For the past few months I've been defending Governor Mike Huckabee against an onslaught of attacks on his character, positions, and record. When I worked for the campaign I spent a significant portion of my time clearing up misconceptions for journalists and parrying dishonest accusations made by other campaigns. And here on this blog I've written numerous posts responding to the questions posed by bloggers and rebutting claims made by sundry interest groups.
Yet all this time I've failed to make a positive case for why I feel Governor Huckabee to be the most visionary and conservative candidate in the race. I naively assumed that everyone was seeing what I was seeing. Indeed, I'm embarrassed to admit that I failed to recognize that not everyone would have the same familiarity with his policy positions as his former Director of Research.
To rectify this situation I've compiled a list of his most significant policy positions on a range of issues--from tax reform to national security. While all of this information can be found online, I thought it would be useful to cut away the excess verbiage in order to provide as succinct a set of statements as possible. I've also included a prefatory section that explains Governor Huckabee's philosophy of governance.
Although this compilation is not exhaustive, I do believe that it provides a useful outline for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves on Huckabee's true positions on the issues.
Philosophy of Governance
Governor Mike Huckabee: "To me conservative governance means following the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, it means recognizing that Jefferson won the debate with Hamilton, and that we want very strong, energetic, innovative states, with government both as limited as possible and as close to the people as possible. The states should not usurp functions that can be handled locally, and the federal government should not usurp functions that can be handled by the states. An important part of being a conservative President for me would be strengthening federalism. Conservative governance also means an emphasis on personal responsibility and letting the free market function unencumbered, so that Americans have tremendous opportunity, but not a guaranteed outcome. It means smaller, more efficient government; lower government spending; lower taxes. It means keeping the government out of our lives and letting families keep as much of the money they earn and make as many of their own decisions as possible. It means allowing younger workers to have personal Social Security accounts. It means getting entitlements under control.
I believe that our rights come from God, not from our government; that the people should retain as much power and be left alone as much as possible; that the federal government should not do what can be done at the local or state level; that our government belongs to the people, not the lobbyists and special interests; that government at all levels exists to serve the people and not the other way around; that we must respect the separation of powers and no branch should usurp the authority of another; that my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from all threats; that the free market, low taxes, and minimal regulation are the keys to economic growth and prosperity; that Americans are owed equal opportunity, but not an equal outcome; that we are a culture of life and recognize that each individual has intrinsic value and worth; that we are only as strong as our families; that we owe a huge debt to those who have given their lives for this country to protect the freedoms and way of life for which they sacrificed.
I would weigh all of my decisions in the context of those principles to assure that I am doing the right thing and not the popular or expedient thing. I will always err on the side of protecting life, strengthening our families, and protecting our citizens and our country from possible threats to their safety."
(Response provided to the American Conservative Union)
Issues and Positions
Tax Reform
- Make all tuition for higher education tax-deductible
- Make health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. (Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions.)
- Preserve and expand President Bush’s tax cuts
- Eliminate the marriage penalty
- Cut taxes on savings
- Eliminate the Death Tax
- Reduce counterproductively high personal and corporate marginal tax rates.
- Encourage "baby boomers" who plan to work into their late 60’s or even beyond by giving them tax breaks, like additional exemptions or a “working senior” deduction.
- Long-term goal: implementation of the FairTax so that American workers keep their entire paycheck, American businesses can compete on a level-playing field with their foreign competitors, and so that we can brings jobs and investment that are currently parked off-shore back to the United States.
Economy
- Subprime mortgage crisis: begin a second round of negotiations with subprime lenders with an eye toward expansion of the “Hope Now” program.
- Cut burdensome red tape that drives up the cost of products and keeps employers from hiring more workers or raising wages.
- Reduce frivolous lawsuits which drive up costs of products and medical care.
- Institute free trade that is fair to America. We will expect our trading partners to live up to their obligations—everyone must play by fair rules.
- Open new markets for American products.
- Work with the Federal Reserve adapts a pro-growth, low-inflation policy.
