Tag Archives: rick perry

Perry Proposes 20 Percent Flat Tax

Perry Proposes 20 Percent Flat Tax

Perry would keep popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable gifts.

By Alex Roarty and Rebecca Kaplan

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry unveiled a sweeping economic agenda Monday, highlighted by a plan to level a voluntary 20 percent “flat tax” on all taxpayers who will accept it in place of what they’re paying now.

The plan, outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column a day before the Texas governor was set to announce it in South Carolina, also calls for capping federal spending at 18 percent of the country’s GDP while allowing younger earners to privatize their Social Security accounts — a controversial proposal that echoes President George W. Bush’s failed 2005 attempt to overhaul the retirement program.

But the most significant feature of Perry’s plan is his call for a flat tax rate of 20 percent. Taxpayers who don’t want to pay a 20 percent flat income tax, he said, can keep their current rate.Current marginal income tax rates range from 10 percent to 35 percent, depending on taxpayers’ income.

Perry offers several proposals that appear designed to sweeten the offer — and to counter criticism that the flat tax is regressive, taking a proportionally bigger bite from smaller incomes. His plan would preserve popular deductions for mortgage interest and donations to charity for households earning less than $500,000 a year. It would increase the standard deduction to $12,500.

But Perry would eliminate other tax breaks. He argues that a streamed-down tax code (so simple, he says taxpayers can file on a postcard), along with spending cuts and entitlement changes, will stimulate the economy.

“By eliminating the dozens of carveouts that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy,” Perry writes.

Although critics deride it as unfair to lower-income Americans, the “flat tax” has long been a favorite of many fiscal conservatives. Businessman Steve Forbes, who endorsed the governor Monday, made it the hallmark of his presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000, and it’s a favorite idea of many congressional Republicans.

For Perry, the tax overhaul represents an effort to return into the good graces of many conservatives disappointed with a series of stumbling debate performances and apostasies on immigration policy. On Monday, just 10 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, his campaign announced the hire of six new staffers and the start of an ad campaign in the Hawkeye State.

His economic agenda does appear to go farther than some of his rivals. Neither Romney nor former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman have called for a flat tax (Romney’s history with the flat tax is complicated), and Perry’s call for a 20 percent corporate tax rate is higher than Atlanta businessman Herman Cain’s proposed call for a nine percent rate (although Cain also calls for a nine percent national sales tax.)

Perry’s proposed cap on federal spending, 18 percent of GDP, is two points lower than Romney asked for in his own economic plan.

Calling his agenda “Cut, Balance and Grow” — a clear nod to congressional Republicans, who have proposed a “Cut, Cap and Balance” budget bill — Perry says his proposal is the best way to cure the nation’s ailing economy.

“Cut, Balance and Grow” strikes a major blow against the “Washington-knows-best mindset,” Perry said. “It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.”

Perry will formally announce his plan Tuesday at a high-tech plastics firm in Gray Court, S.C., outside of Greenville. Later in the day, he will travel to the statehouse in Columbia to announce endorsements from some state legislators.

SOURCE

RICK PERRY: The MAN behind the mask

RICK PERRY: the MAN BEHIND the MASK

By Robert Quinn (about the author)

opednews.com

We know there are people on the job doing everything they can to protect America from terrorists. Who’s going to protect America from Rick Perry should he become the next president of the United States?

Statistically, in the past 5 years you were:

– 1,052 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a terror attack.

– 202 times more likely to die in a building fire than be killed in a terrorist attack.

– 25 times more likely to drown in a bathtub than be killed in a terror attack.

– 3.64 times more likely to be hit and killed by a lightning bolt than killed in a terrorist attack.

– And if you happen to live in Governor Rick Perry’s Texas, in the last 5 years you were 108 times more likely to be executed by Gov. Perry than you were to be killed in a terrorist attack.

The terrorist threat pales in significance in the face of the threat Rick Perry poses. Rick Perry is a very dangerous man.

In the whole of the South there have been 1266 executions in the last 35 years. Texas alone accounts for 442 of these executions, of which 234 were on Governor Perry’s watch. Comparatively, there have been 4 executions in the whole of the Northeast.

