of just a few.

And this is just a tip of the iceberg of this issue. There are a lot of ways the industry could be more consumer-friendly but it doesn’t happen because we’re already at a low number of competitors. In fact, it’s less consumer friendly than it was when I first got a cell phone about seven years ago. When I got my first smartphone in 2007 from Verizon, I had the choice of getting a data package or passing on it. Try doing that now. When I first got my cellphone in 2005, my family had a fairly small number of minutes. Since then, nobody offers a family plan with that few of minutes and when they first got rid of that plan, the new lowest amount cost more than what we were paying.

If conservatives are going to sing the praises of capitalism (and there are plenty and this is in no way to take away from them), they can’t be ignorant of potential drawbacks. It’s foolish.

From a Constitutional standpoint, the federal government has grounds for being involved in this issue. Art I Section 8 gives the federal government the role of regulating interstate commerce. Well when I make a call from my home in Michigan to my brother in Alaska, that’s interstate commerce. I’m using a T-Mobile tower in my home town and the call is being routed to a tower in the home state of Sarah Palin. My cell phone and plan also work if I leave the state and wander somewhere else. No matter how you cut it, the cell phone industry is interstate trade. T-Mobile has its headquarters in Washington. AT&T has their headquarters in Texas. Carriers talk about nation-wide coverage and not state-wide coverage. No matter how you cut it, it’s interstate commerce.

History is even on my side of this argument. There was a phone monopoly a number of years ago before cell phones. That monopoly has been broken up and I don’t think anyone’s saying that that was a mistake. What was the name of the company that was broken up again???

So because of the rules of economics and what’s written in our Constitution, this is really the only possible conclusion for conservatives to come to on this issue. Any other conclusion is a betrayal of what we know about economics and the Constitution.

Understanding our Republic

I think one of the first steps on my path to becoming a conservative started in school. I’ll never forget hearing my teachers tell me that we were a democracy while sharing the definitions of various types of governments. Among these types of governments included a description of a republic. To me, it just sounded like a better explanation of our government. I would say this to my teachers but the usual response was something along the lines of “But we call ourselves a democracy.” That’s actually not the right way to look at our government.

To get everyone up to speed, I thought I’d share the definition of a republic and the definition of a democracy. Wikipedia says that “Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” So a real world example of true “Democracy in Action” would be when a local government has a vote on a millage and every registered voter in the community gets to vote.

The definition of a republic from Wikipedia is different. It says “A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.” Dictionary.com goes on to add “A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.”

This is much more like our federal government. I didn’t personally have a say in ObamaCare. However, my representative and senators did.

Some may look at this and see both elements in our government. Sure, it was my representative and senators who had a vote in ObamaCare (republic), but it’s the people of my district and state that voted those people in office (democracy). However, one of these two is more important to the structure and operation of government.

Let’s remove all democratic elements of our government. Let’s imagine that instead of voting for our representatives in DC, they were chosen in a different fashion. Perhaps they’re chosen in a manner similar to jury duty. We can do this and the structure of our government is still the same. We still have a Congress representing us. We still have someone serving as the executive. We would still have a Supreme Court. Our three branches are sill around.

Now let’s remove all republican aspects of our government. The structure of our government goes away completely. We no longer would have anyone representing us. We would be the ones who vote on every single issue. Our government would be completely restructured. Because of this fact, we clearly have a republic.

Our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be a republic. The evidence can be seen in history. Consider our Pledge of Allegiance. It says “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.”

In his inaugural address, George Washington said “And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” The words “Democracy” and “Democratic” never show up.

In the Federalist Papers, the United States is called a republic and compared to other republics. In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton listed what he planned to discuss in his writings. In this he wrote “…to the attainment of this object the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government…”

So why does this debate matter? It defines our government and, therefore, how we view our government. When one looks at our government as a democracy, they’re going to view it differently. An example of this can be seen in a debate common in introductory political science classes. Should we keep the electoral college or move to a popular vote? With a democratic view of our government, the electoral college doesn’t make much sense. With a republican view of our government, that’s not so clean and clear.