- Veto earmarks and unnecessary discretionary spending
Energy Independence
- Implement a national energy security policy which will end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years by conserving, exploring, and inventing our way to independence in energy.
- pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.
- Remove red tape that slows innovation, allow the free market to sort out what makes the most sense economically.
- Set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels.
Social Issues
- Support passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.
- Support passage of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
- Oppose all embryo-destructive research.
- Veto any pro-abortion legislation, including federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Education
- Make all tuition for higher education tax-deductible
- Support the rights of parents to home school their children
- Support states that want to create more charter schools or implement public school choice.
- Allow states to develop their own benchmarks.
- Work towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students
Healthcare
- Advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services.
- Reform medical liability
- Support the adoption of electronic record keeping
- Make health insurance more portable from one job to another
- Expand health savings accounts to include all Americans.
- Making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. (Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions.)
- Encourage the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.
Immigration
- Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.
- Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.
- Increase the number of border patrol agents.
- Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.
- Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
- Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
- This is not a "touchback" provision. Those who leave this country and apply to return from their home country would go to the back of the line.
- Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.
- Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.
- Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.
- Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.
- Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.
- Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.
- End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.
- Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.
- Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
- Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).
- Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
- Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.
- Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.
- Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream.
Judges
- Huckabee's judicial philosophy: "I believes that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a "living Constitution." The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from "We the People," and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on "evolving standards of decency," penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged."
- Appoint justices and judges who not only share his judicial philosophy (e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism.
Social Security
- Allow younger workers the option of personal accounts.
- Allow letting people take the money in their account at retirement and buy an annuity.
- Encourage "baby boomers" who plan to work into their late 60’s or even beyond by giving them tax breaks, like additional exemptions or a “working senior” deduction.
- Since some retirees don’t need their Social Security to retire comfortably, offer them the option of a tax-free lump sum for their children or grandchildren to get when they die, which would delay some payments for decades.
National Sovereignty
- Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.
- Oppose the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- Oppose the North American Union,.
- Oppose the Kyoto Treaty.
Veteran's Affairs
Veterans will be provided the following "Bill of Rights":
- The right to a mandatory rather than a discretionary mechanism for funding veterans' health care, to eliminate year-to-year uncertainty that the funds they need will be there for them
- The right to obtain full and clear explanation of all benefits and comprehensive assistance in obtaining those benefits.
- The right to have a claim processed within six months.
- The right to the fullest possible accounting of the fate of POW/MIAs and the right to be designated as POW/MIA.
- The right to access state-of-the-art treatment facilities for traumatic brain injuries.
- The right of National Guard and Reserve personnel called to active service to receive the same benefits as active duty veterans.
- The right of disabled veterans to receive both their military retirement and VA compensation.
- The right of wounded Reserve troops to be treated like their active duty counterparts until their claims have been processed.
- The right of wounded veterans and those who have served in combat theaters to a comprehensive GI bill that provides full tuition, books, fees, and living expenses at any institution to which the veteran is accepted.
National Security
- Increase defense spending to six percent of GDP.
- Build new planes, new armed vehicles, new robotic land and air vehicles, new ships all right here in America.
- Recruit and train thousands of new troops and bring our National Guard and Reserves back home. We must increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops within two to three years without lowering enlistment standards.
- Improve the nation's aging infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, etc.).
- Active-duty forces should not be used for nation building. We must return to our policy of using other government agencies to build schools, hospitals, roads, sewage treatment plants, water filtration systems, electrical facilities, and legal and banking systems.
- If we are required to undertake a large invasion we must use overwhelming force.
- [The GWOT] -- The Commander-in-Chief has an obligation to clearly communicate to the American people the nature of the war we are fighting, especially the goal of the jihadists: to kill every last one of us, destroy civilization as we know it, and to establish a theocratic caliphate without national borders.
- [The GWOT] -- The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism. Although we cannot export democracy we should nurture moderate forces that present an alternative to the jihadists.
- [The GWOT] -- The goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. We must not act too hastily but we must act. Specifically, we can help by aiding or promoting basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, and fair court systems within these areas.
