Today in uncalled-for responses to articles we wrote. We also responded to this guy a couple more times, just for good measure. (The funny part? His name is spelled Lowrie, not Lowry, something we corrected from last night after we found more info.)
Lowrie says it’s just “Washington thinking” to look at whether modest-income Americans will wind up shouldering much more of the tax burden. He repeatedly refused to say how much more of the tax burden would be borne by the poor and middle class than under the current system. But he implicitly acknowledged the problem by saying that the campaign would “fix this” with a new empowerment-zone plan that would be laid on top of the 9-9-9 plan and would presumably lower taxes in inner cities. But how fair is that to people living elsewhere? And aren’t we back to more complexity?
BY THE WAY … Lowrie isn’t an economist. He’s a “wealth management” consultant, whatever that means.
Asked to name his economic advisors, Herman Cain named a “Rich Lowry of Cleveland.” Cain has named this individual before (who is apparently not the same Rich Lowry who is editor of the National Review) but past attempts by reporters to track him down have proved fruitless (see the above link)…
Some good extra insight, we were wondering about Rich Lowery ourselves when Cain mentioned him.
Edit: We learned a little more about Rich Lowrie (not Lowry) and posted about it.