1

Huck said on Fox News Sunday that he supports school choice but that he'd opposed school vouchers in AR because they could have overwhelmed private schools with more kids than they could have handled. He also said that it should remain a state matter and that the fed govt should keep hands off. Or so I recall.

Nothing wrong with this position, it seems to me. But it's not the same as having supported vouchers in AR.

2

Joe,

Is there a distinction between "supporting school choice" and "supporting public school choice"? Is there a specific reason why Gov. Huckabee's website chose the latter? I don't know if this relates to George 2's comment.

Thanks for the post,
Alex

3

He is also a huge supporter of home education which is one (of many) reasons that my wife and I supported him in the Iowa Caucus.

4

Credit where it's due - Huck made gains in education in AR. By all means, focus on that. But he certainly does oppose vouchers, and the support of a teacher's union is not a point in his favor to most conservatives.

Huckabee became the first Republican yesterday to be endorsed by the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association. In a short press conference, President Rhonda Wesolowski lauded Huckabee's opposition to school vouchers and his commitment to arts and music education.

And this:

As Arkansas governor, Huckabee reduced regulations on homeschooling and appointed a homeschooling mother to the state board of education.

But he also consistently opposed school-choice programs that included private schools. When a commission he appointed recommended Arkansas give all parents a voucher equal to the per-pupil cost of educating a child in the local public schools, he instantly rejected the proposal. He also opposed President Bush's initial plan to give children in failing federally funded public schools a voucher redeemable at private or religious schools.

5

When I first heard that Da Gov had been endorsed by the NEA, I couldn't help but think that that was only one step below being endorsed by Beelzebub.

6

Non-Republican here...serious question: do you all really have to answer the likes of Rush Limbaugh? If so, you must live in a very scary world.

7

Non-Republican here...serious question: do you all really have to answer the likes of Rush Limbaugh? If so, you must live in a very scary world. Oh, teacher's unions are evil? Yikes!

8

If you listen to what Mike Huckabee has said and even what he has done, you would know that he does support vouchers in some instances where they are appropriate, such as urban areas where there are a large number of schools in close proximity. He was not found of them in Arkansas because, believe it or not, this is a rural state for the most. Schools are sometimes 30-50 miles apart. Don't know about you but that is one heck of a commute for a 6 year old.

On a side note, the cost of educating children is not a set cost. It costs a lot more to educate a child with mental problems or other handicap than it does the traditional student. If you had school vouchers, these special needs kids would bankrupt a private school or Christian school. Then who does that benefit? Not only does the special needs student no longer have a school of choice but neither does the rest of the kids that were there before.

In addition to that, if you have a school that is below the standard of another school in the same area, then theoretically all the students of the under-performing school will transfer to the one that is performing. Who does this benefit? I would say no one because you then over crowd the good school and quality goes down. The under performing school goes out of business or worse, has just enough kids to stay open but receives less funding to try to improve. Why not fix the root cause of the problem and fix the sub-standard school? Granted, this has not been done very well up till now but is the alternative really that much better? I am not so sure.

9

I do not listen to Rush and never have. I have been keeping up a little with what is going on through Drudge and some other sources though. From what I can tell, Rush was indifferent at best towards Huckabee until Atlantic.com posted a story about an anonymous Huckabee ally criticizing Rush. Then he blows his top and pretty much bashes Huckabee non-stop since. Is it just me or does this sound illogical? You take the word of some writer who will not name his source which even he claims as a Huckabee ally and not Huckabee himself. Why do you base your anger on something that is not only hear-say but also unsubstantiated? That seems a little gullible to me unless of course you were just looking for an excuse to criticize and create controversy, by the way resulting in higher ratings.

For all we know, it very well could of been a Romney ally saying those things in order to plant the seed that Rush is now hell-bent on cultivating.

10

Joe, you are wrong.

When any conservative or libertarian talks about school choice, they invariably mean the right to choose any school, public or private. When they talk about school vouchers, they mean vouchers that can be used at any school, public or private. Huckabee opposes both of these concepts. He has always opposed both of these concepts.

Arkansas law -- which Huckabee has always supported -- allows school choice in only one sense: if a public school is not doing well, its students can choose to *ask* to go to another public school. That's it.

It is completely disingenous for you to try to paint Huckabee as a supporter of vouchers and choice. He is the exact opposite, which is why he was endorsed by the NH NEA.

Get your facts straight.

11

I have been a Rush listener for years and have always appreciated his political analysis. That's why I have been surprised at his wholesale mischaracterization of Mike Huckabee. I think his (and many other conservative pundit's) criticism of Huck may have less to do with his political positions and more to do with their discomfort over the language he is using.

Why is a populist message a bad thing, especially if it draws people in the middle toward a conservative point of view? After all, doesn't conservatism offer the best solutions to those who struggle most in our society? Liberals have monopolized populist language for decades as a way to lure voters toward their promise of more government. Can't conservatives appeal to the least of these too, but with the message of personal responsibility and getting government out of the way? I think the answer is yes.

As a long-time and ongoing fan of talk radio I have been disappointed at what I've heard over the airwaves these past few weeks. If nothing else, the Huckabee phenomenon has helped to shed light on the sometimes unfortunate practice of knee-jerk, groupthink mentality of some conservatives.

12

"When did Rush Limbaugh stop being in favor of Reagan Democrats?"

Duh. When they were no longer useful idiots for the Republican kleptocracy.

13

Huckabee is a tax cutter. He is also a tax raiser. On balance, he raised them.

Let's say that one day I give you a dollar, then I give you another dollar for the next four consecutive days. On the sixth day, I take 10 dollars from you. I could argue that I am generous to a fault, since I gave to you a total of five times and only took from you once - even though you have a net loss of five dollars.

This seems to be the little game that Huckabee is playing. It was apparent in the weekend debate that he was avoiding the truth, finally claiming in frustration that he raised taxes because the Arkansas courts made him do it. Again, I expect this to be a half-truth, which is actually a lie. Your man is looking bad.

As is his habit, Huckabee has come down on both sides of the school voucher issue. The Club for Growth analysis makes this clear. But Huckabee is on record opposing school choice.

He has advocated consolidation of public schools in Arkansas, a progressive position that sparked outrage in rural communities. And just last month he announced his opposition to school vouchers. He said he was more concerned about government control of parochial schools than the loss of tax dollars to public schools. Arkansas Times 9/22/2005

Your definition of populism is simplistic. As you and Rush differ, how about an objective third-party definition?

Populism is the use of discourses, ideas or policies which aim to appeal to "the people" by setting up a dichotomy between "the people" and "the elite". This populist appeal to "the people" has often been associated with an emotional appeal to identities, including national, class, ethnic and regional ones. Populism may involve either a political philosophy urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style, deployed by members of the political class competing for advantage within the existing regime.

Academic definitions of populism vary widely. "To each his own definition of populism, according to the academic axe he grinds," wrote Peter Wiles in Populism: Its Meanings and National Characteristics (1969)

14

Sorry, I meant to write "But Huckabee is on record opposing school vouchers."

15

Former Huckabee Staffer,
Sounds like a semantic matter

~C,
Some segments of conservatism are self-correcting and self-policing.

***

It seems that Huck goes 75% of the way, which is not an unreasonable position. It's certainly more practical and beneficial than our current situation.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/

16

Rush Limbaugh is a media tool of the corporate elite wing of the republican party. Huckabee gets his support from grassroots evangelicals, who may not necessarily support all of the agenda and policy of the elites.

Why would you think Rush would present a fair view of Huckabee? It's to be expected that Rush would smear him.

17

He's a populist because he appeals to group identity, resentment and paranoia. The whole "con-sheeple" "DC-Manhattan Axis" "Republican kleptocracy" schtick. So do you. You're both populists, in the negative sense. It's us little, authentic, real guys against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It's all about you and your resentments.