- [The GWOT] -- We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil if we are going to defeat jihadism.
- [The GWOT] -- We must strengthen both our human intelligence resources and our military assets in order to eliminate the current threat.
- [Iraq] -- We should not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. Troops must be brought home based on the conditions on the ground, not on artificial timetables.
- [The Kurds] -- We must encourage Turkey to continue to improve life for its Kurds, and we must encourage the Turkish Kurds to address their grievances through the political process, including through the 20 deputies currently representing them in parliament.
- [The Kurds] -- We should be willing to provide the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) with limited air strikes and commando raids. A even better method would be to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace.
- [Iran] -- The military option for dealing with Iran should not be taken off the table.
- [Iran] -- Iran is a nation that has to be contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. In order to contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. We cannot allow Iran to push its theocracy into Iraq and then expand it further west.
- [Iran] -- We must be as aggressive diplomatically as we have been militarily since 9/11. We must intensify our diplomatic efforts with China, India, Russia, South Korea, and European states and persuade them to put more economic pressure on Iran.
- [Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Congressional Democrats, we should support and continue President Bush's new sanctions against Iran, his decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and the classifications of al Quds force as a supporter of terrorism. We must also encourage our state and private pension funds to divest themselves of Iran-related assets.
- [Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Russia, we should move forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.
- [Iran] -- We should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran but only after the Iranians have made concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship.
- [Iran] -- Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. However, a range of incentives (e.g., trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations, and security guarantees) should be offered before moving forward with military action. Before we put our troops at risk in Iran, we should exhaust all diplomatic and economic options.
- [Pakistan] -- On September 12, 2001, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to sever his relationship with the Taliban and let us fight al Qaeda inside Pakistan. But distracted by Iraq, we have since allowed him to go back on his word. We should pressure him to remain firm in his commitment to us.
- [Pakistan] -- Because the next attack on the U.S. will have been planned in Pakistan, we must go after al Qaeda's safe havens in that country. The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.
- [Pakistan] -- Musharraf has spent far more energy and enthusiasm sidelining the moderate Pakistani forces (like former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) than he has in going after religious extremists and terrorists. We must have a "Pakistan policy" rather than just a "Musharraf policy."
- [Pakistan] -- We must use our friendly ties with India to encourage and help it improve its relationship with Pakistan and to push for increased trade and cooperation between the two countries, all to bring greater stability to the South Asian region.
Joe, thank you for this information. I'll be taking a thorough look at it.
This bears a remarkable resemblance to the positions that George W. Bush ran on. Here's a bumper sticker idea for free: "If you like Bush, you're gonna love Huckabee!"
Dude...you are amazing. Thanks.
Great information. Thanks!
There's some good conservative-sounding stuff here. Unfortunately a lot of it strikes me as the result of a politically expedient about-face from his past record.
I just don't have enough confidence that such a recent convert to some conservative issues won't "grow" in office, so I can't support him ... especially when he indulges in Edwards-esque populist rhetoric.
Yet all this time I've failed to make a positive case for why I feel Governor Huckabee to be the most visionary and conservative candidate in the race.
Joe, it's not you, it's Huckabee. The problem with Huckabee is that his policy positions look like standard Republican boiler plate (nothing visionary), but his rhetoric sounds like John Edwards. There is a pretty big disconnect here. People like me, who would be predisposed to supporting a conservative, Christian candidate, have to reconcile this, and Huckabee is not making it easy, nor are his supporters. This also more than a hint of dishonesty, especially with respect to his support of the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is never going to become law, and one of the reasons is the dishonesty of its proponents; for example, using an unconventional computing method to call a 30+% national sales tax 23% and touting the assumption that prices will not go up, but take home pay will. Prices aren't going to go down 23% (to accommodate the tax) unless production costs, including labor costs, go down 23%, which is not going to happen. Many large industries are tied to long term labor contracts. Mike Huckabee may be a silver-tongued devil, but even he is going to have a hard time convincing James Hoffa to accept a 23% reduction in union compensation packages.