All Southern states, without exception, have a death penalty statute. Only 2 Northeastern states have a death penalty statute. Yet the murder rate in death penalty states (the South) is nearly 2X what it is in states without the death penalty (the Northeast). So either the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder or those who live in the South are inherently more violent than those who live in the Northeast. Whatever the case, I have 3 things to say to Rick Perry, and to those who support his candidacy for president:

1) Every murderer believes that his actions are justified. At the moment of taking another’s life he believes that the person being killed deserves to die. How is this any different than state-sanctioned executions? Murder in the name of putting an end to murder is still murder.

2) Even if I were to be persuaded that state-sanctioned executions differ in important ways from non-state-sanctioned executions, the fact remains that state-sanctioned executions are not an effective deterrent to murder.

3) Even if state-sanctioned executions were an effective deterrent to murder, the execution of even one innocent man or woman is one too many.

Who knows how many innocent victims of the death penalty there have been? Since 1992, newly available DNA evidence has exonerated 15 death row inmates. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is available in only a small fraction of the cases that carry the death penalty.

Rick Perry doesn’t seem to be bothered by any of this. And I can’t help but wonder how else Rick Perry’s killer instinct might manifest if he were to become our next president. Does America really need another gun-slinging Texan, another sociopathic cowboy, another man without a conscience swaggering into the oval office and onto the world stage? We deserve better than this. The world deserves better than this. Now, more than ever, America’s presidency is in need of a genuine man or woman of peace who is both able and willing to lead our country in a radically new direction.

SOURCE

Mayan Secrets to Be Revealed by Mexican Government

Mayan Secrets to Be Revealed by Mexican Government in ‘2012’ Doc

Custom Search

content by The Wrap

By Steve Pond at TheWrap

The Mexican government is releasing state-held secrets about the end of the Mayan calendar to the makers of a documentary, “Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond,” TheWrap has learned.

The information — protected for 80 years — is expected to reveal Mayan beliefs in future catastrophes and wisdom characterized as “shocking,” producer Raul Julia-Levy, son of actor Raul Julia, told TheWrap.

The end of the Mayan calendar in December 2012 has long given rise to theories and speculation about the end of the world.

The agreement will allow Julia-Levy to film in never-before-seen locations.

“The Mayans used to construct one pyramid over another,
” tourism minister for the Mexican state of Campeche Luis Augusto Garcia Rosado told TheWrap. “In the site at Calakmul (pictured below right), workers for INAH [the National Institute of Anthropology and History] have discovered rooms inside the pyramid that have never been seen or explored before.

“And we’re letting this documentary film there, to see what has been discovered inside the pyramid.”

Julia-Levy (above) said he’d been made aware of the secret Mayan information by former Mexican president Vicente Fox — a friend of his family — and that it took four years of phone calls to finally get the OK from current president Felipe Calderon.

“This is very important for humanity, not just for Mexico,” said Julia-Levy. “This information has been protected for 80 years, and now it’s important for people to understand the series of events that are coming, and the consequences for all of us.”

The English-language documentary will be directed by Juan Carlos Ruflo (whose other films include the 2006 Sundance winner “In the Pit”), and will begin shooting later this year. Elbert said the filmmakers are talking to investors and waiting for the government to give them their first look at the material and the site.

One big condition from the Mexican government was that the film get an initial theatrical release, which is planned for next fall, said Ed Elbert who is co-producing along with Julia-Levy and Sheila M. McCarthy and executive producer Eduardo Vertiz.

It has to be released before the end of the Mayan calendar, which is Dec. 21, 2012,” said Julia-Levy.

That’s the date that the Mayan calendar — which some believe predicts a worldwide cataclysm — comes to the end of a 5,126-year cycle, and resets for another cycle.

Top 10 Reasons The World Will NOT End In 2012!

Julia-Levy has been specifically ordered not to talk about any of the more mystical possibilities that might strain credulity as Mexico prepares to launch the far-reaching (and tourism-inducing) 2012 Mayan World Program.

At one point, Rosado was quoted in a press release talking about contact between the Mayans and extraterrestrials. That statement has been recalled, and Rosado now paints this as a simpler, more archaeological-oriented documentary.

