Kevin Allen Hassett is an American economist. He is best known for his work on tax policy and for coauthoring Dow 36,000, published in 1999. Hassett is currently a senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He was John McCain's chief economic adviser in the 2000 presidential primaries and an economic adviser to the campaigns of George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election and McCain in the presidential election of 2008.

Anything this guy touches seems to turn to sh*t. Sorry, Mitt, your advisors all seem to really suck.

Tomorrow, the talk from Romney's camp will be about how we didn't have an overburdened welfare system and an unemployment problem when all those coloreds were laboring for free under the benevolent rule of Massa.

Nadie_AZ: Dow 36,000

THAT guy. Was there anyone who didn't ridicule that book back then, conservative or liberal? It was a monumental joke within months.

What a moderate thing to say.

Republicans still believe in Santa Claus.

My home state would catch fire and fall into the Gulf Of Mexico inside of a week.

This is what Republicans actually believe.

Stupid 'shop or the big secret they don't want you to know about?

lets get rid of the national military before the girl from 0bamanema can use it to inforce marital law. the states can volunteer national guard units as needed and the 'commande'r in chief can ask nicely like he should.

we the people! not 0bama the person!

FTFA: "There will be objections, of course. The first is that states' collecting the money isn't our tradition. It is, actually. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states, not individuals, owed payments to the federal government."

Yeah, and you know what happened under the Articles of Confederation? States almost never paid their entire bill, and a few occasionally didn't pay anything. The national government had to print money like candy to pay its bills, and that led to massive inflation and the phrase "not worth a continental." That's probably the biggest reason why the Articles were scrapped in favor of the Constitution.

Jesus Christ, the Dow 36,000 guy? Republicans, THIS is who you're trusting your economic policy to. A guy who in any other society would've been shamed under a bridge and probably have starved to death by now.

Some states might increase sales taxes to capture the amount equivalent to its previous income-tax payments. Yet others might tax only the wealthy. The penalty for a system that fails would be tough, since most states have laws requiring them to balance their budgets.

Making it ridiculously easy for the wealthy to pay no taxes at all. Buy all your stuff in the state with no sales tax, have your legal residence in the state with no income tax, incorporate your business in the state with no corporate tax.....

Take a look at the EU to see what happens when we ignore what failed in the past.

Stupid idea.

Your blog sucks!

wtf.... the dow 36,000 guy is your economic advisor?

YoungSwedishBlonde: Jesus Christ, the Dow 36,000 guy? Republicans, THIS is who you're trusting your economic policy to. A guy who in any other society would've been shamed under a bridge and probably have starved to death by now.

Republicans reward failure.

This may be the dumbest paragraph I have ever read:

"There will be objections, of course. The first is that states' collecting the money isn't our tradition. It is, actually. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states, not individuals, owed payments to the federal government. The modern income tax, where citizens pay the federal government, came into being only a century ago."

NateGrey: YoungSwedishBlonde: Jesus Christ, the Dow 36,000 guy? Republicans, THIS is who you're trusting your economic policy to. A guy who in any other society would've been shamed under a bridge and probably have starved to death by now.

Republicans reward failure.

I suspect they reward loyalty. Remain loyal to your master and you are rewarded.

Headso: wtf.... the dow 36,000 guy is your economic advisor?

Why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

I love the writer's photo next to the article. "Look how serious I am!"

Interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is.

We already do that, we just do it on top of the federal tax system. Certain states have no income tax. Other states have very high income taxes. People are free to vote with their feet.

And in fact, they do exactly that. States that try to "soak the rich" quickly find out that the rich can just as easily move elsewhere, as Maryland found out.

High-tax, high-regulation states like California lose business to low-tax states like Texas. Detroit has seen a massive depopulation, while cities like Raleigh-Durham, Dallas, or Sioux Falls end up growing.

So yes, as a thought experiment it's interesting, but we already have a rather rich data set that suggests how differences in taxation effect everything from economic growth to population.

I believe we need to distribute high school history books and civics 101 texts to each and every politician, and they must pass a 10th grade final on the subjects before they can run for office.

"The third objection is that a state won't be able to collect the taxes, even though an individual's tax bill might be identical to the amount paid in the past when people added up state and local obligations. In a property-tax-based regime, families would get one big bill, a property tax, often in the six figures, which would be too great a shock. "

Yeah, this is a guy who's clearly in touch with how much tax the average American family pays.

Liberals accusing the opposition of racism in lieu of making a factual argument? Must be a day ending in Y.

WombatControl: Interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is.

