Raymond's Other Guides



A segment of the documentary DVD "Spiritual Teachings Weekend with Paul in Eastbourne" (2005) is entitled "Demonstration of Trance with other guides."  This sequence is 22 minutes.  Paul, the spiritual healer who regularly works through trance medium Ray Brown is seen informing an audience in the Stone Cross Village Hall about the next part of the presentation:

I have to get Raymond out of the way so that he will be quiet enough to allow the other people through.  So I will disappear in a moment and whoever gets through, gets through.  So just bear with me a little bit because he hates this part.  It is deeper overshadow, not quite deep trance so it is a different situation than you've got with me.  So he's not too happy with the situation.  He goes along with it.  I'm going to see who comes along.  And as always with this type of thing with the people we've got is when they've decided they've had enough they go away.  That's it.  You get them all so it could be three, it could be four, it could be five.  It could be someone new . . .

When Ray's wife Gillian asked about their eyes being closed, Paul replied: "That's the difference between working with me and working with guides like Running Waters and Geronimo.  Because they don't use the body a lot, they come through, they see through their own eyes.  They don't need his eyes, you see.  So it's a different situation altogether."

Soon after Paul said, "Let's see what happens . . .," the first guide commenced speaking through Ray, whose eyes remained closed while his expression underwent a noticeable change.  The five 'guides' and 'helpers' to manifest in succession on this occasion are perceptible as having highly individualistic personalities and speech.

Hello, everybody.  My name is Tommy and I've been told that usually I'm a nuisance.  But I am.

What he said is sometimes difficult to precisely discern due to the dialect yet he stated that he was a chimney sweep who was murdered in London.  Tommy wisecracked about Raymond's body and audience members being fat.  He mentioned: "I'll tell the other lot not to be expecting too much down here today."  At one point he referred to himself as being a 'go-for': "I go for this and go for that."  After five minutes, another guide took control.

The next communicator spoke with an American dialect and introduced himself as John, a pilot in World War II who was in the bomber squadron and shot down over Germany.  John explained: "And I trained [in Spirit] to be a doctor and I work on Paul's team.  And I come from Blackwater, USA."

'Dr. John' is mentioned in the Browns' 2004 autobiography A Mere Grain of Sand.

Ray has done rescue work as well.  He helped Dr. John, an American pilot.  He came through reading the altimeter on his plane and flew the plane while the rest of the crew bailed out.  He finally bailed out, but the Germans shot him in the legs on the way down and bayoneted him as he landed.

He kept saying: "I cannot feel my legs.  I cannot feel my legs."  Paul looked after him.  He was cleansed, which means that his physical vibrations were taken away, so that he could progress to the light and pass on.

Seated next to her husband, Gillian Brown reacted with surprise when the next voice to be heard was unmistakably feminine.

Good afternoon.  God bless you all.  My name is Barbara.

Gillian spoke out: "Ooh Barbara Lane."  (Barbara Lane is known to serve as Paul's assistant among his healing team in Spirit.)  Later Raymond commented about her manifestation: "Weren't we lucky?  That's the first time ever . . . She doesn't like to come in through a male body.  She says it's not natural."

Barbara said to Gillian, "It would be very nice if I was in your body."  When Gillian reminded Barbara about an operation scheduled for the next day, Barbara responded: "That has already been arranged.  I shall be here tomorrow afternoon.  I just thought I would drop in and say hello.  God bless you all."

As Ray's posture became more erect, a deep voice spoke through his lips.

God bless you all.  My name Geronimo.  White men.  [He mimics spitting.] 

The following commentary with dry humor perhaps would seem trite and unrefined when restricted to a transcript.  Geronimo (1829-1909) spoke in simple sentences and joked about Indian life.  He declared that he looks after Raymond when he is in Spirit.  The following are two of Geronimo's somber pronouncements.

Still plenty to do in States.  America.  Where I come from.  That's the white man I talk about.  Not you. 

 

White men not learn anything but one day we will get something right.  When white men in America stop doing things that hurt.

Geronimo sang in his native language for nearly a minute with gesticulations before he spoke a final "God bless" and made a few quick concluding remarks.