18

On cue, JohnW exemplifies why Rush is right when he calls Huckabee a populist.

Do the proponents of other Republican candidates talk that way? Ron Paul maybe.

19

Jeff B.,

Would you expand on your comments in post 18?

FYI, I am not a Huckabee supporter. Howerver, I do see how Huckabee doesn't conform to the agenda of the conservative elite/PNAC wing of the republican party and how their lapdogs in the media are responding to him. If that makes me a populist, so be it.

When people see the upcoming media smackdown of Huckabee, I hope they learn something from it. The swiftboating is about to begin...

20

Alex

Is there a distinction between "supporting school choice" and "supporting public school choice"? Is there a specific reason why Gov. Huckabee's website chose the latter? I don't know if this relates to George 2's comment.

To me it would sound like "public school choice" would mean you could send your kid to any public school you want while "school choice" would probably be more along the lines of vouchers.

"Public school choice" probably would be more relevant in a place like NYC where you have many public schools within a reasonable commute. I would imagine in Ark it would be less meaningful as the schools would be spaced further apart. Of course you would have to limit choice to the actual capacity of the schools.

Former Staffer
When any conservative or libertarian talks about school choice, they invariably mean the right to choose any school, public or private. When they talk about school vouchers, they mean vouchers that can be used at any school, public or private. Huckabee opposes both of these concepts. He has always opposed both of these concepts.

School choice already exists in 100% of the US. You are free to use your own money to purchase any education you desire from private schools, tutors, 'lessons on cd', books etc. Your ability to use other people's money to buy things (i.e. taxpayers money which is what vouchers are) is limited as it shoudl be.

True Huckabee opposed school vouchers. So has every single Red State in the country. It's kind of perplexing that this would be a Presidential issue since only a fraction of education spending is done on the Federal level. If vouchers are to be implemented it is almost certainly to be done at the state level, or perhaps some very large local districts in big cities. Yet despite the fact that there are plenty of areas that are solidly Republican almost no one has implemented vouchers in the way libertarians advocate. Why? Are you all going to tell me that the NEA has near infinite political power accross the entire country?

21

Notice the disconnect here:

He has advocated consolidation of public schools in Arkansas, a progressive position that sparked outrage in rural communities. And just last month he announced his opposition to school vouchers.

Vouchers would be the ultimate consolidation of public schools. This crops up all the time. Local communities want control of their public schools and resent interference from outsiders (either the state capital or Washington)...unless the outsiders are just sending checks. But to implement vouchers you'd almost certainly have to abolish the local boards of education.

22

Many liberals I’ve read seem obsessed with this idea that conservatism consists of a diabolical corporate elite who are manipulating a large mass of stupid social conservatives who don’t know what’s really best for them. I mean, the alternative would be to believe that a large number of people might actually disagree with them about policies and that possibility seems incredible to many on the left, hence the frequent reference to the public as sheep.
One of the distressing things about Huckabee and his more vocal supporters is that they seem to buy into this rhetoric with their whole idea of helping the little guy stick it to the evil corporate conservative elite. It’s not the case, and I have a hard time trusting a guy who claims to be conservative while trying to campaign against conservatives using the rhetoric of the left.

23

School choice already exists in 100% of the US. You are free to use your own money to purchase any education you desire from private schools, tutors, 'lessons on cd', books etc. Your ability to use other people's money to buy things (i.e. taxpayers money which is what vouchers are) is limited as it shoudl be.

HA HA HA HA HA HA.

No need to elaborate further. What a kooky distinction.

24

JohnW,

Would you expand on your comments in post 18?

I ask you to read the definition of populism in post 13 very carefully, ponder it, then compare to your own post 16.

To suggest that the media are lapdogs for Republicans of any stripe is laughable.

Instead of using identity politics and insinuation, why not debate the policies themselves? I can tell you exactly why I am a conservative. It has nothing to do with resentment toward others and everything to do with principle.

Inasmuch as I am a conservative Southern Baptist Christian from the South - my repudiation of Huckabee is exemplary of this principled streak. I will not vote for Huckabee because he is "just like me." When one examines the facts, Huckabee is problematic for conservatives.

25

Darrell,

The Neo-liberal corporate elite are no better than the neo-con corporate elite.

The fact of the matter is a few major corporations control the predominant media in this country and effectively control the range of political opinions we hear in this country and keep the masses preoccupied with exploits of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and whatever young white girl happens to be missing somewhere in the world... It's not a conspiracy, just the way the system is set up. Yes, alternative views are available, mostly on the internet, but this doesn't reach the majority of the population.

It's the interests of the corporate/military industrial complex that our government represents, not the average working person. Both the liberals and conservatives are controlled by these interests. For example, look at the democrat controlled congress, they talk a big game, but in the end they keep giving Bush all the money he wants for Iraq and "impeachment is off the table".

Huckabee represent a potential threat to the status quo-just watch, he'll be shut down soon.

26

It looks like some don't know the difference between the periodic populist-persuasive statements of any campaign and having an overall Populist framework.

27

Huckabee represent a potential threat to the status quo-just watch, he'll be shut down soon.

Please. Huckabee IS the status quo. That's the problem.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate his social conservatism very much. But I want a full-fledged conservative, not a piecemeal one.

28

The definition of populism above seems a lot like demagoguery-the stock and trade of Rush,Bill Oreilley, and Hannity. If that's what populism is, I think I'll start using the phrase "representative democracy responsive to the needs of the average citizen" instead.

Huckabee supports "war on terror"/"islamofascist" rhetoric, but when he makes an honest statement about the bunker mentality of Bush-look what happens. His words get distorted and he is smeared. His rather mild statement is seen as a threat to the status quo-how dare anything say anything remotely suggesting the concept of a "war on terror" is nonsense and that 911 did not "change everything".

29

Jeff

No need to elaborate further. What a kooky distinction.

The kooky distinction being the difference between your own money and the taxpayers money. This is from a conservative? God help us.

30

JohnW:

His rather mild statement is seen as a threat to the status quo-how dare anything say anything remotely suggesting the concept of a "war on terror" is nonsense and that 911 did not "change everything".

If I understand you right, you favor Huckabee because he does not subscribe to the notion that Islamofascism is a serious threat or that 9/11 represents a sea change.

If that is your position, I guess I'll have to agree. That is one reason I am against Huckabee. I am afraid he will be weak on the GWOT. But I don't think that Huckabee himself or Joe is going to concede your point.

31

Jeff Blogworthy:

You want to talk about the facts concerning policies on school vouchers in Arkansas. Very well. Let's do it. On this particular, issue, I'm open to being persuaded that Huckabee's record is unfavorable.

First, read this.

The article seems fair to me, and moreover it (at times) shows WHY Huckabee opposed specific voucher proposals in Arkansas as governor. Simplistic sound bites of "HUCKABEE OPPOSES SCHOOL VOUCHERS" do not cut it with me, just as simplistic refrains of "HUCKABEE RAISED TAXES" do not cut it for me--and they should not for you as well. I want to know WHY and whether it is justified. If you are of the mind that ALL TAXES ARE EVIL AND NOT CONSERVATIVE NO MATTER WHY THEY WERE RAISED, then you are a libertarian, not a conservative, and the argument must go deeper to your flawed (and since you're Christian, I'll play the unbiblical card) conception of human nature, though the argument may have to be had at another venue.

From the article, Governor Huckabee says that education is primarily a state issue. I agree.

The interviewer throws this bombshell in the middle:

"But he also consistently opposed school-choice programs that included private schools. When a commission he appointed recommended Arkansas give all parents a voucher equal to the per-pupil cost of educating a child in the local public schools, he instantly rejected the proposal. He also opposed President Bush's initial plan to give children in failing federally funded public schools a voucher redeemable at private or religious schools."