“At the moment, talk of the Mayans is a big thing,”
Rosado said. “We’ve counted over 3 million websites talking about the end of the Mayan calendar, and we have been contacted by a lot of producers who want to come and film on our sites.”

The project is similar in some ways to a novel Julia-Levy was writing, variously entitled “Chronicles of the Mayan Tunnel” and “Secrets of the Mayan Time Machine.” He and co-producer Elbert were also going to make a 3D movie from that novel starring him and Wesley Snipes, he said in the summer of 2010.

Several reports from that time said the novel was being written with the help of “secret information” never before released by the Mexican government. But in their conversations with TheWrap, Julia-Levy and Elbert dismissed that project as a “Harry Potter”-style piece of fiction with no connection to the current documentary.

That film has been set aside, they said, because Snipes is serving a prison sentence for tax evasion. “We put that film on hold,” said Elbert. “Dollar-wise, this documentary might be smaller, but it is based on the release of new and important knowledge from the Mayans.”

Asked if the movie will involve aliens, mystical elements or doomsday scenarios that have fueled the popular imagination, Julia-Levy declined to elaborate.

“I’m not allowed to speak about that,” he said. “Everything is going to come out in time, but I can’t comment on aliens or on 2012.

“I can just say that the Mexican government is preparing to tell humanity and the world things that are critical for us, for the way we live, for the way we’ve been handling the planet.”

SOURCE

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to CHANGE the Constitution

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

By Chris Moody | The Ticket
(Kelly West/AP)

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government’s founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation’s framers established a federal court system whereby judges with “good behavior” would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

“The Judges,
” reads Article III, “both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

“‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability,”
he writes in Fed Up! “There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn’t the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is “Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.”)

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

“[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy,” he writes.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment “the great milestone on the road to serfdom,” Perry’s writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were “mistakenly” propelled by “a fit of populist rage.

“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment),
” he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one “the most important,” and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending,” Perry writes in his book. “There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let’s use the people’s document–the Constitution–to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment’s language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was “fine with” states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,”
Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry’s broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important…to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”

SOURCE

The Use and Abuse of History

It’s hard to believe Thursday night’s debate did much to alter the dynamics of the 2012 GOP presidential race. And it’s unlikely Saturday’s Ames straw poll will do so either, though it will begin to winnow the field.

History suggests that the race—absent an intervention—is predictably headed toward a showdown between 2008 runner-up Mitt Romney and Texas governor Rick Perry.

In the last five GOP nominating contests without an incumbent Republican president, the runner-up from the preceding competitive cycle has won four times: Reagan in 1980, Bush in 1988, Dole in 1996, and McCain in 2008. The only break in the pattern was George W. Bush in 2000, when the attraction of next-by-birth trumped the principle of next-in-line.

By this precedent, and with Mike Huckabee choosing not to run, Mitt Romney will be the nominee in 2012. Romney’s campaign strategy is premised on this precedent holding. And he may well be right. He currently leads in fundraising and in the polls.

On the other hand, you can look at the history this way. In non-incumbent races over the last seventy years, the GOP has nominated a New York governor (1944 and 1948), a former supreme military commander (1952), a vice president from California (1960 and 1968), a former governor of California (1980), a vice president from Texas (1988), the Senate majority leader (1996), and a governor from Texas (2000). The only non-big job/big state nominees were two Arizona senators, Goldwater (1964) and McCain (2008), and they were prominent figures in the party who had toyed with running or had run for president before. On this model, the longest-serving GOP governor from the largest red state, Rick Perry of Texas, is the kind of nominee the Republican party likes to choose.

So history suggests a Romney-Perry showdown for the nomination. The legacy candidate vs. the big state candidate. And the polls have the two of them as the frontrunners.

Should Republicans yield to history, and resign themselves to a Romney-Perry choice? They could do worse. And it’s true that all experience has shown that Republicans are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Or, here in the 21st century, is it Republicans’ right, and their duty, to throw off such precedent, and to welcome new champions for our future security and prosperity?

But they can only be welcomed if they step forward.

SOURCE