An earlier post is largely critical of Senator Obama's new tax plan.
But it's only fair to hold other candidates to a common standard.
So here is Mayor Giuliani, on eliminating the alternative minimum tax (AMT), courtesy of a recent Associated Press article:
The article notes that "eliminating the AMT would be extremely expensive, costing $100 billion in 2010 alone.
"Giuliani told the 700-member audience of the Northern Virginia Technology Council that he wants to cap the tax, and perhaps eventually eliminate it altogether.
"'Over time we can figure out how to eliminate it. ... If we were going to eliminate it, though, we'd have to balance it with additional tax cuts,' Giuliani said, leaving confused expressions on his audience. "That might be by making the Bush tax cuts permanent.'"
Got that? In Giuliani's world, you have to finance the revenue cost of repealing the AMT by enacting other tax cuts as well.
The article suggests that Giuliani may have misspoken. But this is uncertain. Giuliani is on record as stating categorically that tax cuts raise revenue, and that only extreme liberals believe otherwise. So perhaps he thinks that he actually is financing the AMT tax cut by raising revenue by adopting the other tax cuts. Only - doesn't the AMT tax cut necessarily raise revenue also?
I'm confused, but it's gotta be me, not him.
UPDATE: Giuliani is such a grotesque clown that I've got to add a couple of more things about him. First, he apparently said today that criticizing General Petraeus should be illegal. Second, he stated that the reason he now is begging the NRA for support, rather than sticking to his old stance on gun control, is that 9/11 changed everything.