Jacob Ogles
Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis pushed back against new ads from primary opponent Adam Putnam, suggesting the congressman supported welfare for undocumented immigrants.
“It’s a shame to see Adam Putnam abandoning his integrity,” said Dave Vasquez, a DeSantis spokesman. “He’s now basing his campaign around blatantly false claims meant to mislead voters.”
But Putnam officials say DeSantis won’t stand by his own congressional voting record.
“Since when do we let politicians deny their record?” says Putnam spokeswoman Meredith Beatrice. “His record in Congress is an indication of what he could do to our state.”
The mailer repeats a claim previously made by Putnam during a Fox News-televised debate that DeSantis favored giving “food stamps to illegal immigrants.”
That was based on the congressman’s vote against a farm bill that included worker requirements and assistance funding in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That debate claim earned Putnam a “Pants on Fire” grade from Politifact.
Pushback to the new Putnam mailer comes days after an advertisement from Putnam’s Florida Grown political committee insinuated a sales tax supported by DeSantis would hit Florida’s economy.
Fact-checking outlets like PolitiFact note that ignores the fact a bill DeSantis supported in Congress, the Fair Tax Act, would have also eliminated the federal income tax.
At a Republican event in Sarasota on Saturday where both DeSantis and Putnam spoke to voters, Putnam from stage said, “Candidates from both sides want to raise our taxes.”
Putnam’s people stand by the claim “The new 23 percent national sales tax is not conservative,” Beatrice said, citing studies published in the National Review suggesting a sales tax hike would shift the tax burden on the middle class.
In fact, the Fair Tax Act primarily draws its support from ultra-conservative pundits like Neal Boortz, who tweeted disapproval with Putnam for characterizing the tax as a hike.
I am dedicated to defeating Adam Putnam in Florida because of his shameless blatant lies about the FairTax. @adamputnam
— Neal Boortz. Proud White Dude (@Talkmaster) July 27, 2018
Of course, the DeSantis campaign claims the negative attacks come as a sign of desperation following an apparent shift in the primary.
Putnam has led the money race by millions. Until recently, he has also led in most polls, but that changed after President Donald Trump formally endorsed DeSantis in the race. In July, poll after poll after poll has shown the congressman now leading the commissioner—sometimes by double-digit margins—in a dramatic turnaround weeks before the Aug. 28 primary.
DeSantis people note Putnam’s “fading in the polls” in a press release responding harshly to negative mailers.
“Completely underwater in every recent poll, Adam Putnam and his campaign have completely given up on providing any semblance of honesty to Florida voters,” the statement reads.
9 comments
James Bennett
July 30, 2018 at 8:07 am
This article completely disregards the fact that the FAIRtax abolishes income and PAYROLL taxes, effectively LOWERING taxes on the poor and middle class. The FAIRtax lets you decide when you pay tax and how much tax you pay, while raising the same revenue as to the taxes it replaces.
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 1:15 pm
The charge that Putnam’s criticism failed to note that the FAIRtax (FT) repealed the Income Tax, was NOT at all deceptive.
Neal Boortz is a self-aggrandizing blow-hard, who aggressively bullies his opponents.
Yet, the coward that he is, he ran away after challenging me to a debate.
Anyone with ANY knowledge of the FT knows that, AND he showed a copy of the Bill, from which any reader would quickly learn that.
Boortz is a self aggrandizing bully. But, he ran away after challenging me to a debate.
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 3:31 pm
Sorry, for the jumble in my first comment – it’s difficult from a cellphone.
My point was that Everyone knows or sees immediately that the FAIRtax repeals the Income Tax, but they fail to understand that the FAIRtax (FT) has its own “IRS” (the STAA) and the old IRS would come back with a NEW Income Tax that will likely happen because FT revenues will be VERY short because of evasion & avoidance, which FT laughably “assumes” will be ZERO.
Boortz blusters that Putnam is lying, when it is Boortz who lies here (and elsewhere).