The final guide to take control of Paul's body then introduced himself:

Good day to you.  Waters Running my name, Chiricahua Apache — Raymond's helper, doorkeeper, guide.  I look after Raymond when he is Spirit.  I died many years gone of terrible plague and throat condition.  When I come to this Earth plane, sometimes my voice change and go.  That is because I pick up the Earth vibration.  I'm sorry if that happens today.  I just want you to know that the spirit world loves you all.  We try to communicate with all of you.  We are very proud of the healers that work with Paul.  We are very honored to come here.  May the winds blow easy on your teepees.  May the rain fall . . . [lowly and often?].  And may the gods that look after you be always there for you.  [Here some words were spoken in his native language.]  Waters Running my name. 

In the final minutes of this segment, Ray is seen coming out of trance.  Ray mentioned that he saw two of the guides who spoke through his body — Tommy wore a big flat cap and Barbara had red hair and glasses.  Ray's eyes were a source of discomfort for him and he repeatedly rubbed them.  He observed, "Sometimes when they [the guides] go out, it makes my eyes bulge . . . it's like being poked in the eye from the inside."  

4% growth

I wrote last week on the simple factual question of whether and how often the US has experienced 4% real GDP growth in the past.

The deeper question, is that growth possible again? I answered yes, it's surely possible as a matter of economics. 

A few have asked me "why do so many of your colleagues disagree?" It's a question I hate. It's hard enough to understand the economy, I don't pretend to understand how others respond to media inquiries. And I don't like the invitation to squabble in public. 

It has taken me some time to reflect on it, though, and I think I have a useful answer. I think we actually agree.

As I read through the many economists' quotes in the media, I don't think there is in fact substantial disagreement on the economic question -- is it economically possible for the U.S. to grow at 4% for a decade or more? Their caution is political. They don't think that any of the announced candidates (at least with a prayer of being elected) will advocate, let alone get enacted, a set of policies sufficiently radical to raise growth that much. 

This is a sensible position. When I answer the question, is 4% growth for a decade economically possible, my answer is whether the most extreme pro-growth policies would yield at least that result. A  short list:

• The tax code is thoroughly reformed to do nothing but raise revenue with minimal distortion -- a uniform consumption tax and no income, corporate, estate etc. taxes, or deductions.
• A dramatic regulatory reform. For example 
• Simple equity-financed banking in place of Dodd-Frank. 
• Private health-status insurance (with, if needed, on-budget voucher subsidies) in place of Obamacare. 
• An end to the mess of energy subsidies and interference. No more fuel economy standards, HOV lanes, Tesla tax credits, windmill subsidies, and so on and so on. (If you want to control carbon, a uniform carbon tax and nothing else.) 
• Many agencies cease to exist. 
• No more endless waits for regulatory decisions. 
• No more witch hunts for multibillion dollar settlements.
• Thorough overhaul of social programs to remove disincentives. Most help comes via on-budget vouchers.
• No more agricultural subsidies.
• No more subsidies, period. Fannie and Freddie closed down.  
• Unilateral free trade. 
• Essentially open immigration -- anyone can work.  
• Much labor law rolled back. Uber drivers can be contractors, thank you. Most occupational licenses removed -- anyone can work.  
• Drug legalization.
• School vouchers. 
• And so on. Essentially, every single action and policy is re-oriented toward growth. 

This program removes a lot of level inefficiencies. 10% increase in level over 10 years is 1% more growth per year. Labor force participation increases. The labor force itself grows. We get a spurt of productivity growth just from greater efficiency without needing big investments. And then innovation and new businesses, investment, technology kicks in.

There would be a lot of lawyer, accountant, lobbyist, compliance officer, and regulator unemployment. Well, Uber needs drivers.

Politically, this is free-market libertarian nirvana.

I think my fellow economists might agree that 4% growth for a decade is possible with such a program. In fact, it we can likely get to 4% with much less than all of these policies. They might complain about inequality or other objectives.  But most of all, they might say it's unlikely that the new President and Congress will enact anything like such a program.

