That's the title of a new book by national radio talk-show host and Law Professor Hugh Hewitt, and Assistant Professor of accounting, and tax accountant Hank Adler. They sub-head is "An Honest Look at a Very, Very Bad Idea".

I just received my copy, am currently reading it, and will try to give as fair a summary as possible of what the authors focus on, as well as comparing it to the FairTax as presented by national talk show host and author Neal Boortz, and Representative John Linder.

Full disclosure: I have been a proponent of the FairTax for years, and although there are certainly serious questions raised by Hewitt and Adler, I find their arguments on the whole less than compelling so far.

First of all, the fact that a book like this has been researched and written is actually a good thing. It not only brings FairTax questions and shortcomings to light--which is the only way they can be adequately and effectively addressed--but it gives significant additional credibility to how much headway the FairTax has gained over the years as more people learn about it.

Hewitt and Adler both agree that the tax system as we know it is a mess, and that major reforms are needed. Their premise is that the FairTax is so flawed that a huge amount of energy is being wasted by the hundreds of thousands of us on a tax system that hasn't a prayer of passing. They feel the energies should be focused elsewhere.

Here's Part One of a summary:

Chapter One.

This deals with what the authors refer to as the "Three Bobs". They use as their example a "superrich" American with an annual income of 10 million dollars. He, of course, loves the FairTax because his current income tax liability is well over 3 million a year, and that would plummet under the FairTax, which is only paid once at the retail level. He'd have to buy almost 14 million dollars worth of goods and services every year in order to provide the government with the same amount of revenue. And if he DID want a big-ticket item, he could just buy it overseas and either leave it there--like a yacht--or carry it home--like a Rolex, since the FairTax doesn't apply out of the country.

The second Bob is an outrageously wealthy foreign entertainer--say a fighter--who comes to New York, makes 100 million dollars in a bout, and leaves the country with all 100 million (minus a few thousand dollars in taxes incurred while he was staying, eating, and shopping.) Lost tax revenue to the government in second Bob's case would be well over 30 million dollars. Another one in favor of the FairTax.

Third Bob is "retired" Bob. He and his wife have saved their money for retirement but now, after the FairTax is passed, the authors claim they will have far reduced purchasing power because of the addition of this new 30% sales tax. This Bob will hate the FairTax.

Hewitt and Adler do briefly acknowledge that the FairTax "prebate" will help Third Bob cope.

One of the basic premises of the FairTax as put forth by Boortz and Linder, is that it eliminates all other federal federal taxes. With that 20-25% of federal taxes that are currently priced into everything we buy, Boortz and Linder claim that the "actual cost" of everything would soon (if not immediately) drop by that amount, so that once the FairTax is included the price at the register will be roughly the same as before. In other words, the FairTax merely replaces the already embedded federal taxes.

Hewitt and Adler don't acknowledge this. They believe there will be a huge increase at the register.

They also insist (over, and over again) that the actual percentage of the FairTax is 30% (the EXclusive rate), not 23% (the INclusive rate), because sales taxes are ALWAYS thought of as "exclusive"--that is, "added on after the price is set". From a practical point of view, the dollar amount paid at the register for any item will be identical no matter how you refer to it.

My contention in the "Three Bobs" scenario is that it's largely a "straw man" argument. Yes, the super wealthy will love the FairTax. (But I love it too, and I'm kinda poor.) Yes, they will pay less federal tax than they do now. So what? They earned the money--or their families did--and they should reap the benefits of being smart, lucky, or hard working.

Plus, how many of the 350 million of us fall into the category of "superrich"? Inventing a specific example of the rich getting richer simply smacks of class warfare.

The example of "Third Bob" is simply erroneous--unless you buy into the argument that when the inherent cost of an item drops by 20-25%, the successive price at the register wont also fall. I agree with Boortz: the free market will force the adjustment down into place.

My last point right now is that since (as described by Boortz and Linder) the FairTax significantly improves the purchasing power for everyone, especially (as a percentage) the poor, the only way to paint the FairTax as villainous is to point out that it REALLY helps the rich.

Is America so jealous of its greatest producers that it won't put into place something that helps everyone just to make certain that the most successful don't benefit? Time will tell.