Putnam said the FAIRtax FT) was a 23% National sales tax. Actually it’s worse. It’s a 30% sales tax.
If an item costs $100 BEFORE adding FT, then you must add $30 (NOT $23) and the total cost is $130.
FT deceptively calculates the FT rate of 23% by dividing the $30 FT by the total $130 to get 23%. This FT deception has fooled many people.
Thus, it is the blow-hard Boortz who is the liar, not Putnam.
Mr. Boortz, exactly HOW did Putnam lie?
Boortz invited me to debate him, but ran away when I readily accepted, thereby exposing himself to be only the little Wizard of Oz.
Chuck Bailey
July 30, 2018 at 9:18 pm
Comments on remarks in quotations begin with an asterick.
“My point was that Everyone knows or sees immediately that the FAIRtax repeals the Income Tax, but they fail to understand that the FAIRtax (FT) has its own “IRS” (the STAA)”
*The State Sales Tax Authority (SSTA) is already in operation in 45 of the states. These offices will increase slightly to accommodate collection of the FAIRtax and administer the FAIRtax. What is not understood is that the number of tax filers reduces from about 160 million income tax filers encumbered with income tax compliance costs to approximately 25 million FAIRtax collecting retailers which periodically according to company size report the tax on a single form … and get reimbursed for collection costs. Further, about 80% of these retailers are big box companies. Collection costs are estimated to be about 20% of what is spent to do so now.
“and the old IRS would come back with a NEW Income Tax that will likely happen because FT revenues will be VERY short because of evasion & avoidance, which FT laughably “assumes” will be ZERO.”
*Actually, the last paragraph in the bill requires repeal of the 16th Amendment within seven years of enactment, or revert back to an income tax after seven years plus six months to allow the transition. In other words, the FAIRtax would sunset if the repeal is unsuccessful to guard against an income tax on top of a consumption tax. Regarding evasion, under the current income tax system, only the tax filer is needed to cheat the system. And income taxes are evaded by over $690 billion per year under the current income tax system. However, under the FAIRtax system, the buyer and seller must collude to cheat, greatly reducing by as much as 90% the amount of cheating. Finally, avoidance is built into the FAIRtax system because for the first time since 1913 individuals can determine the time and amount of federal taxes they wish to pay each year because it is only collected on new products and services purchased at retail for personal use.
“Boortz blusters that Putnam is lying, when it is Boortz who lies here (and elsewhere).
Putnam said the FAIRtax FT) was a 23% National sales tax. Actually it’s worse. It’s a 30% sales tax.
If an item costs $100 BEFORE adding FT, then you must add $30 (NOT $23) and the total cost is $130.
FT deceptively calculates the FT rate of 23% by dividing the $30 FT by the total $130 to get 23%. This FT deception has fooled many people.”
*The FAIRtax bill requires the tax be specified as inclusive to mirror the way income taxes are levied. If you earn $100 and your rate after adjustments is 23%, then you pay an inclusive $23 in income taxes. Under the FAIRtax, if the product price is $100, you pay a $23 consumption tax. That is, a product with a $100 price tag is made up of $77 in product costs plus $23 for the tax. How do we get there? That’s where the 30% becomes a player. $77 X 30% = $23. $77 + $23 = $100. That is, 30% of the products costs which is 23% of its retail price. Or, 23% of the $100 price to compute $23. Either way, that’s $23 of FAIRtax for every $100 spent.
*What is missing from most discussions about the FAIRtax rate are the following:
1. The bill requires an inclusive consumption tax mirroring how the income tax is specified.
2. The tax is calculated using the product’s cost which results in a rate of $23 in every $100 spent.
3. All other machinations and obfuscations only point out ignorance of the true content of the FAIRtax bill.
“Thus, it is the blow-hard Boortz who is the liar, not Putnam.
Mr. Boortz, exactly HOW did Putnam lie?