Here's more of Mike Huckabee's rhetoric that makes it hard for conservative, Christians to support him:
"For those of us for whom summer is not a verb, for those of us who didn't go to fancy boarding schools on the east coast, for those of us who didn't grow up with a silver spoon, who were lucky to have a spoon — ask those folks and they'll tell you the economy is not doing well for them," says Huckabee."
Now, I didn't go to "fancy boarding schools on the East Coast" (I went to a public school just on the Maryland side of the DC/Maryland border) and I didn't "grow up with a silver spoon" (my dad was a DC firefighter), but I don't resent those that did. Apparently Mike does, or at least thinks that I should. That is not a conservative attitude and I think it is hard to make the case that it is a Christian one. In fact, I think it is fairly easy to make the case that Mitt Romney has done a lot more for the poor and downtrodden by creating jobs through his private ventures (look up Bain Capital) than Mike Huckabee has done as either a pastor or a governor.
Great post Joe, thank you for helping spread the truth about the Governor.
Thanks.
First impressions:
1. I'm wanting to see some positives in the National Sovereignty section.
2. Let's see some creative thought on IRS elimination. Things tend to be either IRS or No IRS. How about something hybrid -- a simple flat payroll deduction and a minimal sales tax. Or something else. Nobody is very creative -- it's always a b&w solution, and that's not very productive.
3. Nothing on Infrastructure investment. Let's build to reinforce the economy. I envision a new high-speed interstate system and enhanced trucking routes. At least additional lanes. Our Interstates are now full.
Certainly there's more to be done ...
ttfn,
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
thank you for helping spread the truth about the Governor.
That's the problem; what is the truth about Mike Huckabee? Is it the boilerplate Republican policy proposals or is it the John Edwards/moveon.org rhetoric? It can't be both.
I agree with ucfengr. Huckabee has said some things that really, really bother me, and that should bother most conservatives and libertarians. Between the rhetoric about CEOs and the discussion of a smoking ban, I think it's pretty obvious that aside from a few areas, Huckabee is a very questionable candidate.
What will we actually get if he wins the election? I suspect that we'll get a more laid back version of Bush who will spend more time focusing on obesity, wages and smoking issues than on finding crafty new ways to shred the 4th amendment and Habeus Corpus.
Joe,
All this is fine and good, but what voters REALLY care about is Huckabee's position on various works of medieval literature. Does Huckabee hold with an 8th-century origin for the poem "Beowulf," or an early 11th-century?
MikeT Between the rhetoric about CEOs and the discussion of a smoking ban,...
What has Huckabee said about either of those issues? Can you provide direct quotes to put them in context?
Richard Scott Nokes Does Huckabee hold with an 8th-century origin for the poem "Beowulf," or an early 11th-century?
Huckabee was originally persuaded by Kiernan's argument which dates the poem circa 1000 BCE. But he was later convinced by Dumville's argument that it could not have been written later than the death of Æthelred the Unready (circa 1016 BCE).
On CEO compensation:
HUCKABEE: It’s a combination. It’s when one person losing his job who helped make the company successful and the person who steers the company either into bankruptcy or selling off it in pieces is taking that golden parachute of several hundred million dollars. I mean, there’s just something wrong about that, and every American knows it, whether he’s at the top or bottom. What the government ought to do is, first of all, call attention to it, put some spotlight on it. I don’t think it’s about coming up with some new regulation. Corporate boards ought to show some responsibility. If a board allows that kind of thing to happen, shame on that board. And I would hope that it wouldn’t necessitate additional laws and regulation because usually when you get into regulation, it just gets worse and it makes it [an] even bigger problem than you had to begin with.
HARWOOD: So you wouldn’t actually do anything about it as the head of the government? You would simply use the pulpit to talk about it?
HUCKABEE: That would be the first line of maybe offense, perhaps John. And then what I would like to see is the corporate board showing responsibility with an understanding that if they don’t start showing some responsibility, then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it.
