Hearting Huckabee

As seen below, Krugman really has the goods on me here: "I gather that the press corps really likes Mike Huckabee. This in itself should scare you: in 2000 they really liked George W. Bush, too (and hated Al Gore.)" Indeed. The crux of the matter is that Huckabee 2008, even more so than Bush 2000, talks like someone who wants to build a different kind of Republican Party. And as with Bush, there are even small elements of his tenure as governor on which one can hang that narrative. But in terms of policy proposals, Huckabee's got nothing but a bad, regressive tax plan.

Comments

"Huckabee's got nothing but a bad, regressive tax plan."

Matt,

It seems pretty clear from the link below that the Fair Tax is actually progressive when you take into account the "prebate". Why do you keep saying it's regressive? Look at the graph: are you ignoring the prebate?

"Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?":

"Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below -- where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending."

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 1:50 PM

Yeah I have to agree with Juan. The FairTax plan is certainly bad (not to mention a little shiesty--23% or 30% guys?) , but it ain't regressive.

Posted by Dave White | October 21, 2007 1:54 PM

The media also really love McCain. And Giuliani. And Thompson.

Posted by Fred F. | October 21, 2007 2:09 PM

The press corps, the Beltway VIPs, the right-wing commentariat, they're all hearting Huckabee. This should be understood to be bad news for Republicans-- Huckabee is getting ink because the leading anti-Clinton candidates have all cratered. However, as personable as Huckabee appears to be, 'neither a liar nor a psychopath' is not qualification for the Presidency.

Posted by MattF | October 21, 2007 2:12 PM

Juan and Dave - single-rate consumption taxes are inherently regressive, even with a prebate. The poor spend a much higher percentage of their income than the rich; even if the rich pay slightly more as a percentage of their spending than the poor, they pay a whole lot less as a percentage of their income. If you want to defend the regressivity of the tax (say, by saying that the rich deserve to pay less because they save more), then go right ahead, but it's a fool's errand to argue it's not regressive.

Posted by Minipundit | October 21, 2007 2:27 PM

Minipundit,

If the progressive effect of the prebate isn't immediately obvious to you, perhaps an example will help.

The Fair Tax prebate is based on the Federal poverty guidelines. Currently, $10,210 is the poverty level for a single person with no dependents. Let's say I am poor and make 50% above the poverty level, or $15,315. Let's say you are rich and make $100,000. Let's further stipulate that you spend a smaller percentage of your income on consumption than me, as you suggest. Let's say I spend 80% of my income on consumption and you spend 40%. What are our taxes as a percentage of our income?

Me: $15,315 (income) x .8 (consumption) - $10,210 (prebate) = $2,042 (taxable consumption). $2,042 x .23 (Fair Tax rate) = $469.66. That's what I pay in taxes. $469.66 / $15,315 x 100% = 3.06%, the Fair Tax I pay as a percentage of my income.

You: $100,000 (income) x .4 (consumption) - $10,210 (prebate) = $29,786 (taxable consumption). $29,786 x .23 (Fair Tax rate) = $6,850.78. That's what you pay in taxes. $6,850.78 / $100,000 x 100% = 6.85%, the Fair Tax you pay as a percentage of your income.

You may more than double what I pay in taxes as a percentage of income under the Fair Tax. That's clearly progressive.

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 4:51 PM

Dems should indeed be weary of the possibility of a Huckabee nomination, as he'd be a very formidable general election candidate.

Part of the reason the media liked W., however was because they erroneously believed he was a centrist.

With Huckabee's pronouncements on the Holocaust of abortion and his denial of science and modernity, I think the love affair would cool quickly after the primary.

Posted by Madorsky | October 21, 2007 5:53 PM

Fred F.,

Actually, I think the media thinks Thompson is a moron. At least, all the media outlets I've read think so. Maybe we read different stuff, but when Bloomberg has headlines like "Thompson victory: He didn't fall down during the debate" (or something like that) I get the feeling he's not taken very seriously.

Posted by Kyle | October 21, 2007 6:51 PM

Two words: Wayne Dummond.

We are in a YouTube age. If Huckabee gains momentum, someone will use that to hammer him. That case was so horrible that´s simply there is no way to him to survive.

Posted by André Kenji | October 21, 2007 6:52 PM

did you really need to give us a link to the immediately previous post?

Republican voters don't care about "policy proposals"...the contest on that side is just to see whose 20-second sound bytes hook enough segments of the crowd under their "big tent." Huckabee has the tax idea to make him stand out ("he cuts taxes too, but in a different way") from the pack, but he's mainly about having loved Jesus longer and more truly than any of the others. Character counts, and all that.

Posted by pettiness | October 21, 2007 9:41 PM