That's a very reasonable view. I also agree that typical proposals -- a  small reduction in corporate rates, a twiddle here a tweak there, the typical small promise to improve regulation -- will not have one tenth the needed effect.

But, dear colleagues, they asked us about economic possibility, not our guess about political probability. Let's answer the question they asked us.  It would be better to say: "Sure, 4% growth is economically possible. But I don't think any politician will advocate the policies necessary to produce it."  If we were to say that more often, rather than give up at the outset, we just might get such policies and politicians.

You never know what's "politically feasible." In 1955, civil rights was "politically infeasible." In 2005 gay marriage was "politically infeasible." Politics sticks in the mud for 100 years and then changes faster than we imagine.

I think there actually are quite a few politicians who would do some of the radical things that need to be done. They need to hear from us that it could work, as a matter of economics, and let them handle the politics.

We will soon see a first test: Can any candidate show up in Iowa, and say "Ladies and Gentlemen, government subsidized corn ethanol is a rotten idea." Then, can they say something vaguely coherent on immigration and trade.  The campaign season is young. Let's not prejudge them. 

Growth is just too important to give up on so easily. Sclerotic growth is the economic issue of our time. Economists should be cheering any policy agenda focused on growth.  If you think the policies needed to give us growth are hard, and out of the current political mainstream, that's ever more reason to keep reminding people that growth is possible and needs big changes, not to confuse "it's unlikely they'll do it" with "it's economically impossible."

Update: Response to Noah Smith's comment on this post  here 

Last Greek thoughts

A few salient points that don't seem to be on the top of the outpouring of Greece commentary.

1. Greece seems to be coming to a standstill.  Kerin Hope at FT  (HT Marginal Revolution):

... many [Greeks] have simply stopped making payments altogether, virtually freezing economic activity.

Tax revenues for May, for example, fell €1bn short of the budget target, with so many Greek citizens balking at filing returns. 

The government, itself, has contributed to the chain of non-payment by freezing payments due to suppliers. That has had a knock-on effect, stifling the small businesses that dominate the economy and building up a mountain of arrears that will take months, if not years, to settle.

“Business-to-business payments have almost been paused,” one Athens businessman says. “They are just rolling over postdated cheques.”

 Around 70 per cent of restructured mortgage loans aren’t being serviced because people think foreclosures will only be applied to big villa owners,” one banker said.

2.  If a Greek goes to the ATM and takes out a load of cash, where does that cash come from? The answer is, basically, that the Greek central bank prints up the cash. Then, the Greek central bank owes the amount to the ECB. The ECB treats this as a loan, with the Greek central bank taking the credit risk. If the Greek government defaults, the Greek central bank is supposed to make the ECB good on all the ECB's lending to Greece.  It's pretty clear what that promise is worth.

Some observations on what these stories mean.

1.  The argument is not about "lending" to Greece, i.e. covering this year's primary surplus. The argument is whether the IMF, ECB, and rest of Europe will lend Greece money to... pay back the IMF, ECB, and the rest of Europe. This is a roll over negotiation, not a lending negotiation.

The loans were not intended to be paid back now. The loans were intended to go on for decades. But with conditions. The negotiation is about enforcing or modifying the conditions for a roll-over.

Rolling over short term debt with periodic reviews is a nice incentive mechanism. Foreign policy should try it.

2. The latest proposed agreement includes sharp increases in tax rates.  Now? Are you kidding?

Source: theguardian.com

I am reminded of the story of a town, that had a bridge, that had a 50 mph speed limit. A drunk driver, going 85, caused  horrific crash. The town lowered the speed limit to 25.

What Greece needs is to get going again. That is, to persuade anyone that this is a good country to start a business, invest, hire people, and so forth.  In particular, if Greece is to pay back debts, it has to become an export-oriented growth economy, and run trade surpluses Higher VAT, higher corporate taxes, and higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs are hardly the way to go about attracting investment.

I think of taxes in terms of incentives. Keynesians look at aggregate demand. Either way, raising tax rates, now, in an economy where nobody is paying much of anything because they see the big explosion ahead seems destined, pragmatically, to raise no revenue. And, incidentally and humanely, to further crater the economy.