On a smoking ban:
Of the Republican field, only Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee participated in the retired cyclist's Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids.
Both men "pledged to fight the nation's No. 1 killer with increased research funding and financial incentives to promote healthy lifestyles ... Huckabee committed to sign a nationwide smoking ban in public places, should such a measure win approval in Congress. Brownback said he would let anti-smoking efforts continue under the authority of states and local communities," the Register said.
So how do you reconcile his readiness to expand the power of the federal government on these issues with the claim to be conservative?
Joe,
These two bullet points contradict each other:
Implement a national energy security policy which will end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years by conserving, exploring, and inventing our way to independence in energy.
Remove red tape that slows innovation, allow the free market to sort out what makes the most sense economically.
This bullet point shows his ignorance of the Federal Reserve.
Ensure the Federal Reserve adapts a pro-growth, low-inflation policy
Clue: the Federal Reserve is an independent entity, it does not report to the president.
All these small government, business friendly bullet points don't reconcile with this comment of his from the stump:
"For those of us for whom summer is not a verb, for those of us who didn't go to fancy boarding schools on the east coast, for those of us who didn't grow up with a silver spoon, who were lucky to have a spoon — ask those folks and they'll tell you the economy is not doing well for them,"
It isn't enough to lay out policy points to prove that your candidate is a conservative, or more importantly to show that he has the judgment and character to lead the country. Whether he can be trusted to follow these policy prescriptions is a valid question for voters to ask. Trust has to be earned - you don't earn trust through policy papers.
Doesn't Mitt Romney's policy paper say that he opposes abortion?
This is not a "touchback" provision. Those who leave this country and apply to return from their home country would go to the back of the line.
On Fox News Huckabee said:
Well, I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was.
I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept — and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense — is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.
But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don't agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it's our government that has failed and is dysfunctional.
It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home.
But that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce. [bold by me]
So how is that not a touch back provision? As ucfengr has pointed out, Huckabee makes statements all over the map and will you look at his past positions there is a total disconnect.
Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.
And I'm supposed to believe this from a man who help the Mexican gov't build a consular in Arkansas? See, past actions don't meet the words.
Thanks, Joe. Keep up the good work!
Robert So how do you reconcile his readiness to expand the power of the federal government on these issues with the claim to be conservative?
On the first issue, its simply a matter of justice. If a company files for bankruptcy then they shouldn't be able to set aside millions to compensate the CEO while the workers, shareholders, and creditors get bilked out of their money.
As for the smoking ban, the concern seems to be a matter of federalism. The question is whether Congress has the authority to regulate smoking in public places. If they do then it would be unwise for a President to veto such legislation. If they do not, then the Supreme Court should make that clear.
But either way it has nothing to do with "conservatism." It is a question of who has jurisdiction under a federalist system.
These two bullet points contradict each other
How so?
Ensure the Federal Reserve adapts a pro-growth, low-inflation policy
That is an error on my part. It should have read "Work with the Federal Reserve…."
All these small government, business friendly bullet points don't reconcile with this comment of his from the stump:
Again, how so? Small business and entrepreneurs--not the wealthy trust fund class--is the primary engine of the economy.
Whether he can be trusted to follow these policy prescriptions is a valid question for voters to ask. Trust has to be earned - you don't earn trust through policy papers.
His decade as Governor shows that he can be trusted.
Doesn't Mitt Romney's policy paper say that he opposes abortion?
I don’t doubt that Romney does oppose abortion.
I am in agreement with ucfengr. When I first read about Huckabee a few months ago I liked him and felt myself moving into the Huckabee camp. However once I heard him, the first thought that came to mind was "he's a Republican Edwards". The more I read and the more I listen to him I continue to find that the Republican Edwards is correct. My friends that do support him are enamored with his faith and have not looked beyond that.
Joe
As for the smoking ban, the concern seems to be a matter of federalism. The question is whether Congress has the authority to regulate smoking in public places. If they do then it would be unwise for a President to veto such legislation. If they do not, then the Supreme Court should make that clear.
