Michael Dobbs questions the feasibility of Paul's income tax proposals.
This is a real concern. Not that I think that Paul is being dishonest, but he may have been using erroneous statistics initially and his actual budget plans may not have been formulated completely yet. However, if he does well enough in the coming weeks to become a real contender in Iowa and New Hampshire, I am confident that this type of thing will come up enough that he will become more specific.
In any case, I am still supporting Paul and have confidence that as he has more exposure his positions will, of necessity, get more polished and specific.
And none of this negates the great work he has done getting his issues (non-interventionism, sound money) a hearing that they would otherwise not get.
Added: And as some of the commenters in the thread pointed out, Paul would work toward the gradual reduction (moving toward elimination) of government health care spending and presumably a reduction of our military outside of the narrow issue of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granted, I don't think that we could get rid of the income tax during one or even two Paul terms, unless of course we raised other taxes greatly, and I do not think that we could eliminate all income-based taxes (e.g. Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes) without some increase in our customs, tariffs, and excises, but I think that Paul would push us in the right direction.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Andrew Sullivan.
That is all.