Probably the most important thing to consider when it comes to a republican view of government compared to a democratic view is how one views the debate of “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Man.” Under a rule of man, an individual or a group of individuals (such as a mob majority) have the final say on all matters. Under a rule of law, the law has the final say. An example of this is the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

When one says the democratic elements trump the republican parts of our government, they are essentially negating the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by a group of representatives. After all, I never voted on the Constitution. So if the popular vote is most important, that means a majority are more important than the Constitution. Therefore, every protection and freedom provided by the Constitution can be wiped out by a simple majority vote of the population. The whole idea of being a republic is looking pretty good, isn’t it?

I created this picture to illustrate my point (and to have a chuckle at the expense of OWS). The Constitution was written and ratified by a small percentage of the country. 1% is actually generous. But the point is still clear. The document created by these people doesn’t necessarily represent the will of a majority on any given subject at any given time. But if we emphasize democracy over the republic, then we essentially erase this document and replace it with the mob.

And the mob can be controlled. This can largely be done by emotion. Look at a number of political ads that have appeared. Take this ad by the people at We Are Ohio:

Who are you again?

Issue 2 was about limiting collective bargaining by public sector employees (Senate Bill 5). This ad features an old lady talking about how firefighters saved her great-granddaughter. It provides no evidence that the bill would indeed lead to fewer firefighters, but it does make a heck of an emotional play. This old lady isn’t an expert in public finance, political science, or anything of that sort. The ad features no substance and silly rhetoric ("The politicians don’t care about the middle class. They’ve turned their backs on all of us”). But that shot of her and her great-granddaughter? Well in the court of public opinion that’s worth more than hard facts.

The power of emotions is just one part of the problem. President Obama’s “Attack Watch” website is another good example. The site is an attempt to tackle false information that’s working its way around the internet and news. On top of that, not every person is fully educated on every issue and topic. Is it easier to educate a few hundred people who showed the initiative to run for office or a few million that showed up because Diddy told them to or die?

That’s the danger we face when we look at our country as a democracy instead of a republic. We work so hard to obtain the characteristics of a democracy because we think we’re a democracy that we run the risk of ignoring the problems that come with that structure.

It’s not to say it’s going to all happen overnight. But it’s the direction we’re headed. Consider the 17th Amendment. It moved us from our state governments selecting our senators to a popular vote. Look at the polls on the nightly news. By and large, they look at what the general population thinks about a bill. Politicians look at what’s popular instead of what’s right. What else will change for our country all in the name of democracy?

So while some of my professors and colleagues believe I’m splitting hairs when it comes to this debate, I believe that it’s a very important distinction to make. How we define anything has a big role in how we view it. We must keep this in mind when it comes to our government.

Something for Your Sunday

Most of the time on this blog, I talk about politics and the sort. However, I spend my Sunday mornings at church and my Wednesday evenings at a Bible Study. I work with an organization called The Hungarian American Fellowship which works to bring the Gospel to orphans in Hungary that wouldn't hear it otherwise.

God is clearly something important to me. The Grace He provides me each and every day is among the best things going for me. So every now and then, I'll share something short and sweet related to this topic.

For the past week, this song has been stuck in my head. I thought I'd share it.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you

As Veterans Day approaches, my mind goes to those that risked and sacrificed so much to serve our country in the military. Their sacrifice does not go unnoticed.

I’ve had the honor of knowing some of these people. I remember my grandfather who flew during World War II. I think of an usher at my church that was there when the allies stormed Normandy. I see my friend Tom who is learning to become a helicopter pilot in the US military, sacrificing time away from his wife and family. I think of Steve, a teammate of mine from high school, who put his life on hold so he can go help make sure I’m free to live mine.

And then there are my students. While I give them the pitch to go to my alma mater, nothing impresses me more than when one says they’re going to join the military. I feel blessed to have played a role in their lives.

