More on the GREAT Plan

Speaker Glenn Richardson will be headlining the Georgia Defending the American Dream Summit this Saturday at 9am. He’ll be speaking and answering questions on his new tax plan.

Also speaking will be Stephen Moore of the Wall St. Journal and Club for Growth fame and Congressman Westmoreland.

Its up at the Marriott off Windy Hill. You must RSVP to Virgina Galloway. She will send you directions.

Oh, did I mention its Free?


  1. Harry says:

    Please ask Glenn, why not reduce the state income tax rate rather than rebating property tax, which I fear will cause the counties to offset the rebate and bump up the millage rates.

  2. Icarus says:

    From AJC Political Insider this weekend:

    “House Speaker Glenn Richardson may be learning this lesson. Less and less is the Republican mentioned as a candidate for governor in 2010.”

    Anyone else see Westmoreland’s appearance here as building support from Richardson for 2010, or am I over analyzing?

  3. dorian says:

    This tax plan has to be worst idea I have ever heard come out of state government. I thought republicans were supposed to be against BIG government? Having the counties apply for grants from the state for funding. . .ugghhh. How could you gut local governments more? I only hope the teachers union catches wind of this. His stone will sink faster than Barnes’ did.

  4. Chris says:

    Harry – I think you are referring to the 2007 vetoed tax cut. This is the tax reform proposal that the speaker is proposing which will do away with property taxes and set a flat state-wide income and sales tax rate.

  5. GabrielSterling says:

    There is no “plan” yet. It is series of ideas that are up for discussion. The core of them is to eliminate, completely, the ad valorem tax.

    Everything is on the table from my discussions with legislators.

  6. IndyInjun says:

    Sales tax cannot replace property tax. There are some states that have replaced the income tax with a sales tax, but they have high sales tax rates AND tax biz.

    Last quarter INCOME tax collections were UP, especially corporate income taxes, while sales tax revenues were flat. The legislators best be looking at that aspect.

    One HUGE problem is that the ability to seize property to pay bondholders provides security that does not exist with sales tax funding. They are -after all – called general obligation bonds for a reason.

    The problem is that government exploded at rates faster than income or population growth and the cost is coming to roost on property tax payers.

    If they are serious about tax reform, why not eliminate all property tax exemptions, particularly the conservation use exemption which shifts $hundreds of millions from land speculators onto residential owners??????

    Don’t spend so much money. There is no tax reform superior to that.

  7. Harry says:

    Sorry, I meant – would eliminating all ad valorem tax not reward consumption instead of saving?

  8. jsm says:

    No matter how one feels about the plan, no one should be taxed because they own something. Taxes should be based on income, or at least related to it.

    Someone with little or no income should not lose property because of inability to pay tax.

  9. dorian says:

    So, basically, gutting every local government and having them beg to the legislature for money, oh and devaluing several hundred million dollars worth of bonds is a much better idea. Why don’t we just all move to the metro Atlanta area right now?

  10. Roadkill says:

    I’m all for tax reform, but the Speaker’s tax plan is the brain child, if that’s the term, of a complete crackpot. No one really takes this guy seriously. Can’t figure out how this nutter got Glenn’s attnetion.

  11. Painterman says:

    Well Arthur Laffer is teh brain child behind this, and he was the Reagans economist who knew that lowering tax rates would increase tax revenues, so that’s a pretty good resume enhancer right there. I’m not sold, but I’m willing to listen and see what the options are.

  12. IndyInjun says:

    Dorian – I prefer to think of it as being enlightened……


    That supply-side garbage never worked. In the aftermath of the S&L crisis the Fed blew up the money supply, just as they did in the Kennedy administration and the more recent SEVENTY PERCENT increase (by the end of the Bush term). Setting loose the fires of inflation naturally increases tax receipts.

    Alas, Sonny and Glen have no printing presses, although you can’t tell it from their spending habits.

    SPENDING is the curse – an even greater one than the dratted tax system.

  13. dingleberry says:

    What is so GREAT about the plan? If Richardson is the man who concocted it, then it is doomed for failure. Glenn Richardson is about as conservative as Hilary Clinton…

  14. Painterman says:

    Oh yeah I remember the high inflation of the Reagan era! Oh wait that was Carter. Reagan saw prices drop and the economy soar. Let’s see inflation is just terrible now too isn’t it? Hmmmm No, not a problem over all. Yes, those tax cuts just kill an economy! Get real. Every dollar put back into the economy through cutting tax rates circulates many times around and increases personal income and tax revenues. Plain and simple.

    I do agree, spending is the problem. I don’t care it we have a flat tax, fair tax or what ever. As long as they spend like there is no tomorrow there will be problems for any tax system. Controlling spending is crucial.

  15. IndyInjun says:


    Jimmy Carter, a man for whom I never voted at any level, took the courageous stance of appointing Volcker, who crushed the living daylights out ot inflation, something that the WIN buttons of Ford could not dent.

    Under Reagan, there was a TON of misdirected money creation that went into the S&L debacle.
    Money supply creation boosts revenues.

    If we really believe in the Laffer nonsense, let’s cut the tax rates to ZERO!

    I am glad we agree on the spending thing.

    One of the reasons that I think ALL should be suspicious of their “tax reform” is that they need to find a way to fund the $20 billion unfunded health benefit liability and they wish to sell a tax INCREASE to cover it as “tax reform.”

  16. Donkey Kong says:


    Once again, all economic data shows inflation at massive proportions during the Carter years, and nearly all economists agree that Reagan’s policies helped lower inflation. Again, do you have ANY data, ANY sources, ANYTHING to back up your rhetorical banter?

    I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but if you are going to contradict the reports of nearly every economist, you need to have something to substantiate your bold assertions. So far, I’ve heard nothing but bald declarations of unfounded opinion.