Unfortunately, it's a sound bite and stays at that intellectually weak level. So I reject it, since I'm realistic and know there is more to policy than philosophy. Logistics matter, and could easily be the reason that Huckabee made his decisions, in addition to the fact that maybe Bush shouldn't be so involved in education. For example, near the beginning, Huckabee reveals what he thinks of the role of the federal govt in education:

"When I asked Huckabee to point to language in the Constitution that authorizes a Department of Education or federal involvement in primary and secondary education, he said he does not believe the federal government has much more than a cheerleading role in this area. "I don't think there is really a federal role or responsibility, constitutionally, in education," he said. "I think education is a local function. It should be a state function. I have always believed that, and I still believe it. I think if there's a role, it is to encourage, it's to recognize the value and importance.""

Hmm. That might be a clue as to why Huckabee opposed a Federal mandate for vouchers. It's the conservative principle called federalism that Bush sometimes ignores.

Next is more helpful as to why Huckabee made the STATE level decisions regarding education:

"Huckabee told me that while he opposed vouchers in Arkansas and federal mandates for vouchers, he supports states and local school districts that implement them. "What I don't want to do is to have the federal government coming down and telling all 50 states here is how you are going to fund education, here is what vouchers are going to look like," he said. "Because in some states, for example mine, it would be very problematic to create a statewide voucher system when most of our schools are rural, they're small, they are miles from another school, the economies of scale simply wouldn't necessarily make it that easy to implement a widespread voucher system. But if local districts wished to do it, if states wish to do it, I think that's fine. It goes back to the basic concept that this is a state's decision.""

Finally, here is the REASON why Huckabee, though he in general supports vouchers, opposed the specific voucher proposal, namely that it would have been economically unfeasible because of the kind of state Arkansas is: mostly rural. If you are going to give a check for every student based on the cost-per-pupil of their education, you need to take into account the transportation costs for each student. That means that if I can now choose to send my kid to a school 20 miles away, the cost of education is going up relative to if the school is 2 miles away; because the government would give vouchers based on this cost, it would not be economically feasible for the government to fund vouchers.

Instead, Huckabee is in favor of something better:

"In his interview with me, however, Huckabee did offer an alternative route to school choice for parents who don't want to send their children to public schools. "I think that we ought to have tax credits for a family whose decision is to put their children in an alternative environment. And that is something that I would support," he said. "It's an empowering method to families.""

Why is this better? Because it's not making the government (and by extension ALL taxpayers) pay for whatever education costs individuals choose, no matter what the economies of scale in a state are, but it's empowering families by giving them tax breaks to spend their money wisely (i.e. maybe sending the kid 20 miles away is not such a great idea) instead of making the government pay for it.

This seems to me inestimably conservative, respecting spheres of sovereignty, and as importantly, realistic, well-thought out and wise, because it actually takes into account the very real differences between states and local districts and does not resort to a government mandate--even if it's concerning a supposedly conservative issue.

So can we PLEASE stop with the simplistic sound bite reductions with the issue of school choice? I'm talking to you, Former Huckabee Staffer and Jeff Blogworthy. Logistics matter for governing. Knowing your state matters for governing. And at least with education, it's the difference between shallow accusations of "populism" and "being liberal," and true conservative governing.

If you disagree, feel free to present arguments of WHY concerning Huckabee's handling of school choice, as well as the sources you're using.

32

Be cognizant of the rule but jettison it. The best kind of criticism comes from within. Whether, as Christians, as conservatives, or as people in general, we should always be the first ones to point out our own flaws and get them corrected. It's kind of like having a booger in your nose and you go out in public and get laughed at because your friends and family never said anything because of unwritten rules.

33

Boonton:
The kooky distinction being the difference between your own money and the taxpayers money. This is from a conservative? God help us.

I agree with your sentiments here; they are absolutely correct.

34

Jeff B.,

Re Post 30.

Let me clarify:

I think Huckabee does subscribe to the notion that Islamofascism is a serious threat and that 9/11 represents a sea change. I do not.

A few weeks ago Giggling referred me to Huckabee's statement about the "war on terror" where he made the mild criticism of the Bush administration. Huckabee had some good suggestions about cooperation and so forth, but nevertheless it was full of the islamofascist and "clash of civilization" rhetoric.

My point is that Huckabee's mild statement could possible cause some to actually critically analyze our country's way of dealing with terrorism. This represents a threat to the status quo, as we are not suppose to question. We are just supposed to shut up and let the governmennt keep us safe.

35

"In his interview with me, however, Huckabee did offer an alternative route to school choice for parents who don't want to send their children to public schools. "I think that we ought to have tax credits for a family whose decision is to put their children in an alternative environment. And that is something that I would support," he said. "It's an empowering method to families.""

Why is this better? Because it's not making the government (and by extension ALL taxpayers) pay for whatever education costs individuals choose, no matter what the economies of scale in a state are, but it's empowering families by giving them tax breaks to spend their money wisely (i.e. maybe sending the kid 20 miles away is not such a great idea) instead of making the government pay for it.

Now that my children have graduated from public schools, do I have to keep paying school taxes for the rest of my life?

36

Giggling:

You raise some good points. I'll be happy to flesh things out.

I don't care "why taxes were raised." The government always has no end of excuses. Let the government manage its own house. If they need more money in one area, let them CUT SPENDING in other areas like the rest of us. If Huckabee said, "Yes, I raised taxes and here is why," instead of going around claiming to be a tax-cutter, I would have more sympathy.

The interviewer throws this bombshell in the middle...

You have that wrong. Here is the bombshell: Huckabee says that education is a state matter and no business of the federal government(position 1), then says he has no problem with the Dept. of Education or No Child Left Behind (position 2). These are conflicting positions. Huckabee is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not seem to have the courage of his convictions.

Regarding the tax credit for private schools, as opposed to vouchers - either is a great idea. Why doesn't Huckabee campaign on this? Why doesn't he mention the idea under "Education" on his website? Why does he prefer the parsing term "public school choice?" Why didn't Joe, one who should know, bring it up in his rebuttal?

Check it out for yourself. His platform does not mention tax credits or vouchers. Huckabee can't articulate his own arguments, yet you expect me to discern them?

Forgive me for not knowing, but the interview you cite was published five days ago. This position seems to be a well-kept secret. One wonders if it is not another evolution in response to recent conservative criticism, but good for Huckabee. If this is his position then I withdraw this aspect of my criticism. Others remain.

37

Giggling and Boonton:

I really cannot believe that neither of you can grasp the concept that "you" and "the taxpayer" are one in the same. I guess this makes your gripe with conservatism self-evident.

38

Hmm. That might be a clue as to why Huckabee opposed a Federal mandate for vouchers. It's the conservative principle called federalism that Bush sometimes ignores.

Ironically the most logical thing to do if you want to go the voucher route is to Federalize all of education and give everyone a voucher they can use anywhere and not be limited by geography. After all, it's not like your Social Security check changes if you decide to move from New Jersey to Florida.

That means that if I can now choose to send my kid to a school 20 miles away, the cost of education is going up relative to if the school is 2 miles away; because the government would give vouchers based on this cost, it would not be economically feasible for the government to fund vouchers.

A purest would argue that this wouldn't matter. After all, if you're in a rural area and want to go to college on student loans you are probably going to have to move a lot more than 20 miles away whereas if you lived in a big city like NY you would have half a dozen colleges within easy commuting distance. This would turn the local public school into a monopoly in rural areas making it less of a dynamic market and a bit more like the cable company was before dish tv gave them a little bit of competition.

Why is this better? Because it's not making the government (and by extension ALL taxpayers) pay for whatever education costs individuals choose, no matter what the economies of scale in a state are, but it's empowering families by giving them tax breaks to spend their money wisely (i.e. maybe sending the kid 20 miles away is not such a great idea) instead of making the government pay for it.