As a political science major and a political commentator, I like to talk about the Founding Fathers that gave us this country and our flag. But it’s the men and women of our military who won’t get their name in a history book that have kept this country and our flag from falling. They are the ones who deserve our respect more than any other group in American history.

I’m blessed by these men and women in more than one way. They are incredibly wonderful people. They’re giving, mature, and they truly are the best of us. They have encouraged me to be the same.

While I’m not able to serve due to a number of medical reasons, I don’t feel like our country has lost out too much in me remaining a civilian. That’s because those that are out there risking life and limb do such an amazing job. Consider some of their accomplishments:

• When facing the strongest military during the American Revolution, our men and women secured liberty for all of us.
• During the War of 1812, our nation’s Capitol was burning but they didn’t give up.
• When our country was divided in the Civil War, they stood up for what they believe even if that meant firing at a neighbor.
• When we entered World War I, they lived in the cold and damp trenches so freedom could survive.
• When we were facing Germany and Japan, they were able to win on both fronts.
• When communism worked its way into countries around the world, they went to defend those who were defenseless.
• When America was attacked on 9/11, they went out into harsh environments so we wouldn’t have to deal with that kind of horror again.

We are lucky to have these people represent us. It’s important that not only do we take the time to thank them, but also understand them, who they are, and what they go through.

Kim Kardashian divorce + pro-gay Star Trek cast-member = Stupidity

And the dream has ended. After being married for less than 3 months, Kim Kardashian and whoever she married are calling it quits. Before I get to the point of this post, here are a few things that last(ed) longer than a Kim Kardashian wedding:

• The wait for Android updates to arrive on your particular device
• Firefly’s run on Fox
• The time it takes to open that STUPID plastic packaging without going into a fit of rage or suffering from numerous deep lacerations to your hands
• The time between Bill Maher’s comments that actually have value
• Keith Olbermann’s career on MCNBC of all channels
• William Hung’s celebrity status
• A McDonald’s burger left out in the hot sun
• The virtual pet fad
• A member of Occupy Wall Street’s time in an actual college classroom
• A member of Occupy Wall Street’s last high
• The time between episodes of House where something different actually happens

Okay, now to the main point. During much of the joking around that inevitably took place after a wedding that lasted only a couple of months, George Takei of Star Trek fame and a number of mediocre films, TV shows, and commercials got in on the discussion. For those who don’t know who George Takei is, he’s one of the latest roles.

Regarding Kardashian’s recent divorce following her recent marriage, Takei tweeted “Kim Kardashian files for divorce after 72 days. Another example of how same-sex marriage is destroying the sanctity of the very institution.” After seeing this get re-tweeted a number of times, I got annoyed. What follows very well expresses what I said after reading Takei’s tweet:

I’ve heard this argument time and time again. It is so stupid at its very core, it’s amazing it’s still being used. Nobody is claiming that marriages that don’t even last as long as a 90-day warranty aren’t hurting the sanctity of marriage. So why do those who support gay marriage use divorce as an attempt to make those who oppose gay marriage look like hypocrites?

What Kim Kardashian did is pathetic. If it wasn’t, the whole internet wouldn’t be mocking her. If we thought it was acceptable, it wouldn’t be a headline. She’ll have to deal with the fallout and ramifications on her own. What Brittany Spears did with her marriage that lasted until the hangover wore off is also a disgrace. Nobody is defending these things and saying they’re fine or that they don’t hurt the sanctity of marriage.

Let’s set the record straight. Divorce rates being what they are today hurt the sanctity of marriage. Pre-marital sex hurts the sanctity of marriage. Affairs hurt the sanctity of marriage. Couples that play “house” prior to getting married just because they can hurt the sanctity of marriage. Gay marriage hurts the sanctity of marriage. That’s how it is.

