As most who are following the Republican contest for the presidency know, Herman Cain is among the more clear choices to become president in 2013 because of his affable manner and his take-charge attitude.  He bills himself as a Problem Solver and he has certainly convinced me that he is.  However, I am going to express a concern that I have regarding his 9 - 9 - 9 promotion for tax equity.

The 9 - 9 - 9 proposal would provide a 9% Personal Income tax, a  9% Corporate Income Tax and a 9% Value Added Tax against all purchases.  I like the idea in principle but I am concerned that 9 - 9 - 9 could turn into 40 - 40 - 12 or some other similar number.

I have long opposed the idea of a Value Added Tax (VAT) as is found internationally because I do not trust the Congress.  I have always believed that the imposition of a sales tax or VAT without first repealing the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax would be a mistake.  My concern has always been that to provide the government the ability to tax both income and consumption would be like giving a child the key to the candy store.  Yet Cain's proposal includes both in a manner that if properly constructed would allow me to accept the concept but not as it is being introduced.

Herman related his plan this morning and directly addressed the problem of future changes to tax rates.  The response was that the legislation would include the requirement for a 2/3 majority to change these rates.  That is not good enough.  No Congress can bind a future Congress to their legislative decisions.  Any bill that requires a 2/3 majority for modification could itself be modified to change that requirement to a simple majority or a plurality of those meeting the requirements of a quorum.  The supermajority must be included in a Constitutional Amendment or the 2/3 can easily become 50% +1.  

I would suggest that Cain introduce the idea as a Constitutional Amendment and while he is at it, I would like to forbid the Congress to making any changes in tax laws that deal with exclusions, deductions or anything but rates to those years ending in zero.  Thus, a real benefit to businesses would be that with the exception of rates there would be no changes in tax law until the end of every decade.  It is uncertainty that has hindered this recovery and it will continue to inhibit the recovery until we provide businesses some hard realities they can use with which they can develop their business plans.  These suggestions would provide that certainty that Obama and his legions seem unwilling or unable to provide.