Actually it's just the opposite. You're making everyone else pay more in taxes in order to give a break to someone that does something you want (like send their kid to a private school). What about the parent who pays the college boy next door to give their public school kid extra tutoring? No tax break there. How about the parent who buys a computer for their kid? No tax break there. How about the parent who takes a day off of work each month to meet with the teachers? No tax break there and if they tried to claim that credit they'd probably be charged with tax fraud. Isn't there already an standard deduction for kids in the tax code as well as special credits and the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower income families? That's real empowerment because it puts cash in the parents hands that they can spend as they see fit. Why not simply expand that if you're going to go this route?

The problem with using tax policy as a means of social engineering is that it's highly inefficient because you have to pay for people who are doing the behavior anyway. Say you want to increase charity by increasing the deduction for charitable giving. Well if today 100 people donate and afterwards 110 people donate you've increased giving by 10%. But your deduction applies not just to the 10 new people but to the 100 old people giving. You've effectively spent $1.10 to get $0.10 more going to charity. Even if your gov't was highly inefficient it would probably be cheaper to just directly grant charities the $0.10.

If your goal is to actually improve education for kids who would benefit by switching from public to private school then you the cheapest way to do it would be to directly target them. If you just want to make life for all parents a little easier then it's more efficient to use the money for either lower overall rates or increasing the general deductions/credits for kids. IMO this is why vouchers have mostly failed in the US. They are only applicable in areas where people are deeply unhappy with their public schools (as opposed to a vague feeling that schools in general should "do better").

The libertarian argument breaks down because voucher supporters consistently confuse taxpayer money with parent's money. Yes some parents do pay in taxes exactly what the gov't is spending to educate their kids but mostly it is those without kids who are paying for those with kids. I know, my sister-in-law has 5 kids and I can guarantee you she has never paid a penny in property taxes because she's made a career out of mooching off of us. I, on the other hand, pay through the nose yet have no kids (yet).

The libertarian logic would simply remove all gov't from education and leave simply a mandate on parents to educate their kids (either using their own money or doing it themselves). Just like parents have a general obligation to provide food, shelter, and medical care. Giving everyone an 'equal change' would only mean at best a general grant to those with children to help them with the additional responsibilities they face. This isn't a conservative argument, though. And that shouldn't be surprising because school vouchers were not the brainchild of a conservative but by a libertarian, namely Milton Friedman. Vouchers were actually a watered down libertarianism.

39

I really cannot believe that neither of you can grasp the concept that "you" and "the taxpayer" are one in the same. I guess this makes your gripe with conservatism self-evident.

They aren't Jeff unless you know of a school district that funds itself by slapping a tax on 'kid tax' on parents.

40

You have that wrong. Here is the bombshell: Huckabee says that education is a state matter and no business of the federal government(position 1), then says he has no problem with the Dept. of Education or No Child Left Behind (position 2). These are conflicting positions. Huckabee is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not seem to have the courage of his convictions.

From what I understand the No Child Left Behind act essentially mandated two things. One is that schools test the kids and report the results publically. Two is that states provide parents some method to move their kids out of schools that are consistently failing. I'm not sure I see how this is an incredible amount of Federal meddling, especially since the bulk of it seems targetted towards making sure parents and taxpayers can objectively evaluate schools. Both rightists and leftists consistently trash the act but rarely do they articulate what it is that they object too so much.

Check it out for yourself. His platform does not mention tax credits or vouchers. Huckabee can't articulate his own arguments, yet you expect me to discern them?

To be fair to Huck, since he is going to replace the income tax with a flat, no-deduction sales tax where would he be able to put a 'tax credit'? On the other hand since he wants to impose a sales tax of over 30% on services that would include private school tuition. The family that is spending $3,000 a year on a parochial school would be hit with a $900 tax bill.

41

I would like to add this:

Rush, humble yourself or God will do it for you.

(I know, I've been there before, we all have).

42

"I would like to add this:

Rush, humble yourself or God will do it for you."

Because a failure to support your preferred candidate is a sign of sin?

43

Boonton writes: On the other hand since he wants to impose a sales tax of over 30%...

This is a case of "is the glass half-full or half-empty". FairTax supporters say, "you go to the store and buy an item that has a $100 price tag. The Feds end up with $23, so that FairTax is a 23% inclusive sales tax. It isn't a 30% tax, since you're paying $100, not $130."

FairTax opponents say, "the true price of the item is $77; the $23 tax is 29.87% of the item, so you're paying a 30% exclusive tax".

Both are right. They said there would be no math, but "they" lied. To find the price of an item, using the inclusive method:

item-cost = total-cost - .23 * total-cost
=> item-cost = (1 - .23) * total-cost
=> item-cost = .77 * total-cost

Therefore, using the exclusive method, the tax turns out to be the ratio of .23/.77 which is 29.87%.

Sorry for the pedantry, but the "it's inclusive", "no, it's exclusive" argument is stopped by saying "the glass is at 50% capacity". 23% inclusive is 30% exclusive, so both sides are right, but refusing to speak in the same terms.

So any pro/con arguments have to deal with other issues. I want the FairTax because:

1) It simplifies the tax code. However, it won't get rid of the IRS (someone still has to collect the tax from merchants).
2) More importantly, it removes the ability of Congress to manipulate the populace through the tax code. As a conservative, I think this is a wonderful thing.
3) It doesn't penalize saving, nor does it penalize hard work. Again, good things.
4) It's a progressive tax. As a Christian conservative, I hold to "to whom much is given, much is required." Spider-man conservatives will recognize this as "with great power comes great responsibility". The wealthy spend more, so they will pay more taxes.
5) It removes "hidden" taxes that consumers pay on behalf of corporations. Yes, corporations pay taxes (I ought to know, I have one), but they also pass them on to the consumer. I want every tax source to be up front and out in the open.

Other comments?

44

Boonton wrote: On the other hand since he wants to impose a sales tax of over 30% ...

29.87% is not "over 30%" (cf. post # 43).

on services that would include private school tuition. The family that is spending $3,000 a year on a parochial school would be hit with a $900 tax bill.

I'm already being hit with this tax bill. What's your point?

45

RE: School choice and vouchers...

Vouchers were up for a vote when my boys were in a private school. Many private schools did not want them because of the government strings that would be attached with the vouchers (many Christian private schools were concerned about this).

I opposed "vouchers" then and still do for that reason. I think that a TAX CREDIT would be the better way for parents who's children attend private schools or who home school.

But I also support the FAIR TAX (on consumption)that Huckabee proposes...so maybe a tax credit would not be possible with a FAIR TAX system???

ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ????

(a "young" grandmother in California) :-)

46

Actually Joe, I heard Mike on Hannity's radio program last week say he was not big on voucher's because it attaches government strings to private education.

But he is clearly for school choice. Most of us home schoolers would favor tax credits that we can use to educate our children as we see fit.

Some of my family lived in Alaska for a while and they received $400 per child per year from the state to home school. But they were not allowed to buy anything religious with those state funds. That's why many Christian home schoolers largely oppose voucher programs and, instead, favor tax credits.

47

wrf3
Sorry for the pedantry, but the "it's inclusive", "no, it's exclusive" argument is stopped by saying "the glass is at 50% capacity". 23% inclusive is 30% exclusive, so both sides are right, but refusing to speak in the same terms.

I agree but when talking about sales tax people normally talk in the mode that I was talking about. If $100 is the price and $130 is what you pay at the register the rate is 30%. The 23% figure is being tossed around because supporters are benefiting from those who think it means $100 will become $123.

One your pro's:

1. The IRS would have to become much more aggressive since the tax opens the door to massive fraud.

2. Manipulation will begin day 1. I suspect the first targets will be legit. For example, Huckabee's proposal would destroy the home building industry because new homes will get taxed when sold but not exiting homes (since they are 'used' I guess). Others will follow. For example, what about private school tuition? Medical bills?

