At last, a debate that lived up to its billing. The Fox Business Network promised this would be about economic policy, and not about fantasy football, or personalities, and its panelists delivered. Despite an occasional barb, including a neat put-down of Donald Trump by Carly Fiorina, we actually learned where the candidates stand on important issues.
In what is called the under-card, we also learned two things. First, that the Republican bench is indeed deep. Second, that four is twice as good as eight when it comes to staging a debate: in my view, the answers were crisper, and with the exception of Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who combined detailed policy knowledge, hard-edged conservatism and a dollop of personal nastiness, respectful. Giving Chris Christie an opportunity to soften his image by responding to Jindal’s criticism of his fiscal stewardship of New Jersey by praising Jindal’s performance in Louisiana. Christie, Rick Santorum and Jindal all favor some form of a flat or almost flat income tax, fewer and lower rates, the only deductions retained to be for mortgage interest payments and charitable deductions, policies differing in some details from those espoused by most candidates in the later debate. Mike Huckabee is more radical and in a sense more conservative – no taxes on work or investment, to be replaced by a consumption tax. With some interesting ideas: Santorum would return the bulk of gasoline taxes to the states, Jindal would replace current zero taxes on the lowest earners with a 2% tax because everyone should pay something. That is a wrinkle also favored by Ben Carson, whose 15% flat tax would apply to everyone, no matter how low their income. If the early debate was the minor leagues, it was triple-A quality, with one player, Christie, clearly deserving promotion to the bigs.