For those who are lost or don’t see what I’m saying, let me put it like this. It’s like WWII and we have people saying “We need to stop the Germans. We can’t let the Germans take over another country!” What Takei said with his argument would be the equivalent of someone saying “Yeah. The Germans. Because it was the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor. They’re the real threat to America.” The people going on and on about Germany didn’t say Japan wasn’t an issue. They’re just making sure people understand that the Nazis also pose a threat instead of leaving them unchecked. Just because they aren’t ranting about it as loudly doesn’t mean they don’t see it. Occupy Wall Street is ranting right now about the problems we have in this country surrounding corporations and the “crimes” they commit. I guess they don’t believe the things such as assault and rape aren’t that big of a crime. Wait! That’s a bad example!

Let’s try this. People that fight against animal cruelty must not believe domestic violence is that big of a deal because that’s not the cause they’re fighting for. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) must not have a problem with kids who will go hungry today because they never mention that problem. At least that’s the same logic Takei is using.

So let’s please stop with the stupid, idiotic arguments. They accomplish only one thing. They make the person using them look like an ignorant fool who can’t think for themselves and would better serve this world if they were a parrot since that’s all they can do. I say all of this because if there’s one thing we need to rid ourselves of in this country, it’s stupidity. The first step to that is getting rid of stupid arguments. Step 2? That’s probably that plastic packaging that we all hate.

What do we want in a President?

In recent news broadcasts, we’ve been hearing more and more about Herman Cain and an alleged case of sexual harassment. Most articles have centered around the debate of the timing in relation to his climb in the polls, if the claims are true, and what the source of the story actually was. My question: Does it matter?

Being a football fan, I can’t help but think of the Pittsburgh Steelers. As a Steelers fan, I’ve seen story and story about quarterback Ben Roethlisberger’s off-field antics. They can be, to say the least, embarrassing. His behavior at times has been closer to that of a child than a grown adult. But am I calling for him to be removed from the team? No. Not at all.

The reason for that is because I have to consider what matters in a quality quarterback. In short, there’s a reason Pittsburgh has made so many trips to the Super Bowl in recent history and Ben Roethlisberger is a big factor. He has what matters when it comes to being a quarterback. If I had a single sister who wanted to date him, that would be a completely different story. I don’t care how much money he’s making, there’d just be no way.

And this brings me back to Herman Cain. What does this whole thing have to do with his ability to fulfill the job as president? If he was sexually suggestive to a couple of women, it just means he’d make a lousy significant other and I’d have reservations if he wanted to pastor my church. But it doesn’t say anything about his ability to fix the economy, get people back to work, or restore state rights.

Kayleigh McEnany recently wrote an article in the Daily Caller that discussed the concept of a president we’d like to have a beer with. She makes a good point in saying that the important thing is that they’re a good leader. A President needs to have good policies and the ability to get things done.

This all makes perfect sense. Each job has different qualifications. Anything outside those qualifications really doesn’t matter. If I ran a Formula 1 team, I would want a driver who has the talent needed to drive an F1 car. If he bashes Ronald Reagan in his spare time, that just means I probably won’t be inviting him over for dinner very often. On the flip side, I’m looking for a candidate who can bring back the Reagan philosophy. If they struggle with their turn signal, it just means I’ll think twice about hitting the road when I know they’re driving… anywhere… in the known universe.

Now I’m not a Cain supporter. I’m not sold on his “9-9-9” plan quite yet. But it is important that we keep this race focused on what matters: Who’s going to make America great again? And much like Ben Roethlisberger’s off-field antics, I don’t see too much impact on Cain’s ability to lead unless these allegations end up being significantly bigger than most seem to believe they are. This whole thing doesn’t change the value of his “9-9-9” plan. It doesn’t wipe away his experience in the private sector.

All this story is doing is it’s distracting from the conversations that really matter during this campaign. I would like to see more analysis on “9-9-9.” I want to hear more of what Newt Gingrich has to say as he’s been impressive as of late. I would like to get a better idea of how Mitt Romney is going to be a conservative leader in the White House. None of these have anything to do with the off-field antics of any of the candidates. Now if I had a single family member looking to date one of them…