3. 3) It doesn't penalize saving, nor does it penalize hard work. Again, good things.

Actually it's a massive penalty for anyone who has saved. They already paid income tax, now they will pay the new sales tax when they have to spend it. Keep in mind many of these people will be older people who will be getting socked on the taxes for medical bills or even insurance premiums.

4. The wealthy spend more, so they will pay more taxes.

It's a remarkably regressive tax. Under $200K in income and you'll probably be hit with an effective rate of close to 40-50% while today your effective income tax rate is probably less than 25%.

5. I want every tax source to be up front and out in the open.

I don't disagree with you there but the problem is there is no single source that can really bear the entire tax burden. If you do it with consumption you're looking at real rates of close to 50%. Ditto for income and everything else. The optimal solution is probably going to remain a diversity of sources such as we have now.

29.87% is not "over 30%" (cf. post # 43).

29.87% is coming from his double counting trick. He sets his proposal to be 'revenue neutral' so that it raises the same amount of money as the current system BUT at the same time he would have gov't pay taxes on its purchases. For example, if today the Defense Dept. spends $100M on a new jet under Huckabee it would spend $129.87M. But in order to make a valid comparison you need to either set the tax rate to accomodate the rise in gov't spending or exempt gov't spending from the tax. Either way the true rate has to be in excess of 30%.

I'm already being hit with this tax bill. What's your point?

If you're paying a 30% sales tax on school tuition then I think you may want to question whether or not your accountant is fleecing you. If you're talking about income taxes you're still probably wrong. Paying $900 in tax to have $3000 in spending money would be an effective tax rate of 23% According to http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf (see page 2), you would need to be in the highest 20% of income (over $207,200) to approach that. That's not taking into account the fact that having a kid gives you a dependent deduction that would mean your income would have to be all the higher before you can say that just on the school cost you are better off with Huckabee's policy than the current one.

Needless to say at lower levels of income it's is almost certain Huckabee's policy would make you worse off for sending your kid to private school. You see a higher increase in your tax rate and the loss of deductions and the EITC. Remember his 'prebate' does not give you anything more because you're sending the kid to a private school rather than public one.

Lynn
I opposed "vouchers" then and still do for that reason. I think that a TAX CREDIT would be the better way for parents who's children attend private schools or who home school.

So if you have a kid and don't send him to school you can get money. Sounds like more than a few might be tempted to keep their kids home claiming they are 'homeschooling' them while they are really having them watch TV. To keep that from happening you'd need to make sure the homeschoolers were really on the up and up but then you're talking about the IRS having to come in from DC and ask all types of questions about what you're doing with your kids at home all day. Yet you said earlier you didn't like vouchers because they may come with 'strings'.

You're essentially saying you want to find a way to get money without any strings attached. I wish you the best of luck, you're not the only one ou tthere.

But I also support the FAIR TAX (on consumption)that Huckabee proposes...so maybe a tax credit would not be possible with a FAIR TAX system???

The only thing you could do is exempt schooling from the tax. That opens up two cans of worms. The small one is what is a school? How about when the homeschooler buys books at Barnes & Noble? Do they tell the girl at the register which ones are for their kids homeschool and which ones are just 'consumption'? What if you are teaching your kid to cook or repair cars? These are legitimate classes in a school but do you get an exemption from Shoprite and Autozone for materials?

The bigger can of worms is if you exempt education what about everything else? How would grandma feel about not being able to afford the 30% tax on medicine while Mr. Yuppie down the street is exempt from paying tax on his MBA tuition? One the calls come in to start exempting this and that the difference is going to have to be made up with higher overall rates. At that point you can kiss goodbye the 30% rate (as if it was real to begin with).

48

I just moved from Arkansas right as Huckabee left office. I lived there for almost his entire time as Gov. Rush and several of the posts here are forgetting a circumstance that would have to be considered in an Arkansas school voucher program.
They were under a court order to fix issues with the schools. if there was a voucher (tax money) program allowed, then the taxes he had to raise to get the funds would have needed raised again because they would have been depleted by the voucher program. So as Gov. Mike made the right fiscal choice to not want vouchers at that time. This is also a good explaination as to why he might have used the term public school choice since that would not remove the babdly needed tax money from where the court said it was to go.

49

Jeff Blogworthy:

Thank you for your response. First, I am fully in agreement with you that Huckabee's positions need to be known better, and a lot of that fault is his own; but as long as people are caricaturing the positions and record he actually is articulating clearly (e.g. HUCKABEE IS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS), I find it hard to fault ONLY Huckabee for the lack of knowledge of his positions. People are to blame for their laziness and willingness to speak ignorance before listening and reading.

I don't care "why taxes were raised." The government always has no end of excuses. Let the government manage its own house. If they need more money in one area, let them CUT SPENDING in other areas like the rest of us.

I agree with you that the government has the responsibility to, if possible, make do with their current budget before seeking to increase taxes.

But have you (and the others in the "us" you speak for) never in your life increased your budget and revenue because your old budget couldn't cover the costs? What happened when you had a child? Did you CUT SPENDING in your own food intake and gas and your wife's? Maybe, but you probably budgeted more, or you got a second job, or otherwise increased your revenue, because SOMETIMES the situation is such that simply cutting spending is not enough. It's not that simple. If it were that simple, please let me know exactly what spending you think should have been cut in Arkansas.

When I see Huckabee raising and lowering taxes over his term, I DON'T see a governor who's somehow "inconsistent" and liberal. I see a governor dealing with REALITY who tries to cut taxes as much as possible, but raises them when he needs to, just like you or I would cut spending if we could but nevertheless would increase our budget and gain additional revenue if we had to. It's not like Arkansas is a rich state that's swimming in tax money and spending it irresponsibly (*cough* California *cough*).

You have that wrong. Here is the bombshell: Huckabee says that education is a state matter and no business of the federal government(position 1), then says he has no problem with the Dept. of Education or No Child Left Behind (position 2). These are conflicting positions. Huckabee is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not seem to have the courage of his convictions.

Jeff, he doesn't say that the federal government has no business at all in education. If you go back and read his words and try to understand what HE means instead of "the interpretation of what he could possibly mean that would make him seem the most contradictory and foolish," you'll see that he doesn't believe the Constitution positively mandates a role or responsibility for the federal government in education, but he seems to believe that the Constitution does not forbid an "encouragement" role either. While this does mean that he (and anyone else who doesn't believe the Dept of Ed should be abolished immediately, including the whole Supreme Court) has a loose view of the Constitution, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS CONTRADICTORY.

On that note, does anyone know whether Scalia/Thomas believes as a matter of constitutional law believe the Dept of Ed should be abolished?

But yes, Huckabee is in the mainstream in that he has a looser view of the Constitution than Ron Paul.

Regarding the tax credit for private schools, as opposed to vouchers - either is a great idea. Why doesn't Huckabee campaign on this?

Jeff, you've missed the point again! Either of those might be great ideas to campaign on if Huckabee wants to be elected to a state governorship. But he's running for President, and he SPECIFICALLY OPPOSED a federally mandated voucher system bill (remember Bush's?) precisely because national voucher systems are unfeasible and wrong in light of federalism.

Do you understand?? He opposes national vouchers systems. He supports STATE voucher systems if they are CHOSEN by individual states (federalism!) because they are economically feasible and citizens (e.g. Christian homeschoolers) aren't worried about the strings attached (e.g. must teach evolution). That does NOT make him contradictory. That makes him a wise governor.

He would therefore NEVER run for President with a nat'l voucher system OR tax credit system in his education platform, because that's a STATE decision. Instead, the federal govt, for Huckabee, has to find alternative ways to ENCOURAGE educational improvement (e.g. standards) while not MANDATING specific ways of accomplishing the goals (e.g. NCLB) that would never work.

