Yeah, what a crackpot assumption! I mean, we all know the tendency of government is to take less and less and...oh wait. Nevermind.
Why couldn’t the legislation have a permanently binding cap?
Huck, did you miss the part about seeing how the actual legislation addressed this point?
Same thing can be said about the Ryan plan or any other. Once you’ve established what you want to do, then you have to figure out what it takes to make it - so far as possible - permanent.
And those claiming Cain’s plan shouldn’t be considered because Congress can raise taxes in the future — um, as you just pointed out, isn’t it true that, no matter what we do, Congress can still raise taxes in the future?
So, yes, this is a strawman argument. It’s a point that needs to be and will be addressed. But it’s not a show-stopper.