Congress probably does have the ability to regulate smoking here. As I pointed out before, if Congress can prohibit states from legalizing pot for medical use it seems pretty hard to see how it couldn't regulate smoking.
It doesn't follow, though, that just because Congress may have authority to do this that it should. I'm not really convinced that we need a Federal ban on workplace smoking.
On tax reform I'll note that Huckabee's bullet points contradict each other. For example, if he thinks making health insurance & higher education expenses tax deductible is a great idea then his 'long run' goal of a sales tax eliminates that benefit. If families need special subsidies for insurance and education then you need to have some type of subsidy in the sales tax only world. If families don't then why put yet more tax deducations and loopholes in the code today?
However once I heard him, the first thought that came to mind was "he's a Republican Edwards".
With all due respect, anyone who can say such a think must not be paying attention to either Huckabee or Edwards. Many of the pundits have passed along that line as a way to slur Huckabee but it is a ridiculous criticism. Romney's policies, as we saw with his recent speech to the Detroit Economic Club, are actually more in line with Edwards than are Huckabee's. Yet anytime a Republican mentions the poor or working class he is tagged as a "liberal populist."
It is that type of thinking that is destroying the GOP.
“Yet anytime a Republican mentions the poor or working class he is tagged as a "liberal populist."
It is that type of thinking that is destroying the GOP. “
How is that the case? How is classifying people by class, and pitting people against each other on that basis anything other than liberal populism? How can that possibly be defined as conservative?
No, what's destroying the GOP is that its core constituency is finally realizing they've been voting for smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government, and getting the exact opposite for about a generation.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me for several election cycles... well, that's just ridiculous."
Jemison
No, what's destroying the GOP is that its core constituency is finally realizing they've been voting for smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government, and getting the exact opposite for about a generation.
Then the GOP core constituency must be made up of really stupid people. No one has run on that line since maybe 1980. For example, Bush II ran on adding a drug entitlement to Medicare. How can the 'core constituency' complain honestly that they were voting for smaller gov't?
“Then the GOP core constituency must be made up of really stupid people. No one has run on that line since maybe 1980. For example, Bush II ran on adding a drug entitlement to Medicare. How can the 'core constituency' complain honestly that they were voting for smaller gov't?”
Because we vote on the options available to us, and while Bush wasn’t as conservative as Reagan, he was more conservative than the Democrat options.
And once we elected him, we continued to oppose those policies we disagreed with, to varying degrees of success.
As I’ve said before, conservatives are not the same thing as the Republican party. We have to persuade and win the support of our party in order to be able to attempt the same with the general public. We certainly don’t always succeed.
Do you support everything that your candidates support? And if not, does that indicate stupidity on your part for supporting them, or does it simply mean that they’re the best option for the majority of your views?
Thanks for the info Joe!
I'm voting for Huckabee in the primary!
Any criticism towards Huck can be equally applied to any of the other GOP candidates.
Wasn't looking for perfect. And he's better than all the other imperfect candidates.
For those of us for whom summer is not a verb, for those of us who didn't go to fancy boarding schools on the east coast, for those of us who didn't grow up with a silver spoon, who were lucky to have a spoon — ask those folks and they'll tell you the economy is not doing well for them," says Huckabee."
Come on, Joe. This isn't just mentioning "the poor or working class", this is an attempt to divide people by class. What's next, talking about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich", maybe making a "Two Americas" speech?
As to character, I have a problem with a minister who chooses not to obtain a seminary degree in theology, and then later implies that he has one.
What's next, talking about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich"
Darn, I was too late. In his book "From Hope to Higher Ground" Huck did talk about tax cuts for the rich and "trickle down economics":
"makes a false and callous assumption that the poorest people in our nation—with inadequate salaries, lack of nutritious food, substandard housing and nonexistent or underfunded health care—can somehow afford to patiently wait while someone else's wealth eventually splashes onto them."