We already do that, we just do it on top of the federal tax system. Certain states have no income tax. Other states have very high income taxes. People are free to vote with their feet.

And in fact, they do exactly that. States that try to "soak the rich" quickly find out that the rich can just as easily move elsewhere, as Maryland found out.

A study with piss-poor methodology by an anti-tax group? Sure

High-tax, high-regulation states like California lose business to low-tax states like Texas.

Which is why California still has the largest economy of any state in the US and the 8th largest economy in the world...

Detroit has seen a massive depopulation, while cities like Raleigh-Durham, Dallas, or Sioux Falls end up growing.

Because white flight had nothing to do with Detroit's depopulation and then subsequent loss of its main economic output due to better quality and more fuel efficient cars (which was totally the unions fault) from overseas.

So yes, as a thought experiment it's interesting, but we already have a rather rich data set that suggests how differences in taxation effect everything from economic growth to population.

Yes, that's why people are flocking to the higher taxed city centers nowadays and fleeing exurbs and suburbs.

and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

LOL

The Articles of Confederation worked so well that we scrapped it 10 years later and went with the Constitution instead.

WombatControl: Interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is.

We already do that, we just do it on top of the federal tax system. Certain states have no income tax. Other states have very high income taxes. People are free to vote with their feet.

And in fact, they do exactly that. States that try to "soak the rich" quickly find out that the rich can just as easily move elsewhere, as Maryland found out.

High-tax, high-regulation states like California lose business to low-tax states like Texas. Detroit has seen a massive depopulation, while cities like Raleigh-Durham, Dallas, or Sioux Falls end up growing.

So yes, as a thought experiment it's interesting, but we already have a rather rich data set that suggests how differences in taxation effect everything from economic growth to population.


And that's why this idea is so stupid. Why do we want to make the states compete against each other on things like that? State A can be a tax haven for folks from state B?

It's not like each state is a business, and should be doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine how best to get a "competitive edge" over other states. It's not like the states are "inventing better products." We're talking about tax policy, for christ sake. The government needs money, there's only one way to get it - taxes - and there's only so many ways to skin that cat. Apparently Romney wants some states to become little tax havens for him and his rich buddies. What a great idea!

The GOP is a party that says it is all about limited government, under the theory that government inherently sucks at running like a business. Well, yeah. It isn't a business, it's a government. Their roles and functions are fundamentally different, and they're supposed to be fundamentally different, so why would we try to make governments act like businesses?

WombatControl: High-tax, high-regulation states like California lose business to low-tax states like Texas.

texas has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, they also have high sales tax. Republicans are told to like the tax rates in those states because they are regressive not necessarily lower for your typical American.

So the guys who understand how the economy work are recommending a state run property tax to replace an income tax in the middle of a economic slump driven by low housing prices. Brilliant.

lordaction: Liberals accusing the opposition of racism in lieu of making a factual argument? Must be a day ending in Y.

Do you have a script that posts this no matter what was said in the thread?

"You know, America under the Articles of Confederation was a pretty sweet place. Maybe we should do that again"

Not what was said, but the bare point of libertarianism, fiscal conservatism and teatardism get down to this. With the Constitutional convention, power in the US titled in favor of the federal government, not the states. Yes the states have enumerated powers and yes there's a 10th amendment. All that means though is there is a big, legal gray space with what states can do and the feds can control. Over and over again it's been shown that ultimately, the federal government runs the show. By law it runs the show.

States' rights was settled first on September 17, 1787 and again on April 9, 1865. The first date was when the US Constitution was ratified. The second date is when the CSA lost the Civil War and the idea of secession became just that again, an idea. One with no weight, no meaning and very grave consequences if acted upon.

So to every Tenther, "states rights" advocate, and every dimwit who wants everything done at the state level, suck it. Suck it long, suck it hard. You just want less accountability for what the powerful do. That's all you truly want. A state has no where near the power to regulate and control an entity such as a corporation, and you know it. A state has no where near the resources to protect the rights of citizens as the federal court system or the US military does. We have good reasons why some things are delegated to the states and some things are left up to the feds. We have even better reasons why the federal government trumps all. If you don't understand it, or don't want to understand it, then you can giiiiiiiiiiit out!

This is what was mooted by Kevin Hassett, an adviser to Mitt Romney and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Hassett didn't develop details, but we can hypothesize how it all might work. Start by recording the amount each state's citizens contribute to federal coffers. In 2011, for example, Florida paid a total of about $117 billion in federal taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income.

The new idea wouldn't change the amount that states owe, their "bill" from Washington. (Florida would pay $117 billion next year.) And future obligations of states would continue to be indexed to reflect changes in population, economic growth or inflation. The proposal would change only one thing: how the tax is collected. Officials in Washington would leave it to each state government to figure out how to come up with the money.


Yeah, I bet he doesn't have any details.

This is a scheme that would allow states to rape social programs and blame the Federal gubmint for the decline in social services.

"Well, if we didn;t have to pay that damned Obama, maybe we COULD give you all healthcare...lower state taxes...have books for every student...increase the size of the police force...give raises to teachers...have more snow plows on the road...etc.

You sir, should get paid for your opinion here. Now, do you take Viginia dollars, or perhaps New Hampshire cents? What's your exchange rate on New York dimes? How many is that in Third Dollars?


I mean, you're managing the money candidate after all.

I bet after about 3 glasses of wine she loosens up. I'd hit it.

Headso: wtf.... the dow 36,000 guy is your economic advisor?

John Bolton is his foreign policy advisor. Romney is nothing if not surrounded by crazies

What a farking idiot.

BSABSVR: Headso: wtf.... the dow 36,000 guy is your economic advisor?

John Bolton is his foreign policy advisor. Romney is nothing if not surrounded by crazies

HAHAHAHAHA JOHN BOLTON HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now take anything Mitt does with even the smallest grain of salt. He's not serious about running. Not one bit. This is a fall on the sword campaign.

vernonFL: [www.bloomberg.com image 144x114]

I bet after about 3 glasses of wine she loosens up. I'd hit it.

I'm thinking 3/5ths of a glass of wine would do the trick.

Decentralize our Federal economy so that it more resembles the current European Union?

Well where do I sign up!?

sprawl15: the girl from 0bamanema

ok that's pretty good

WombatControl: Detroit has seen a massive depopulation

Yeah, that's why Detroit went down the shiatter... it's because of the TAXES. Didn't have anything to do with other changing economic conditions over the past 40 years. No, it was all about those damn TAXES.... the city was taxed to death.

WombatControl: but we already have a rather rich data set

We already know the rich play by different rules and feed doctored numbers to their shills. A rare slip-up. You usually don't let any truth taint your thread shiats.

Chummer45: This may be the dumbest paragraph I have ever read:

"There will be objections, of course. The first is that states' collecting the money isn't our tradition. It is, actually. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states, not individuals, owed payments to the federal government. The modern income tax, where citizens pay the federal government, came into being only a century ago."

And that worked out so well for us.

Serious Black: FTFA: "There will be objections, of course. The first is that states' collecting the money isn't our tradition. It is, actually. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states, not individuals, owed payments to the federal government."

Yeah, and you know what happened under the Articles of Confederation? States almost never paid their entire bill, and a few occasionally didn't pay anything. The national government had to print money like candy to pay its bills, and that led to massive inflation and the phrase "not worth a continental." That's probably the biggest reason why the Articles were scrapped in favor of the Constitution.

Exactly

This proposition is just a way to let states utilize collective bargaining to lower their federal tax bill. It's also a way of shifting state shortfalls to the federal level, where they would kill any possible chance of ever balancing the federal budget again.

Headso: WombatControl: High-tax, high-regulation states like California lose business to low-tax states like Texas.

texas has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, they also have high sales tax. Republicans are told to like the tax rates in those states because they are regressive not necessarily lower for your typical American.


Exactly - all state governments have to pay for shiat. They're going to tax one way or another, the main difference is whether it's progressive or regressive.

pueblonative: Chummer45: This may be the dumbest paragraph I have ever read:

"There will be objections, of course. The first is that states' collecting the money isn't our tradition. It is, actually. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states, not individuals, owed payments to the federal government. The modern income tax, where citizens pay the federal government, came into being only a century ago."

And that worked out so well for us.


Yeah... using the shiatty government that we replaced with the constitution after a couple of years as an example probably isn't the most persuasive argument.

verbaltoxin: BSABSVR: Headso: wtf.... the dow 36,000 guy is your economic advisor?

John Bolton is his foreign policy advisor. Romney is nothing if not surrounded by crazies

HAHAHAHAHA JOHN BOLTON HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now take anything Mitt does with even the smallest grain of salt. He's not serious about running. Not one bit. This is a fall on the sword campaign.

One of his advisors on immigration is the guy who helped Russell Pearce write SB 1070 in Arizona as well as the laws in Alabama and Georgia. Kris Kobach.

Romney says one thing. His advisors show he's about something entirely different.