You might disagree with his views on the federal government's role, but he certainly has not made conflicting remarks if you take them in context and aren't trying to make him out to be a bad guy. For him, it's a GOOD THING for the federal government's role to be vague in education, because anything more than that usurps the role of states.

50

Jeff Blogworthy:

I really cannot believe that neither of you can grasp the concept that "you" and "the taxpayer" are one in the same. I guess this makes your gripe with conservatism self-evident.

Jeff, twice now your paraphrases of the issues at stake are not adequate. First, concerning Huckabee's position on the federal govt's role in education. Now, you mistakenly equate the concepts of "you, taxpayer" and "your money, taxpayer money."

If you go back and re-read Boonton and my comments, it'll make a lot more sense if you understand that my money is NOT equivalent to taxpayer money, even though I am a taxpayer. My money is only PART of the taxpayer money and thus not equivalent.

When Boonton and I are saying that a justification needs to be made if you want to use TAXPAYER money, it's because the money is NOT simply my own private money as if I'm taking it from my bank account, but it's PUBLIC money collected from everybody, so while I'm at liberty to spend my own money on my child's education, there needs to be a public justification of using taxpayer money to pay for education (in the form of vouchers, which is what we were talking about).

51

Boonton if I'm wrong about what you mean, let me know. I figured that's what you meant as well.

Also, I read your comments and generally agree, although you ignore the point of my comments and go off on a theoretical discussion of tax credits, which is fine, but not why I entered this conversation so I won't respond.

52

Boonton and wrf3:
Not to interrupt, but I think your points and more are being discussed at greater depth at fairtaxblog.com.

Boonton, what you are consistently missing is the fact that the +30% sales tax will be offset by the removal of embedded taxes (some estimates have it around 20-25%). Net price increase would be ~5-10%.

I'm still learning about this FairTax though, while it's definitely well thought out, it's certainly not without difficulties.

53

giggling,

First, however ignorant I may be of the specifics of Huckabee's positions, it is not the result of laziness. I used to think he was a good conservative candidate, until "listening and reading" convinced me otherwise. Many other conservatives have had similar experiences.

Relative to raising taxes; When I need to increase revenue in my own house, I increase productivity. I do not take the money from my neighbor. The government produces nothing, so I do expect it to budget existing revenue. If you want to defend higher taxes, go ahead. Just don't redefine conservatism around it. "Tax Liberation Day" is sometime in May. You think about that.

...there needs to be a public justification of using taxpayer money to pay for education (in the form of vouchers, which is what we were talking about).

You and Boonton are basing your arguments on false premises.

Child education is payed for by everyone, regardless of whether they have children or not. I suppose this is considered just because society as a whole benefits from educating the young. I have numerous problems with public schools that I will not go into right now. Suffice it to say that the above justification is the only one that is needed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What Boonton really attempts to assert, is that the money which we ALL pay for education already must be spent ONLY on government schools. Despite this fact:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average tuition for private elementary and secondary schools is less than half the average per-pupil cost of public schooling.

Try justifying that. There is much more to the debate, but I do not want to prolong it.

54

Populist rhetoric is poison. Period!

55

what you are consistently missing is the fact that the +30% sales tax will be offset by the removal of embedded taxes (some estimates have it around 20-25%). Net price increase would be ~5-10%.

That's an assumption that will probably not be born out. Remember for prices to go down 23%, production costs will have to go down 23%, which means somewhere along the line labor costs will have to go down 23%. Remember, not only do corporations currently pay taxes, they also have tax deductions, and the way they structure employee pay is dependent on those tax deductions. Take health insurance for example, right now the employer portion is deductible; if you take away that deduction, employers will likely not offer that as a benefit or will significantly restructure it. In that case, you will have a situation in which employees have to buy their own health insurance, (which may not be a bad thing ultimately, but it will be a significant disruption) and they will have to pay the full price of their health insurance, plus that which was offset by its tax deductibility for the employer, and then add the 30+% Fair Tax on top of that. Of course that ignores many large industries which are tied to union contracts so that they will not be able to immediately lower their employee costs, so you will not likely see reductions in price for many things like cars.

There is a very "perpetual motion machine" quality to this Fair Tax. Its proponents argue that prices will not go up because of the elimination of "embedded taxes", people will get their whole paycheck, because of the elimination of withholding, and they will get an additional tax "pre-bate" to offset part of the sales tax, but the reality is it just can't work that way. The first rule of economics is there is no such thing as a free lunch, but the Fair Tax people are arguing that is what they are offering.

56

giggling, I think we are on the same page in regards to taxpayers.v.our own $

Boonton, what you are consistently missing is the fact that the +30% sales tax will be offset by the removal of embedded taxes (some estimates have it around 20-25%). Net price increase would be ~5-10%.

I'm somewhat skeptical of this. First the tax is still 30% or more. If something costs $100, then you will save $30 by dodging it. Even if the removal of embedded taxes means for $100 you're getting something worth $120 in the current world....you still have a massive incentive for fraud which means a massive enforcement effort.

The argument ucfengr articulated involves nominal wages versus real ones. People are highly reluctant to accept cuts in their wages even if price decreases mean they are keeping the same purchasing power or even increasing. Perhaps that problem could be solved by the Fed just inflating the currency. I'm just not sure, maybe the price argument may work out in the long run.

The fraud argument, though, maintains. $100 is still less than $130, $140 or $150. Given the choice people will opt for the under the table price and they will not say "I'll pay $40 more because I see all of my paycheck now or prices are a bit less than two, three, four, ten years ago".

Jeff
What Boonton really attempts to assert, is that the money which we ALL pay for education already must be spent ONLY on government schools. Despite this fact:

No I asserted that there's a difference between your own money and taxpayer money. When you're using taxpayer's money the voters have a right to a say and that's how it should be.

As for your statistic on average tuition costs, I think it suffers from several issues.

First, only a fraction of the population goes to private school. Since the 'high cost' kids are put mostly in the public system you're not making a true apples to apples comparison. If you suddenly decided to make the private system education everyone, the average cost would undoubtedly rise. How much I can't say.

Second, I've never seen anyone look at the cost of parochial schools versus their tuition. Since these schools enjoy various tax subsidies and are subsidized by the donations of the religious their tuition is probably less than their actual cost. Maybe the Catholic Church is running some schools as profit making businesses but I don't think so.

57

Everyone should try this. I saw a report about the "candidate calculator" on Fox News. It took me awhile to get on the site, I think the report may have crashed it. You are asked about political positions that are the most important to you. Then the calculator selects a candidate whose positions match your own most closely. They say that 80 percent of the time the calculator selects a different candidate than you have in mind.

My results?

You planned to vote for Fred Thompson. Based on your responses, your top candidate for 2008 is below.

Mike Huckabee 94.12% match.

lol.

58

No I asserted that there's a difference between your own money and taxpayer money. When you're using taxpayer's money the voters have a right to a say and that's how it should be.

Fine. You'll get no argument from me. A voter referendum sounds good.

BTW. I don't remember voting for abortion funding, or sex changes for prisoners, or NEA funding, or PBS, or NPR, or about 1,000 other things. Let's put those to referendum too.

59

BTW. I don't remember voting for abortion funding, or sex changes for prisoners, or NEA funding, or PBS, or NPR, or about 1,000 other things. Let's put those to referendum too.

Tomorrow's lesson; why we live in a democratic republic rather than a straight democracy.

60

Boonton:

I'm glad that light finally clicked on for ya. Relative to your objection in post 56:

When you're using taxpayer's money the voters have a right to a say and that's how it should be.

To the extent that a voucher or tax credit system gets implemented, the voters have already had their say haven't they?

Perhaps you can entitle today's compendium:

Having my Cake and Eating it too; Changing terms to suit me.

