flatax &c

in case you have a short memory, gops have agitated for a flat tax before.

if my own flawed memory serves, it was back in '96 that dick armey and steve forbes both promoted 17% income tax plans. (the only difference i know of was the size of the standard deduction and exemptions.) it came fairly close on the heels of the balanced budget noise of '95-'96, so it made me curious to see how either plan might affect the deficit.

i got out my world almanac, looked up government expenditures, income distribution, number of families, and a few other stats. on the back of an envelope i easily computed that a balanced federal budget needed to take 20-25% of total US personal income, varying 2 or 3 points from year to year, so call it 23% average.

in a total elapsed time of about ½ hour (including "research"), i proved to my own satisfaction that it was mathematically impossible to balance the budget under either plan.

a few months later the treasury department publicly confirmed my conclusion.

[i'm not bragging about my math prowess. it took neither calculus nor linear equations and little—if any—high school algebra. it's basically just arithmetic plus a little patience and persistence. try it yourself if you don't believe me.]

now, i ask you, how is it possible that plans advocated by one of the highest-rank leaders of congress and by the near-billionaire publisher of one of the world's leading financial journals both would have put the treasury deeper into the red?

i can't say for sure, but i'll tell you what i think—that's what i'm here for:

i think they just picked those numbers out of thin air.

why would they do that?

because 17% sounded good. they thought it'd get votes. forbes wanted to be president. armey wanted to cement his high place and position himself to jump higher. 17% sounds goood! who needs math?!!!

after all, close to half of all americans really mean it when they say "my mind's made up. don't confuse me with facts."

[ok. i admit i'm just guessing. it might be way more than half.]