  17. Donkey Kong says:


    You sound like those conspiracy theorists that have no evidence, but just scream at you saying, “You are so blind. Why can’t you see?”


    Donkey and Candy Kong

  18. Icarus says:

    Donkey, Candy, and others.

    We’re going to mark this day down in PeachPundit history.

    I’m going to, at least partially, agree with Indy.

    Paul Volker does deserve most of the credit for cutting inflation in the very early 80’s. He also deserves credit for the recession and about 12% unemployment that occurred as a result, but that is the classic economic trade off.

    I don’t buy into the notion that increased money supply caused the S&L debacle. It was actually the 1986 tax reform, but that’s a tangent point.

    The problem with folks who want to quote Arthur Laffer and say that “if we cut taxes, it will always increase revenues” is that these people forget that the Laffer Curve is in fact, a curve.

    When marginal tax rates are very high (80-90% prior to Reagan), it is easy to assume you’re on the point of the curve that a cut will provide incentive to make more money. Put another way, someone allowed to keep only 10% of their profits will work a lot harder and take more risks to make money if they are allowed to keep 60%, roughly today’s scale.

    Since the Laffer Curve is theoretical, and not empirical, it is a lot harder to tell in the mid range of tax rates what the effect of continued tax cuts would be. But, following Indy’s point, if cutting taxes always increases tax revenues, then we should cut tax rates to zero. The logic fallacy should be clear here.

    I’ll stop now without going into a full econ lesson, but willing to follow up a bit if that didn’t totally put everyone to sleep.

  19. Donkey Kong says:


    I totally agree with you. I;ve discussed this with a number of economists that I know–where we currently stand on the Laffer Curve. Unfortunately, no one really knows. I don’t support cutting taxes to boost tax revenue, however. I support cutting spending and then cutting taxes because I believe that a government less involved in the lives of its people provides more freedom. It kills me to hear Republicans bragging about record tax revenues so that they can spend money on whatever they want. Isn’t the goal to cut spending? If we have record tax revenues, why do I not get any of it back?

  20. Donkey Kong says:


    The current party leadership led a coup against Newt and his Contract with America. That should speak volumes about the fiscal position of our GOP leadership. They didn’t just oppose Newt–they opposed the ideas he fought for. Fiscal restraint and responsibility walked out the door with Newt when he resigned. With our current leadership, there really is no hope for a Contract with America. Until we boot them out of office, we have little hope for fiscal reform.

  21. Icarus says:

    I don’t miss Tom Delay, for starters.

    But It’s not often practical to boot the leaders en-masse. If we have any hope for 2008 to regain majority, it will have to be on the back of our nominee for President. He will have to set the tone and agenda, be it a contract or just an oft repeated campaign mantra.

    If we lose the Pres and remain minority in both houses, then a Gingrich style uprising from the true conservatives would (should) be in order, and probably successful.

  22. Donkey Kong says:

    I agree this is not the time to boot our leadership. Ideally, we elect Newt to President and then Congress elects a whole new slate of leadership. As I come back to reality, after we elect any Republican in ’08, we elect a new slate of Congressional leadership. The problem, though, is that if we win the White House, our Congressional leadership will not have much of a mandate to leave.

  23. Icarus says:

    No, now they must be given a mandate to change. That’s where the tone of the Presidential campaign must take us.

    Using Saxby as an example, look at the recent immigration reform bill. I believe Saxby was trying to do the right thing, and negotiate for the best bill possible. He got more than an earful from his grass roots base, and he backed away.

    We have to do the same thing about spending. It will take our presidential nominee to lead this charge. He needs to be elected with a mandate to cut spending. He then must use the bully pulpit to shame congress into action. That’s our best hope for the next 2 years.

  24. Donkey Kong says:


    You have a point. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a fiscally conservative Republican?

  25. Icarus says:

    Well, we don’t know Fred!’s agenda yet. We disagree on Newt. I wanted him to run after 2006 because he was the only talking head we had that wasn’t aplogetic for being conservative after our defeat. Rudy needs to articulate where he stands, but has room for “growth” here, as most of his statements I’ve read have been about homeland security and counter terrorism. The rest don’t excite me.

    But yes, it would be nice if we had a fiscally conservative Republican, or a unicorn, or Elvis…

  26. Icarus says:

    Got interrupted during my Newt thought.

    After watching him during the following months as he laid out his alternative candidacy, he reminded me too much of old Newt. He’s always the smarted person in the room, but as one of his former staffers often tells me, “he’s never had an unspoken thought.” He often contradicts himself as a result. I think his political baggage would ultimately be too much, as it wouldn’t take a lot for the MSM to again make him the poster child “angry old white man” Republican.

    This election is already going to be uphill. Nominating Newt would be a lot like nominating Goldwater. We’d make our point, but we’d give the Dems a super-majority in Congress.

    As for fiscal conservatives, Lynn Westmoreland voted against Katrina relief, and voted with Ron Paul as the only two against John Lewis’s bill to fund a cold-case civil rights division within Justice that already has a cold-case division and a civil rights division. Two hard votes that were the right thing to do. It’s a start.

  27. Donkey Kong says:

    BTW, for those of you who lose sight of fiscal conservatism for the war against terror, the 2005 Medicare Trustees Report says the unfunded liability of CURRENT Medicare obligations over the next 75 years is $29.9 trillion (with a “t”). To raise taxes enough to fund this will cost on average 2.3 million American jobs annually. This is a HUGE problem. That’s 2.3 MILLION more Americans without a job. Only 10 years out, its $2.7 trillion (with a “t”) of unfunded liabilities, costing 815,000 American jobs.

    This does not include the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and other government programs.

Comments are closed.