Boortz invited me to debate him, but ran away when I readily accepted, thereby exposing himself to be only the little Wizard of Oz.”
*As pointed out by the facts written above, calling Mr. Boortz a liar is incorrect. Ignorance of the FAIRtax bill and, refusal to understand its scholarly research and development to objectively comment on the proposal, leaves anyone who opposes the FAIRtax at a loss to influence its outcome.
*By the way, politicians who badmouth the FAIRtax using incorrect/erroneous information are either ignorant of the FAIRtax, dishonest or both. Any way you look at it, that commercial doesn’t speak very highly of the candidate who willfully continues to use it in this campaign.
*The FAIRtax effects a reinvigorated U.S economy with millions of new good paying jobs under a federal tax system that:
· Encourages a culture of savings and capital formation
· Provides adequate funding for current and future national
spending priorities
· Restores the freedom, dignity and privacy of the taxpayer
and,
· Positions the U.S. to compete globally
Pass the FAIRtax!
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 10:23 pm
Chuck Bailey (FAIRtax Chair, Alabama) – Point I
Mr. Bailey wrote, “The State Sales Tax Authority (SSTA) is already in operation in 45 of the states. These offices will increase slightly to accommodate collection of the FAIRtax and administer the FAIRtax. What is not understood is that the number of tax filers reduces from about 160 million income tax filers encumbered with income tax compliance costs to approximately 25 million FAIRtax collecting retailers which periodically according to company size report the tax on a single form … and get reimbursed for collection costs. Further, about 80% of these retailers are big box companies. Collection costs are estimated to be about 20% of what is spent to do so now.”
My reply;
Mr. Bailey has swallowed the Kool-Aid and appears to have no understanding of H.R. 25, nor of tax collection matters.
The STAA (Sales Tax Administration Authority) as denoted in the Bill (NOT SSTA), MUST be governed by a new STAA “Commissioner” in the office of the U.S.
Treasury (as is today’s IRS). Thus, the FEDERAL gov will set ALL the rules – we will NOT have 50 different State STAA’s. The FEDERAL gov is IN CHARGE and will tell each State what to do. If the Federal STAA decides to audit taxpayers, IT WILL so direct the States. ”. See http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!the-myth-that-the-irs-is-abolished-/c1tu0
The work of the States (who would be working for the FEDERAL gov) doubled because the sales tax base increased dramatically. The sales tax base generally doubles.
Mr. Bailey repeats the same old FAIRtax propaganda, notwithstanding that I have explained this over and over again – that’s why he qualifies as a zombie (and a fraud). The markets would mover away from the big box stores whose prices would then be 30% HIGHER due to FAIRtax. Tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal) would become the new American pastime. We would have 320 million tax evaders (except for Chuck Bailey).
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Chuck Bailey, (Point II)
Mr. Bailey Wrote;
*Actually, the last paragraph in the bill requires repeal of the 16th Amendment within seven years of enactment, or revert back to an income tax after seven years plus six months to allow the transition. In other words, the FAIRtax would sunset if the repeal is unsuccessful to guard against an income tax on top of a consumption tax. Regarding evasion, under the current income tax system, only the tax filer is needed to cheat the system. And income taxes are evaded by over $690 billion per year under the current income tax system. However, under the FAIRtax system, the buyer and seller must collude to cheat, greatly reducing by as much as 90% the amount of cheating. Finally, avoidance is built into the FAIRtax system because for the first time since 1913 individuals can determine the time and amount of federal taxes they wish to pay each year because it is only collected on new products and services purchased at retail for personal use.
My Reply; (FAIRtax is abbreviated as FT)
Mr. Bailey reads with no understanding. He fails to understand that his 1st 2 sentences expose the most absurd condition. That is, it says that it will kill itself if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in 7 years (don’t hold your breath). Remember the Sherriff in Blazing Saddles who threatens to shoot himself if the angry crowd does not move back.
