I like Herman Cain and respects him for being the first to come out with a concrete plan. Here are some views:
When Herman Cain proposed his 9-9-9 plan, many conservatives became
energized, despite their misgivings with the fine print of the plan. It
wasn’t so much the details of the proposal that excited the base, as
most conservatives intuitively recoiled from a consumption tax; it was
the boldness of the plan that resonated with them. Cain’s 9-9-9 brought
some excitement to a race that was defined by a frontrunner who offered
160 pages of banal fluff. Nevertheless, his plan was too flawed to be
utilized as a viable rallying cry in the general election. Perry
appears to have proposed both a viable and bold economic plan, albeit
with some inevitable flaws.....
It is refreshing to see the candidates begin to offer bold conservative
solutions, instead of playing it safe against a weak and eminently
vulnerable incumbent president. Republicans must not seek power for
power’s sake. Perry’s Cut, Balance, and Grow plan is a prodigious model
of what we should seek to achieve.
read more here.
So, which is better? I’m not sure (no one would ever accuse me of being a numbers-guy), but, like Dan Mitchell,
I lean toward 20-20 because it aims for the same goals while avoiding
the VAT and tricky constitutional questions. And I’ll note the Club For Growth has endorsed 20-20.
Like I said, though, in the end, either would be better than what we have.
Read more here.