Despite cuts, the Greek government is still spending north of 50% of GDP. If you want to get primary surpluses, that seems the place to cut.

But with an economy at a standstill, major structural reform (like, go back and put back in the structural reforms that Syriza scuttled on arrival) seems like a more promising short-term set of conditions. And we'll see you on the next big roll-over.

3. Rolling over post-dated checks is a fascinating story to a monetary economist. Money is created when needed, apparently.

4. The bank run, or "jog." Remember, the big Greek bailout already happened. Private investors, largely European banks, who held Greek government debt got to sell their debt to government and IMF. Bailouts are creditor bailouts.

One way of viewing the current slow motion crisis is an invitation for ordinary Greeks to join these investors. Take euros out of the bank. The government default will happen, possibly with bank closures, capital controls, currency exit, and expropriation. But lending to Greek banks is now bailed out, with the losses sent to Europe via the ECB, just as German bank's lending to Greek banks was bailed out in the first round. Too clever, maybe, but that is the effect.

Too clever, really, to describe the situation. It only works if the government actually does exit, and soon. Getting money out of the banks and then defaulting is one thing. But a frozen economy can't go on long.

I repeat: the run and non-payment, freezing the economy, happen largely because people see capital controls, bank account expropriation, grand all-around default (your mortgage might get redenominated to Drachmas too, and forgiven once the bank goes under, so why pay now) and Grexit in the future.  The simplest way to stop the run and economic cratering would be a solid commitment from both sides that government default will not mean Grexit,  capital controls, etc.

5. Without the banks, this would all be simple. Greece could default, stay in the Euro (unilaterally if need be) and Euro zone. One government defaulting on debts to other governments is not a crisis.
All along though, the involvement of the Greek banking system makes it much harder.

Greece has 11 million people, $242 billion GDP and 51,000 square miles. That's as many people as Ohio, the GDP and land area of Louisiana. Why does Greece need its own banking system in a common currency and free market zone?

Think how much easier this would all be if Europe had gotten around to integrating its banking system. In any city in the US, the major banks are all national. If California defaults on state bonds, your Chase bank account is safe, and not because of Federal deposit insurance. Because the bank has no exposure to California bonds.

Imagine if Greeks deposited money in a local branch of a large pan-European bank, backed by assets spread throughout Europe. Imagine if Greeks borrowed money from the same bank, funded by deposits spread throughout Europe. Imagine if, when a remaining Greek bank defaults, the European equivalent of Chase could sweep in, and take over loans and deposits seamlessly. A default by the Greek government on its bonds would be inconsequential to Greek banking.

Why not? Well, such banks would not hold vast amounts of Greek government debt. Such banks would not have Greek ownership, or be controlled by the Greek regulatory system. Such banks would not be available targets of Greek capital controls, or a currency change.

Greece needs an independent, national, banking system about as much as Ohio or Louisiana need independent, state banking systems.

6. And currency. Many economists keep saying how wonderful it is for tiny countries to have their own monetary policy, so they can devalue their way out of crises like these. They advocate "capital controls" (English translation: expropriation of savings). That's how Argentina, say, is such a success story. We may be about to see.

Intricacies

Image from "Life After Death: Your Spiritual Journey" DVD

 

 

'Paul' is the spiritual healer who regularly inhabits the body of trance medium Ray Brown.  One of the intricacies of this case is that unlike Paul, when other 'guides' speak through Ray's body for brief interims his eyes remain closed.  Paul has explained that as these guides and helpers see through their own eyes they don't need to use Raymond's eyes.  

 

The autobiography A Mere Grain of Sand (2004) by Ray & Gillian Brown with Paul Dickson is one of the sources offering instruction from Paul about the spiritual evolution processes of karma and reincarnation.

The most important thing you must realize is that you are responsible for every word, deed and action on the Earth plane.

You cannot avoid the Laws of Karma.  There are those who are of the opinion that karmic debts are cleared down here.  Forget that idea, all karmic debts are cleared in Spirit.

 

It is very unkind to tell people who have disabilities or suffered accidents that the blame is theirs for something that they did in a past life.

