It seems all we've been talking about here on FourFreedomsBlog lately is Occupy Wall Street. The protests have captured the attention of people, politicians, and the press in a way that hasn't been seen since the 60s. We've written about the goals, the lack of leadership and concrete action plans, and the heavy-handed responses by the police. The root cause of the protests, however, remains and will remain as long as the Republicans control a majority in the House. Since we're leading up to an election year, they are also trying to take the presidency.

The economy in general (and jobs in particular) remains the number one concern for most Americans. This is where the OWS movement can and should vocalize how the Republican approach to taxes and the economy flies in direct conflict with the problems and desires of the 99%. One of the OWS desires is to have a more equitable tax program for all Americans so that the rich are paying a higher percentage comensurate with their higher incomes.

So let's see how the Republican candidates plan on threading that needle...

The challenging part of this is trying to dissect the various ideas, most of which are broad generalities with few specifics. They are, however, fairly diverse:

Newt Gingrich: Taxpayer option to pay a 15% flat rate. Most "flat tax" programs, however, don't take state income and sales taxes into account.

Ron Paul: Scrap income taxes completely, and replace the lost federal revenues via excise taxes, limited tariffs, and greatly shrinking government.

Michelle Bachmann: Another flat-taxer. No details.

Mitt Romney: Gradually simplify the tax code, increase import tariffs (esp. on China), reduce corporate tax rates to 25%, eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends on those making less than $200k/yr.

Of course, everyone's heard of Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan. It's been criticized for lowering taxes on the wealthy and raising taxes on the poor. Naturally, one could easily assume that he would not be the favored candidate for OWS (if they were officially in favor of any candidate, which they are not). After weathering the heat for increasing the burden on the poor, Cain had to change it to the "9-0-9" plan, making the middle 9 a 0 for those living at or below the poverty line. So much for simplicity. This means that a family making $23,350 a year would pay 0 income taxes, and a family making $23,400 would pay 9% income taxes, thereby making them poorer than the family making $23,350. Whoopsie - this is why abrubt plan shoulders don't work, and graduated rates are the norm. Simple isn't necessarily better.

Rick Perry is also a flat-taxer, and his plan has also been under a lot of scrutiny lately. It would give people the option of paying a 20% flat tax or their current rate. In addition, it would eliminate the capital gains tax (which is how the rich make most of their money), and offers deductions in the flat tax scheme for mortgage and charitable donations (two more things that benefit those more well-off). Perry would also scrap tax credits for the poor. It's hard to tell whether his plan is more or less regressive than Cain's but both are diametrically opposed to the popular notion that taxes should be raised on the rich.

Along with raising taxes on the poor and middle class and cutting taxes for the rich, most of these candidates also espouse the notion of shrinking government spending. Perhaps they think the government is just going on lavish shopping sprees at the Gap, or that our government is loaded with slacking bureaucrats living the good life on bloated salaries. The reality is that reducing government spending means even more average people losing their jobs in a time when the unemployment rate is already sky high. Lowering the budget deficit by firing people hurts - not helps - the jobs situation, even if it does reduce the budget. The Republicans constantly say that reducing the budget deficit will create jobs, but they never say how. That's because the budget deficit and unemployment are completely unrelated.

These tax plans are popular, however, with the rich, the libertarian idealogues, and the misinformed Republican base. The latter two groups are under the misguided notion that they will be able to keep more of their money, but that's because they not only drank the koolaide, they swim in it on a daily basis. These plans have been heavily criticized as unfair and courting economic disaster:

The Republican candidates (and Republican politicians in general) are like the stereotypical used car salesmen, trying to sell us a lemon and telling us it's a great value. Where are the Car Facts? They have none, just a bunch of sales hooey that bears no resemblence to the reality of economics and how jobs are actually "created". They are making the poor and middle-class feel like they need to defend the rich, when the rich could care less about the poor and middle-class (in general - exceptions do exist).

The Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to change that perception. It's a message of truth -vs- a message of deception and willful ignorance. Choose Truth... choose to be informed.

And then vote.