Did Herman Cain Borrow His 9-9-9 Plan Analysis From A ’96 Report? Ron Paul Supporters Think So

Herman Cain‘s 9-9-9 tax plan has become the hot topic so far in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Whether you consider it simplistic or brilliant, it’s been resonating with voters, as Cain leads the GOP field.

But while the 9-9-9 plan grew in popularity, there was a call for more explanation of the plan. Its origins remained pretty vague, as Cain only identified one of the men behind it. Several times throughout the last debate, Cain urged the other candidates and voters to go read the plan and its analysis. And now, thanks to a poster going by the handle “TexMac” on the RonPaulForums.com message boards, it turns out the analysis Cain touted might be re-purposed from 15 years ago.

TexMac posted a link to an Institute for Policy Innovation report from 1996, titled, “TaxAction Analysis Policy Report #135” that is nearly identical in structure and form to the 9-9-9 analysis put forth by the Cain campaign.

In Cain’s defense, the original Report was written by Gary and Aldona Robbins. Gary Robbins is the economics expert who scored Cain’s plan. So it’s likely that Robbins just re-purposed his 1996 paper for Cain’s 9-9-9 plan in September, finding it, according to Politico’s Reid J. Epstein, to be revenue neutral.

Politico’s Ben Smith compared the two documents and discovered that Cain’s analysis, “borrows 30 of its paragraphs verbatim or almost verbatim,” from the 1996 report, although he notes that many of the paragraphs are simply “innocuous background.” And Smith shoots down accusations of plagiarism by speaking to Institute for Policy Innovation President Tom Giovanetti, who said the Robbinses retained the copyright to the 1996 paper.

Still, Paul’s posters took Cain to task for finding a grey-ish middle ground between re-purposing and laziness, even if the analysis might still be as relevant now as it was in 1996:

“Cain is passing a 1996 paper off verbatim as current ‘analysis’ of his plan,” — TexMac

“What’s really sad is that the 1996 document is so much better done–all of the charts have explanations and seem to make sense–unlike the copy on Cain’s website.” — ChromiumL

“From this point forward I shall refer to what was formerly ‘999’ to ‘1996’” — Steve-in-NY

Care to throw away your weekend and explore the documents on your own? Here is Cain’s scoring report.

And here is the original report from 1996.