 

What karmic debt did Jesus have to clear when he died so unmercifully on the Cross?

 

You will be reminded of all your good and bad deeds, no matter how small.  You will feel all the pain and suffering caused by your actions on Earth.  There is no one waiting to deal out punishment to you.  You judge yourself.  The need to repent and put right all those sins, which will engulf your very being.  Once you have cleared all your karmic debts, you can go forward in Spirit or reincarnate onto the Earth plane.

 

I have gone through all the levels of progression to Level Nine, and have helped many people overcome these beliefs that come from your Eastern religions.  The only choice you have is: "Yes, I wish to reincarnate or no I wish to progress in Spirit."  There is a greater power than you or I that decides when and where you will be placed.

It is noteworthy that Paul's perspective of karma contrasts with that of one of the 'spirit entities' who communicates through Kevin Ryerson as mentioned in a previous blog article.  Logically, it is obvious that both Paul and 'Tom MacPherson' are offering their understanding based on their own perceptions based upon what they have learned on Earth and in the afterlife.  A previous article addressing this predicament is  "Trance Channeling in the 19th Century".

 

"Spirit Surgeon" (2003) is an 85-minute documentary DVD compiled and produced by Michael Courtney-Hunt presenting interviews and showing 'spiritual surgery' healings of patients.  Paul is seen moving trapped nerves and he mentions that at times spiritual instruments are used.  Elly, a chartered physiotherapist affirms that she has observed firsthand that Paul knows what he is doing from the medical point of view.  Sue, a registered nurse, comments that she has seen "some great things happen — things that I know couldn't have happened in the medical world that I work in . . . to see someone come in, in agony and to walk out straight is quite remarkable."

When Gillian Brown speaks to a demonstration audience, she mentions that Paul has trained some three thousand doctors in the spirit world.  When Paul is seen taking control of Ray's body, Paul's first words are: "Good evening, God bless you.  My name is Paul and I come in the name of the Lord."  While performing successful operations, Paul keeps the audience in a cheerful mood with jokes such as: "I bet you that's the first time you shook a dead man's hand."  About the jokes, Paul said: "It amuses us in Spirit to talk like that sometimes . . . [imitating a potential reaction to him] 'It's one of those strange men who comes from Nine.'"

Paul advises one patient: "Where the cancer is sitting is a very awkward position.  There's an awful lot gone past that I don't know about so I've actually — we've actually got to pick up right in the middle of your treatment and everything so we need to find out where it is, what it's doing, etc., and build up a new casebook spiritually so that we can go along with whatever you're doing with the physical doctors and tie in alongside them to try and bring about the successful treatment.  So the healing will — tonight will be set.  The doctors will come and visit you tonight.  We'll get the healing set the way I want it."

In "Spirit Surgeon" Paul is seen commenting about what happened to him on the road to Damascus.
 

When I was on this Earth plane my name was Saul and my Roman name was Paul.  And I am known as Paul of the Corinthians.  I was the persecutor of the Jewish people including Jesus's followers until I was converted on the road to Damascus.

 

I was, myself, on a horseback and the fever took over me.  I can remember the horse throwing me.  And it was then that the first vision came to me of Jesus and I immediately thought it was the fever and I dismissed it.  

  

And it was then the second time that it happened was a couple of days later.  I was still heavy with fever.  And I fell off my horse again.  Only this time the vision of Jesus came to me again and asked me why I was persecuting himself and his disciples.

 

The most devastating thing to me was that when the bright light that I saw—which was not in the sky—left me, I was blind.  And I went on to Damascus where I was cured of that and baptized.

 

I've met Jesus many times.  Jesus is on Level Ten and he is still there.

 

I would say he was the first medium to work upon this Earth plane.  Whether or not you should see him in such a high esteem is up to the individual people.  I think yes he should be held in a high place but then again it's like — because I don't see myself as being in a high place I look at it differently.  And because I'm with Jesus a lot and I know his views.  What you must realize is we were all men upon this Earth plane.

