The American Spectator

It seems that David Hogberg does not get the “vision thing.” His plea for incrementalism ignores the desire for fairness and moral clarity on the part of the electorate.

One reason to eliminate the home mortgage deduction is as part of a trade off to save Social Security. That is a big issue where the voters might consider making some compromises. The home mortgage deduction goes exclusively to homeowners. Those who rent or are saving to buy their first home get nothing. Is that fair to the younger generations who already are charged with supporting Social Security? NO!!!

But why do anything with housing? Because the best place for the timid to put their personalized Social Security funds is into their own homes. That is the investment they know best. It is likely to be the largest investment they will make in their lifetimes. And it is a tangible asset that has real palpable worth. They do not need to withstand the vagaries of Wall Street. Let the mortgage brokers do that.

p>Now it might be desirable to sell the plan by adopting a phase-in period. Allow the homeowner to deduct mortgage interest on a declining scale. Reduce the deduction 10% a year until phase out after ten years or re-financing of the loan, whichever comes first. Since the average term of a mortgage is well below ten years, this will allow the homeowner to adapt without undue strain. Vision, fairness and practicality; that is the ticket! br> — Bruce Thompson /p>

One may argue the merits of Big Bang vs. incrementalism till the cows come home. Either technique might achieve the same aim. Yes the pain thresholds can differ. But incrementalism has one fundamental flaw that you address inappropriately — continued perpetuation of the bit twiddler in seats of power.

You make the assumption that the Republicans having now achieved rough majority, can using the incremental approach achieve what the Reagan Revolution and Gingrich Compact failed to achieve in some measure. I can’t discount that it might work, but considering the output of the just concluded omnibus bill, e.g. the little sliver that Senators and Congressmen be given the right to look at individual tax returns the likelihood is small indeed. Your precept does not allow for the consideration that once a power is achieved is not given up readily. As such, incremental approaches hardly ever remove such powers from people that should not have them.

Using the incremental approach, we still might be struggling with the Articles of Confederation and all it’s flaws. Using the incremental approach the Union might still be in negotiations about the boundaries of the Mason-Dixon line. Using the incremental approach George Wallace might have died on the school house steps of old age.

Would it not be better for the country to adopt the Fair Tax Initiative bodily rather than creep up to it? Certainly there is a shock to the country in the initial phase; but for that shock individuals and businesses gain immediate relief. A change to a consumption based taxation that promotes savings. A change to a baseline that automatically indexes government revenues to the health of the economics of the country. (Now there’s a Democratic shocker!) Would reduce the influence of the bit twiddler and ‘K’ Street for not having influence to materially affect code reduces the need for lobbyists.

p>As Jefferson is quoted — “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Only now we should substitute bureaucrats for tyrants. Fundamentally your article disavows the primary aim of conservatism — the gross reduction of government in our lives. br> — John McGinnis br> Arlington, Texas