61

To the extent that a voucher or tax credit system gets implemented, the voters have already had their say haven't they?

Sure, the voters can likewise implement a system where they give me all the money and I do whatever I want. Will they and should they? Probably not.

Vouchers aren't flying because voters want those 'strings'. As I said the only place they seem to be politically acceptable are areas where the public schools are in really horrible shape.

62

Jeff Blogworthy:

I apologize; it's not always true that people are ignorant because of laziness. They could also be working very hard to read bad sources, which is understandable in the current environment of mass information.

I would suggest though, that whenever you see a "sound bite" or headline pronouncement on someone's position, (e.g. HUCKABEE IS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS) you take the time to see what exactly is going on.

Relative to raising taxes; When I need to increase revenue in my own house, I increase productivity. I do not take the money from my neighbor.

But under your philosophy of taxation, why wouldn't you just cut spending like you demand of the government? Isn't it because SOMETIMES that isn't the best solution? And it's true, you don't go and take your neighbor's money if you need more; but the govt is not a private individual taking money from his neighbor for private purposes. The whole point is that the government is public, and taxes are to benefit the public good, e.g. highways and education.

I understand that you believe that raising taxes is never justified. That is economically libertarian and a pie-in-the-sky ideal. If we get involved in a war, the government shouldn't de-fund highway maintenance and education just so it doesn't raise taxes. That's unwise, and going way beyond economic conservatism. But you are entitled to your simplistic opinion of taxes.

My perspective allows me to say that in most cases, the government should be cutting spending, especially in the vast areas where money is being wasted, e.g. pork barrel/earmarks. But it also recognizes that occasionally the need for taxation for public purposes that benefit the common good that cannot be covered under the existing budget, especially for poorer states like AR. Your perspective simply does not.

You are content to remain in your ivory tower talking about theories and abstractions, but you refuse to talk about specific ways/programs, etc in Arkansas where Huckabee should have cut spending instead of raising taxes. When you can get out of your ivory tower, on the ground and actually PROVE that Huckabee could have afforded to cut spending instead of raising taxes to cover the legitimate cost of public goods, let me know. Otherwise, you're just tossing stones and theories with no basis in the real world, where Huckabee is.

You and Boonton are basing your arguments on false premises.

Child education is payed for by everyone, regardless of whether they have children or not.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Boonton and I don't know that public child education is funded by taxpayer money. The discussion was whether a NATIONAL voucher system funded by FEDERAL TAXES is legitimate, economically feasible and therefore publicly justified. I don't think so. Huckabee doesn't think so. Amazingly in light of your perspective on taxation, you seemed to think Huckabee should have this economically unfeasible, anti-federalist (therefore unconservative) system on his platform.
This is why I am confused about you.

Jeff, all I'm saying is: the details matter. Huckabee knows this and made his decisions as governor based on conservative principles (for school vouchers as an idea, but does it work in specific situations?) and practical logistics (against school vouchers in Arkansas since it wouldn't work economically, against unfeasible national voucher MANDATE for all states), and he did this well. But you wouldn't know this from sound bites: "HUCKABEE IS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS"

Do you at least agree that in this one specific issue of school choice, Huckabee is not the flaming liberal many "brilliant" pundits would paint him as? I really believe it is true that he is not. It also makes sense of why home schoolers support him.

63

Relative to raising taxes; When I need to increase revenue in my own house, I increase productivity. I do not take the money from my neighbor.

Well technically you do. If you cut back by telling your neighbor's kid you'll mow your own lawn for now on then you're taking money that would have normally have gone to him. If you stop buying that Latte at the Starbucks that's less money for them and so on. Likewise if you pressure your boss to give you a raise you'll be taking money from him that you wouldn't have otherwise demanded.

Yes technically they don't have a right to that money but likewise there's no right not to be taxed. Part of living in a democracy is that your side will not win all (or even any) of the elections. Even if you put everything up for a referrendum as Jeff has suggested you would still lose at least on some issues.

And is Jeff really so pure about not tapping his neighbors' (taxpayer's) money? When his kid bugs him to take him to Barnes & Noble for his book report does he never tell him to borrow a book for free from the library. When his neighbor complains he just got laid off does he never suggest he file for unemployment while he looks for a new job? When the next door neighbor insists on having a loud party late at night does he never call the police? When he decides what bank to use does he study their financials intensly or does rely on the FDIC insurance and regulation from the gov't and simply make his decision based on the bank's fees and how many atm's they have? I'm not even going to ask if he has offered to buy his own parents a health insurance poicy and provide them with a stipend each month so they don't tap Medicare and Social Security.

Relative to raising taxes; When I need to increase revenue in my own house, I increase productivity. I do not take the money from my neighbor. The government produces nothing, so I do expect it to budget existing revenue. If you want to defend higher taxes, go ahead. Just don't redefine conservatism around it. "Tax Liberation Day" is sometime in May. You think about that.

We've been down this road too many times now since 1980. Conservatives define themselves with very specific tax cuts (or opposition to specific tax increases) but purposefully vague spending cuts. Enough, wake up and face reality. You've just given us 8 years of probably the most rapid spending increases imaginable (and no don't tell us 9/11 was the cause). The GOP enters this election with zero credibility on spending. Zero. Don't sit there and think another election cycle is going to be won with vague calls for 'cutting waste' or having us think that the Federal Gov't cuts a trillion dollar check to the National Endowment for the Arts every year.

64

giggling:

I understand that you believe that raising taxes is never justified.

Untrue, though that is the practical effect of where we now find ourselves. Ron Paul is right about one thing - a HUGE percentage of government spending is unconstitutional. I support taxes going to pay for infrastructure, national defense, protecting life and property, etc. We passed the level of reasonable taxation ages ago. Liberals act as though "up" is the only answer. The government is out of control. Frankly, I am tired of being told that the cure for our education woes is "more money."

The educational system itself is anti-federalist, inasmuch as it is packed with federal mandates - based on a Faustian bargain system. That's a nice racket isn't it? The federal government takes money from the states, then imposes "strings" on giving it back. This is tantamount to saying, "We are going to let you fund education - but not fully unless you do it our way." It is a semantical game.

I have no problem with states being responsible for a voucher system. The president can use his bully pulpit to advance such an issue. I never said anything about a FEDERAL voucher system, though I am open to debate on the issue. Your assertion that vouchers are is anti-federalist is by no means a subject of agreement among conservatives. The point is, it can work. The federal government can give the education funding to the states (or let them keep it in the first place) and let them manage the system. Ronald Reagan entered office with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and implement market-based vouchers. Both initiatives failed largely due to teachers' unions. Huckabee is not even trying. Smooch for the NEA.

Do you at least agree that in this one specific issue of school choice, Huckabee is not the flaming liberal many "brilliant" pundits would paint him as?

That is an overstatement. Sounds like a sound bite to me. Conservatives assert that Huckabee is one of the new stripe of "big-government conservatives" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.) He is much like president Bush in this regard - minus Bush's hawkishness (another thing that worries me.) I believe that Huckabee is a "bigger-government conservative" than Bush.

65

Jeff

Untrue, though that is the practical effect of where we now find ourselves. Ron Paul is right about one thing - a HUGE percentage of government spending is unconstitutional. I support taxes going to pay for infrastructure, national defense, protecting life and property, etc. We passed the level of reasonable taxation ages ago. Liberals act as though "up" is the only answer. The government is out of control.

Hence Megan McArdle's apt summary of the Ron Paul philosophy, The 19th Century with ipods and better health care. None of what Jeff complains about happened in a vacuum. The gov't isn't some strange alien from another planet that came down from no where and suddenly told all of us we have to give 40% of our income to fund NPR's "All things considered".

Like it or not we've had just as many elections in this century as we did in the last one and we probably had more honest ones in this century than last to boot. Nothing the Fed Gov't is spending on came out of no where. And if you really want to push the Constitutional issue be aware that people would probably vote to amend the Constitution before they would see many big ticket items in the gov't's budget abolished by Court decree.