 

That was when the first spiritual act took place between the physical and the spiritual — was when the disciples saw Jesus again.  They did not see him in the flesh but they thought they saw him in the flesh.  Like I saw Jesus but it was not in the flesh.  And I think that any of the modern-today people who have seen materializations, etc. would understand that it is possible for you to see Spirit.  It is possible for you to touch Spirit.  So that was the first time I think that a materialization took place and everything else has been twisted out of proportion like it always is upon this Earth.

Another production of Michael Courtney-Hunt, "Life After Death: Your Spiritual Body" (2011) is a commercial DVD more than two hours in length that was filmed at Bosworth Hall in Leicester as Paul lectured.

Paul identified himself as being classed as "a spiritual neurosurgeon."

As with all human recordings of people on Earth as well as transcendental communicators from other spheres of existence, Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) offers greater understanding to the attentive listener.  There are instances of "no" being used to counteract too literal of an interpretation being made of some of Paul's statements.

Paul commented about having chose Ray as his medium: "I don't know why but I did.  And I think I made the wisest choice because it's taken many many years and many many trials and tribulations to get to where we are today."

Paul explained that there are "three classes in trance" with Raymond Brown being a "total takeover": "In other words he leaves his body and to all intents and purposes at this time he is no longer earthly.  He is Spirit.  Because we take him away . . ."  The other stages are: (1) overshadow ('semi-trance') and (2) deep trance: "A lot of mediums work in overshadow.  They don't go into trance but they get all the messages like clairvoyants . . . we took him from this stage into the next stage . . . deep trance.  In other words, you go through the aura.  You take over."

Paul presented his philosophy of the levels of existence beyond the Earth plane, at one point commenting: "On all levels, from level one to nine there are four levels of existence in each level.  So you have to go through four levels of progression . . . You have three levels of existence and then a transitional level where you are cleansed and you move on.  And that takes as long as it takes.  [On] Each level there is no time limit . . . No one judges you in Spirit.  There is no better judge than yourselves.  Only you know what you've done wrong and right on this Earth plane . . ."

"On all the levels . . . you are still working on your perfection as you see it on that level . . . making yourself more pure.  It's always work work work on yourself because at all stages you have to look within yourself to make yourself more perfect."

. . . after level four and you start to attune yourself, relatives, loved ones become just another spiritual being in love and light.  You don't have the ties of the Earth plane anymore so you're gradually going back to what you were in the beginning.  Pure Source.  And you can only become pure by progressing through the levels.

Paul acknowledged that he can only tell the audience about the workings of the Levels up to the point of Level Nine: "Jesus for instance — he's on Level Ten, which is the final clearance level before becoming part of the Source.  So even Jesus Christ hasn't actually gone to the Source."

Paul said about the purpose of life: "And the reason that you're here is to get the identity to take back to the Source to feed the Source with love and beauty and strength, knowledge, everything that makes power.  That is why you're here."

As many communicators from the ascended realm have done throughout the annals of 'unexplained phenomena,' Paul warned about the necessity for us taking care of the environment of Earth and he advised: ". . . It makes sense that everybody has to start trying to change the governments, changing the people to make the Earth plane a better place."

Another DVD documentary available for purchase is "Spiritual Teachings Weekend with Paul in Eastbourne" (2005).

 

Econ 1

John Taylor is offering his Economics 1, the introductory economics course for Stanford undergraduates, as a free online class. Class starts Monday, June 22.

John's blog post here, and registration page here.

Yes, Martha, apparently there is a free lunch.

Roy's plan

I found two novel (to me) and interesting points in the heath insurance reform plan  put forward by Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute. (His Forbes articles here.)

First, the ACA establishes that it is ok to help people by subsidizing their purchase of private health insurance. It is not necessary to provide completely free insurance, medicaid, VA, medicare, and so on.

Yes, the health insurance you can buy has been salted up with extras, competition severely restricted, and large insurers so deeply in bed with their regulators that to call insurance "private" is a stretch and "competitive" a dream. But people do have to pay something, if they want better coverage they have to pay more, and the insurers are still nominally private companies.

Second, it is ok to ask people to contribute pretty substantial copayments.  That's a vital component to getting a functioning health care market.