That’s a joke. Congress will simply repeal that “Sunset Clause” and the FT is “Staying Alive” and with the 16th still firmly in place Congress will enact a NEW Income Tax using the excuse of the large revenue shortfall from evasion/avoidance to (in lieu of raising the already high FT rate) enact a new Income Tax which I believe is Congress’ true ultimate objective – i.e., to be able to grab even more of our money to redistribute to those who will vote for them and contribute to their campaigns.
As also noted by Cato Institute (see https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/a-primer-on-the-flat-tax-and-fundamental-tax-reform/
Not less than 1 million times (just a figure of speech) we have asked, “If I pay FT, but the merchant pockets the FT and does not report it, how many people did that take to cheat (Hint for Chuck: only 1, NOT 2).
Whatever evasion of today’s Income Tax, FT targets it revenue STARTING with today’s (AFTER-EVASION) tax revenues so that ANY evasion/avoidance will make FT SHORT. I have explained this for years now, but FT zombies do not process anything that disagrees with them.
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 10:48 pm
Chuck Bailey, (Part III)
Mr. Bailey wrote,
*The FAIRtax bill requires the tax be specified as inclusive to mirror the way income taxes are levied. If you earn $100 and your rate after adjustments is 23%, then you pay an inclusive $23 in income taxes. Under the FAIRtax, if the product price is $100, you pay a $23 consumption tax. That is, a product with a $100 price tag is made up of $77 in product costs plus $23 for the tax. How do we get there? That’s where the 30% becomes a player. $77 X 30% = $23. $77 + $23 = $100. That is, 30% of the products costs which is 23% of its retail price. Or, 23% of the $100 price to compute $23. Either way, that’s $23 of FAIRtax for every $100 spent.
My reply; (FT = FAIRtax)
Mr. Bailey babbles on, but tries to hide the simple truth (from himself).
The FT is a SALES tax – it is NOT an INCOME tax.
It’s a 30% sales tax, NOT a 23% sales tax as we know sales taxes.
Notice how many people are fooled into thinking they would add $23 onto a $100 purchase, while the truth is its $100. AFFT uses this deception to fool people into thinking that.
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 11:05 pm
Chuck Bailey, (Part V)
Mr. Bailey wrote;
*The FAIRtax effects a reinvigorated U.S economy with millions of new good paying jobs under a federal tax system that:
· Encourages a culture of savings and capital formation
· Provides adequate funding for current and future national
spending priorities
· Restores the freedom, dignity and privacy of the taxpayer
and,
· Positions the U.S. to compete globally
My reply;
Will the FAIRtax grow hair 😊
This is meaningless FAIRtax “Hope & Change” propaganda drivel.
Stephen Eldridge
July 30, 2018 at 10:01 pm
I have no interest in the FL Governor race.
This article quotes that PolitiFact article claimed that Putnam deceived people by omitting the fact that it purports to repeal the Income Tax. I have explained above why that is untrue. I have sent PolitiFact a detailed letter outlining its many errors and apparent bias. If I rfeceive no reply, I will publish my letter
This article is similar to another recent Florida Politics article which was commented upon extensively. See https://floridapolitics.com/archives/269718-adam-putnam-committee-ad-hits-ron-desantis-for-sponsoring-fair-tax-bill?
This article quotes the Great Bully, Neal Boortz. In the link above, Boortz offered to debate me, with no pre-conditions. I accepted gladly. Later I found that he LIED to another commenter (FALSELY) telling HIM that he told ME that I must gin-up an audience. You can read the quotes in that link.
In any event, can you imagine the Great Neal Boortz’s, his FAIRtax pal Herman Cain’s and AFFT’s supposedly giant audiences, but they demand that I (one old guy with a laptop) to gin up an audience.
They forego a great opportunity to publicly “destroy” the most persistent critic, because they know they will be shamed and disgraced. Boortz can’t stand not being able to “control the microphone.” It’s been days now and Boortz is still hiding in fear of a full and fair debate with me.
Comments are closed.