The federal government takes money from the states, then imposes "strings" on giving it back. This is tantamount to saying, "We are going to let you fund education - but not fully unless you do it our way." It is a semantical game.

Except the gov't doesn't take money from 'the states', it taxes individuals (and borrows). The states are not told they have to tax to send money to the Fed Gov't. Just like the woman who before fretted about getting vouchers with 'strings' attached, money doesn't come for free. If the Fed. gov't is going to do something like provide funds to schools for kids with special needs it is right to put strings on that money. You can argue that some strings are unreasonable or bad policy but that's a different question than principle of strings itself.

66

"We've been down this road too many times now since 1980. Conservatives define themselves with very specific tax cuts (or opposition to specific tax increases) but purposefully vague spending cuts. Enough, wake up and face reality. You've just given us 8 years of probably the most rapid spending increases imaginable (and no don't tell us 9/11 was the cause). The GOP enters this election with zero credibility on spending. Zero. Don't sit there and think another election cycle is going to be won with vague calls for 'cutting waste' or having us think that the Federal Gov't cuts a trillion dollar check to the National Endowment for the Arts every year."

Yeah, the GOP has lost a lot of credibility on this issue for failing to deliver on what we claim to believe. And it may very well be that voters continue to feel we can't be trusted on the issue. But the solution is to get ourselves elected and actually deliver on our conservative ideals, not to throw away our commitment to cutting back on government spending because our representatives failed to implement it before.

67

None of what Jeff complains about happened in a vacuum. The gov't isn't some strange alien from another planet that came down from no where and suddenly told all of us we have to give 40% of our income to fund NPR's "All things considered".

Like it or not we've had just as many elections in this century as we did in the last one and we probably had more honest ones in this century than last to boot. Nothing the Fed Gov't is spending on came out of no where.

I agree completely with this. This is why voters are so disillutioned with Republicans. They do not deliver what they promise. That does not mean we stop trying.

See Darrell DeLaney's points above.

68

I agree completely with this. This is why voters are so disillutioned with Republicans. They do not deliver what they promise. That does not mean we stop trying.

Except the voters are not with you. As we observe Ron Paul's candidacy has bitten the dust and it's a stretch to say it was because Fox News and Rush somehow kept him covered up from the voters view.

69

Ohhh BTW, you can't cry about 'broken promises' here. Bush ran in 2000 on creating a new drug entitlement. I don't recall him campaigning to abolish any major category of gov't spending. The last time the GOP got anyone elected on a promise to eliminate a major specific spending category was 1980 when Reagan declared the Dept. of Education would be abolished and he didn't renew that primise in 1984.

70

Absolutely, Bush proclaimed from the beginning that he was a compassionate conservative, which meant that "when someone hurts, government must move." While we may support Bush on many things, he was certainly not a whole hearted conservative and never claimed to be. But when the general election comes and the choice is between a partial conservative or a democrat who's not a conservative at all, we have to take what we can get.

That's the point of the current primary process. I wouldn't say any of these candidates is ideal, but if we want our values represented, we have to try to push forward a candidate who espouses them.

The Republican party is not the same thing as the conservative movement. It's simply the organization through which we are able to present and try to implement our ideas. It gives us a seat at the table, but we have to put forward candidates and win voters to get the party to advance our ideas.

Also, it is precisely Bush's compassionate conservative expansion of government spending that makes me and other wary of similar sounding rhetoric out of Huckabee.

71

Jeff Blogworthy:

Don’t backpedal from your positions now, Jeff.

You wrote:
“Relative to raising taxes; When I need to increase revenue in my own house, I increase productivity. I do not take the money from my neighbor. The government produces nothing, so I do expect it to budget existing revenue.”

To which I responded:
“But under your philosophy of taxation, why wouldn't you just cut spending like you demand of the government? Isn't it because SOMETIMES that isn't the best solution?”

So in the context of our discussion, you took the hardline position that the government is never justified in raises taxes BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE CUTTING SPENDING and reallocating monies instead (‘budget existing revenue”). You made this pretty clear.

Then you say:

“We passed the level of reasonable taxation ages ago. Liberals act as though "up" is the only answer. The government is out of control. Frankly, I am tired of being told that the cure for our education woes is "more money."”

Well, Jeff. Which government is out of control? The federal govt that Huckabee has never been responsible for? Or the State government which he has been responsible for? Because this thread is about Huckabee, and not some liberal strawman you seem to want to talk about. Did Huckabee ever say the cure for education woes in Arkansas is only more money? Or is money only one factor in what’s necessary in improving education, which Huckabee did dramatically in Arkansas over 10 years.

Next, I don’t know why you are going off on federal mandates, when you are the only one here who thought this would be a good idea, as you said here:

“Regarding the tax credit for private schools, as opposed to vouchers - either is a great idea. Why doesn't Huckabee campaign on this? Why doesn't he mention the idea under "Education" on his website?”

Since you seem to ignore all the times when I show you to be wrong, I’ll point out again that I responded to you previously by saying:

“Jeff, you've missed the point again! Either of those might be great ideas to campaign on if Huckabee wants to be elected to a state governorship. But he's running for President, and he SPECIFICALLY OPPOSED a federally mandated voucher system bill (remember Bush's?) precisely because national voucher systems are unfeasible and wrong in light of federalism.

Contrary to your memory, which seems to tell you that you“never said anything about a FEDERAL voucher system”, you obviously did when you suggested Huckabee who is running for PRESIDENT—hence federal—should campaign on school vouchers as part of his educational platform. And you corroborate your desire for a federal voucher system by invoking Reagan, who if he actually did want to impose a federal voucher system on the states, was also wrong on conservative principles. Apparently, you are just like Romney in that you like federal mandates just like liberals, which Fred Thompson pointed out during the ABC News debate when he commented that he didn’t think Romney would actually admit such a thing.

You’re big government and you don’t even know it.

Then you say:
“The point is, [a federal voucher system] can work.

Really? Can it work in all 50 states much better than a system which individual states decide is better for them? Would it have worked in Arkansas, where the economies of scale would have made a voucher system economically unfeasible due to the rural nature of most of its geography?

I thought that you disagreed with me because you didn’t understand the logistical considerations in Arkansas and federalist principles applied to education. But since I’ve explained them both in detail and you ignore the points, now I think you just can’t admit when you’re wrong about Huckabee.

Which means this discussion is over. I'm confident any neutral observer following our discussion has seen enough, which is not as good as persuading you, but it's apparently the best that can be hoped for.

72

The government confiscates massive amounts of money to "educate" our kids. Instead, they choose to indoctrinate them, make them put condoms on bananas, and tell them tales about Heather's two mommies. People cry foul and demand THEIR money back so that they can see their children educated PROPERLY - and you define this as "big government conservatism." HA.

I'm confident any neutral observer following our discussion has seen enough, which is not as good as persuading you...

Don't count on it.

73

So do the condoms cost the massive amount of money or the bananas? I'll tell you, you can never overspend on fresh fruit.

And please, Heather has Two Mommies. You'd think someone who calls himself 'blogworthy' would have stepped out of 1994 by now.

74

bdaniels:

You must recognize that if you take money from the government there will be strings. If the government gives you any kind of "credit" to home educate your children, they will want a say in how it's done.

75

TO Bootan:

Ignorance on the Fair Tax

Your illustration of a 30% tax increase shows you have not read the Fair Tax bill or the Fair Tax book. I would request that you at least read the The Fair Tax book before you greatly embarrass yourself again. You seem to be a fairly intelligent individual. When you actually read the bill and/or the book I am sure you will realize you have made the #1 biggest blunder opponents of the Fair Tax make. Intellectual honesty is a very freeing experience.