Avik cleverly suggests to ACA opponents not try to throw the whole thing out. Instead, expand on these good parts.  Keep the exchanges, reform and open them up, reform the policy requirements, then slowly transition medicare, medicaid, and even veterans and government workers to exchange policies. Shh, don't call it a "voucher."

If King v. Burwell surrenders to simple logic, it's clear that there will be a quick renegotiation: what reforms do ACA opponents get in return for allowing federal subsidies.  These points offer an interesting direction for that negotiation.

It is sad that the ACA's legal problems are completely unrelated to its economic problems. Whether subsidies go through Federal or State exchanges is an economically irrelevant question. And the Federal Government has the constitutional power to pass all sorts of economically disastrous laws. This divergence is leading to particularly pointless arguments.

Taxes

Source: Wall Street Journal

Today's (June 18) Wall Street Journal has two noteworthy pieces on tax reform, "Rubio's tax mistake" in the Review and Outlook and Rand Paul's "Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over" Perhaps now that pretty much everyone agrees the tax code is a mess, something will be done about it.

Paul is sure to be pilloried about the 14.5% rate and whether it will generate enough growth to sustain tax revenues and pay for 20% of GDP spending.

But the structure of the tax code is far more important than the rate. It is refreshing to hear a serious presidential candidate stand up to say

"...repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of [rate deliberately deleted] on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. 

It's not exactly the structure I would advocate, but close enough. And close enough even if 14.5% becomes 20%. Or adds higher brackets at higher incomes.  We should talk about the structure separately from the rates to avoid all these distractions.

More deeply it's refreshing to hear a serious candidate start from the premise that the first purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue for the government, in a way that hurts growth as little as possible. As opposed to first and foremost subsidize various activities, people, or businesses.

I also appreciate

every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.

As if? We know who it was designed by!

Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans. 

We don't need polls to know this. Our tax system is still based on voluntary compliance.  An increasing sense that there are special rules for special well-connected people can send us to Greek levels of compliance if we're not careful.  And high statutory rates have always led inexorably to complex ways for rich and well-connected to get out, a sad lesson that our friends advocating for 70 or 90% statutory rates seem to wish away.

But I don't think Paul goes far enough.

All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated.

Et tu, Rand? If we're going to "blow up the tax code and start over," then why would we put in deductions for mortgage interest and charities?

OK, mortgages taken out under the current tax law should get to keep the interest deductibility. We don't change rules in the middle of the game. But why should new mortgages get an interest deduction?

Any deductions are strongly regressive -- If you're paying a 40% marginal rate, you get your interest payments effectively cut by 40%. If you pay a 10% rate, you get a 10% subsidy.  And after a huge financial crisis, what in the world is the US government doing subsidizing debt anyway?

The right answer is to get all subsidizing out of the tax code. If the government wants to subsidize rich people's mortgages, fine, let it pass a spending bill, and send people checks, on budget. It is exactly the same as a matter of economics. If that subsidy would be an unseemly political act that must be hidden as a deduction, then perhaps it is not wise policy.

Similarly, two words should be enough to consider the "charitable" deduction: Clinton Foundation. I'm not complaining here that this institution exists. But why should it be subsidized by the tax code, and why should that subsidy be given preferentially to rich people? Two more words: "Lois Lerner." Recall, she got her power by being in charge of handing out non-profit status.

(Yes, I work for a non-profit university, whose mission I believe is a public good and worthy of philanthropic support. But if we get rid of all special treatment, institutions doing good work, transparently and not funneling money to friends and relatives, should come out ahead.)

Why open the negotiations with a breach in the wall? The best way to negotiate a broaden the base, lower the rate negotiation is with the firm principle that nobody gets special treatment. There is no better way to get a big base of voters on board than, "look, you're going to lose your mortgage interest deduction. That's the price for wiping out the rest of this mess, and in return I'm going to lower your tax rate so much you're going to come out far ahead. Now, lend me your support to make sure we keep all the other deductions and loopholes out." It is commonly claimed that shared sacrifice builds support for a war. A war this will be.

Totally nuts? When Dick Thaler and I agree wholeheartedly on something, perhaps it has some merit.