Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Cain's 999 started Perry thinking with 20-20.

I like Herman Cain and respects him for being the first to come out with a concrete plan. Here are some views:
via Redstate.com
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.

via Sistertojah.com
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.



No comments: