The Hermanator Experience

I've been meaning to write about Herman Cain for a while. As a black Republican businessman, he seemed out of place in the Republican Presidential race, but he always spoke with precision and confidence. Even before his Florida straw poll victory, I thought he was making a strong run as a potential Vice Presidential candidate. Needless to say, I learn more about an issue or a person when I write about them and I have to do the research.

So let's start off with a little background; unlike the rest of the candidates, Herman Cain has no experience in political position. He's a career businessman:

Cain, 65, grew up in Georgia and graduated from Morehouse College. He became a turnaround artist, rescuing the Burger King outlets of Philadelphia. From there, he went to Omaha, where in 1986 he took over and stabilized Godfather’s Pizza with clever advertising and aggressive downsizing.

By the early 1990s, Cain had started to transition out of day-to-day management at Godfathers and delve into politics. In 1992, he was appointed to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. In 1994, he became head of the National Restaurant Association, a post he held for five years.

He's a turnaround specialist, something he's highlighted in all the debates. The US is in need of a turn around, and he feels he's the best man for the job. This isn't the first time he's run for office. He ran for President in 2000 and he ran for Senate in 2004. Despite those failures, he left an impression:

But despite his lack of political success, he managed to attract the notice of a radio executive with his rich, booming voice. His campaign manager became his producer. He trademarked the expression “The Hermanator Experience.”

The two main talking points of his campaign have been the 9-9-9 tax plan he wants to institute and the Chilean social security model he wants to implement.

The 9-9-9 plan will be hard on the lower and middle classes (check out the article in the side bar, worth a full read):

Most economists agree that a national sales tax would raise the relative tax burden on low- and middle-income earning taxpayers. "The main reason is that low- and middle-income households consume more of their income than high-income households do," said William Gale, senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "Another way of saying that is high-income households save more of their income than low-income households do."

Basically, if all people consume the same amount of taxable goods and services, if you have a lower income, whatever is taxed is going to be a higher percentage of income.

His whole system will make the lower classes pay more while the upper classes pay less. Now, I've already said that taxes need to be lower for the US to be competitive, but I don't think it makes sense to increase taxes on people who already are having trouble making ends meet. Yes, you want a society that encourages economic advancement, but you also need a minimum standard of living across the board. This is the United States where we tout our economic opportunity and high standards of living. Instituting a national sales tax is a straightforward attack on the lower classes.

One of the things that I've been interested in is the viability of the Chilean Model:

But while the reform's supporters argue it has been a major success story, officials both inside and outside Chile now increasingly question whether the high costs and modest investment returns have doomed Piñera's original promise: a decent retirement income for workers at a savings for the government.

Social Security has come under fire because of the uncertainty surrounding its future. The government has misappropriated funds, so this would be another way of protecting individuals. The problem is that it doesn't provide enough income for the retired:

A recent report by the Chilean government brought more grim news, forecasting that as many as half of all workers won't be able to save enough to receive the minimum pension when they retire—even after paying into their accounts for 30 years—and will therefore rely on government subsidies. More than 17 percent of Chile's retirees now continue working because they can't afford to live on their pensions, according to that study, and another 7 percent want to work, but can't find jobs.

Despite this, the model has been praised and used as the basis of models in other countries. I think it is important that someone takes a greater look into this and challenges Cain in the next debate. He can't tout a program that doesn't get real results. Praise is one thing, results is the real thing.

There are further mathematical challenges with the program:

Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.

This doesn't seem like a worthy endeavor considering our country's tricky financial situation.

One thing is for certain, he is very confident:
And he'll need it because his Florida win has brought him under fire as people begin to think whether he is a viable candidate for Presidency or not. It's uncertain whether his tax plan will work:

"I don't understand how the 9-9-9 plan -- which includes both a national sales tax and an income tax while purporting to repeal the 16th Amendment at some point -- can be taken seriously by anyone who feels we are already overtaxed," said Andrew Nappi, director of the Florida 10th Amendment Center.

And has it been vetted:

Zimmermann, a Romney supporter, said, "I don't know anyone who has vetted the 9-9-9 proposal and confirmed it as a viable plan."

There are other things threatening his campaign:

Top aides in Iowa and New Hampshire quit earlier this year, saying Cain wasn’t taking the early states seriously. One former staffer recently alleged that staff members tried to cover up the role of a gay campaign adviser. He refuses to name the economic advisers who helped come up with his plan. In May, Cain said he couldn’t talk about foreign policy until elected.

That makes me believe that he hasn't taken himself seriously up to this point. If he really wants to make a run for this, he will aim for the transparency necessary to be a viable candidate. Until then, Herman Cain will be a bump in the road for the front runners. You cannot ignore potential skeletons in your closet and run for president. You will have people make you reveal that information as you rise a legitimate candidate. You should do your best to be prepared.

Now that Cain has one Florida, he best be prepared. He's been shooting for the stars; now the stars will be shooting back.

The Other Side

Quite recently, in the eye of this debt deal, President Obama has been lambasting oil companies and other corporations for avoiding taxes through loop holes:

He also goes after corporate jet owners. It's been going on like a broken record. I get why he wants them to be burdened with more taxes, considering they can probably afford it, but I don't know if it's "fair" or "equitable."

Nobody wants to pay taxes because they have no say into what the way that government is going to spend it. Government is inefficient both with layers of bureaucracy and wasteful programs such as Medicare, Welfare, and now ObamaCare. I'm not saying these programs aren't necessary, but rather that these programs aren't efficient.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Republicans like Paul Ryan, who have consistently criticized the Democrats' irresponsible spending habits. Ryan was extremely pleased with the spending caps put on by the new debt deal:

But that did not stop him from writing a scathing op-ed in the WSJ regarding Obama's budget inadequacies:

Since then he has offered a lot of rhetoric but no real plan to avoid a spending-driven debt crisis. His speeches and press conferences are no substitutes for actual budgets with specific numbers and independently verified projections of future deficits and debt. Meanwhile, it has been over two years since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed any budget at all. This is a historic failure to fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities of governing.

The necessity of controlling federal spending is better illustrated by these graphs:

Needless to say, this problem isn't going to go away. In fact, it's only going to get worse unless we find a solution to this problem. ObamaCare was unnecessary bloated program that compounds the already horrible spending practices of our government.

When you have government handouts with lax rules, people are going to take them. Why wouldn't you want free money? If you can get it, why not? It's costing governments millions of dollars as a result.

To illustrate this problem, I'll use the Michigan Bridge Card program as an example. This program had very lax rules, so many people, in particular, students took advantage of this program. Although their parents were paying for their school and housing, they used the fact that they had zero income to get these cards and to get free groceries. As a result, the state had to make tighter regulations (From MLive):

"We're ready to extend a helping hand to any citizen who is truly in need — including college students who care for young children and are taking the right steps toward becoming self-sufficient," said Maura D. Corrigan, Michigan Department of Human Services director. "Those who don't meet federal guidelines won't be able to take advantage of what is meant to be a temporary safety net program."

It turns out that certain government programs have the same type of loopholes as the corporate tax loopholes that Obama has so vehemently argued to close. The whole system is creating a sort of reverse incentivization to work less and get more for the government. That's not a driver for growth, that's not a driver for productivity, that's not a driver for innovation. You have to wonder whether part of the reason the unemployment rate is so high is because the benefits of being on unemployment is so good. Now Obama wants to lengthen unemployment benefits again:

A top goal for Obama and congressional Democrats is to extend both unemployment insurance and a payroll tax break. These measures were enacted at the beginning of the year. Obama could not achieve those extensions in the budget deal with Congress.

I understand why we have unemployment insurance, but at what point are we going to cut this off? If we keep extending these benefits, why should anyone try to get employment? Where is the incentive to work?

Right now, we have more benefits offered to people than ever before, yet we sit at 9.2% unemployment. It's hard to say the economy is struggling when companies' earnings are generally beating estimates. Part of this might be from job cuts, but even with these stronger earnings, companies like Cisco and Merck are still cutting jobs.

Closing corporate loopholes are just going to cut into these companies' profits. The time honored solution to increasing costs is job cuts. This will only serve to exacerbate the problem. I'm not saying that these loop holes should not be closed, but closing them now might not be the best solution.

The first response for these companies will be to protect their profits and margins in their shareholders' best interests. You have a difference between what Obama thinks sounds reasonable and what will actually happen. We are already in risk of another economic recession. It is important to wait until the economy shows real signs of health before taking constrictive measures like increased taxes.

In the meantime, you should incentivize people to get back in the work force. The extension of unemployment allows people to take their time getting back into the field and pick and choose jobs. Jobs should not be something that people should be picky about right now. The government is shouldering a burden of costs that it needs to pass on to the private sector. As a result, they need to push people to get jobs and remove the uncertainty of future taxes.

In doing so, the government will alleviate the pressure of future costs on companies, while providing a sense of urgency at the bottom of the work force to be more aggressive in the labor markets.

Whereas the threat of taxes casts uncertainties over the overall economy, incentivizing the job market has the opposite effect. With more people employed and less people claiming benefits, you're automatically going to see a shift in revenues and costs. If you tighten up the loopholes or the ease with which people can get other government benefits in order to reduce unnecessary government handouts, you will see savings there too.

The best way to economic recovery and solving this debt crisis is not through taxes, but the other side. We are spending way too much on all of these programs. We need tighten up the restrictions of these programs and provide incentives for growth. The government isn't going to spend its way out of this recession, but rather, they are going to stunt a potential recovery with these backwards measures.

I would urge President Obama to take measures that actually work rather than to get into the weary debate on revenues versus spending cuts. His best path to reelection in 2012 is not by playing party lines, but rather by making a strong effort to right this country's economy and to make positive strides on the issue of debt.

What Else Would The French Do?

Strike of course. Like they need an excuse to not work. No work and protest? A French wet dream. I believe it's called "champagne."