Dang, this would fit right in with a "Two Americas" speech too. Who's really not paying attention to Huckabee and Edwards, Joe?
ucengr,
You forgot to use the term, "class warfare".
Do you feel the government is adequately representing your interests?. Do you have input into the decisionmaking process?
Suppose you answered no to these two questions, would that be considered advocating "class warfare"?
Would conservative christians generally think asking such questions is wrong? Perhaps a violation of Romans Chapter 13?
Joe, do you have anything to rebut the point that his immigration plan is simply a touch plan? Also, there are already visas in place for farm workers to enter the country and there are no limits on the numbers who can come in. The reason they aren't used is because the people hiring the migrant foreign labor are responsible for everything for the workers and are responsible for seeing that they leave the country.
Don't forget balancing the budget. Huckabee thinks that is important, too.
Chris
And I'm supposed to believe this from a man who help the Mexican gov't build a consular in Arkansas? See, past actions don't meet the words.
I was unaware that we were in some type of war with Mexico. A good governor would welcome anyone building in their state.
The reason they aren't used is because the people hiring the migrant foreign labor are responsible for everything for the workers and are responsible for seeing that they leave the country.
Responsible for everything? Farmers aren't looking to hire live in nannies, they are hiring people to pick crops.
Ironically the lack of an easy temp visa combined with better border enforcement is partially responsible for the illegal immigrant population. In times past illegals and legals would cross the border for seasonal work and then return to Mexico. With tougher border enforcement, many started to stay rather than return to Mexico and risk not being able to get back in for next season. Combine that with a housing boom that generated construction jobs during the off season and you get lots of illegal immigration that doesn't go home. Part of a reasonable solution is going to include an easy, low hassle visa for temp workers in this country.
ucfengr
Darn, I was too late. In his book "From Hope to Higher Ground" Huck did talk about tax cuts for the rich and "trickle down economics":
Odd isn't it that he gets no credit for proposing a massive tax cut for the rich and massive tax increase for the middle class.
Darrell
Because we vote on the options available to us, and while Bush wasn’t as conservative as Reagan, he was more conservative than the Democrat options.
Two things:
1. Sensibly speaking, taxes should not be measured by rates but by spending. Why? Because every $1 spent will become $1 taxed, it's only a question of when. By that metric Bush has been horrible on taxes and so have all the Republican nominees.
2. The spending increases under Bush have been so rapid that it would probably have been physically impossible to have done worse. I work with large spending budgets and I can say I've learned that often it is just as much work to spend money as it is to cut it. A dramatic spending increase, whether by gov't or a large company, means more work in the back office which means more people, more training, more IT time to track the spending and so on. Dramatic increases in a short period of time literally overwhelm the system and managers have to actually put pressure on workers to spend the budget.
I understand you perceive the Republicans to be more fiscally responsible than Democrats but isn't being played for a sucker for the last 20 years starting to make you wonder at least a little? There was only one half-serious attempt to dramatically downsize the Fed gov't and that was Reagan's first term and that ended there. At some point it's dishonest to pretend that voting Republican is about voting for smaller gov't unless you're talking about someone like Ron Paul....who at this point has been demonstrated to sit on the fringe of Republican politics.
Odd isn't it that he gets no credit for proposing a massive tax cut for the rich and massive tax increase for the middle class.
Odd, indeed. I reiterate, this is the problem I have with Huckabee, on the one hand you have his fistful of bullet points that could have come from any Republican campaign PowerPoint presentation; on the other you have his campaign rhetoric which sounds a lot more like John Edwards than Ronald Reagan. Who is the real Mike Huckabee?
You all calling him a "Republican Edwards" are dead wrong! Edwards is a silver spooned Trial Lawyer! They come from such different backgrounds, that dog won't hunt! All I read is negative. That's what's wrong with this country. It's all negative. We have so much to be thankful for and all you do is spew your neggativity with your poison pens. I have "A Better Way". Instead of talking trash about someone or something you don't like, let's all point out the virtues of what we do like. Let's all have a little more civility. Some of the trash I read would simply be inadmissable in court; but that's the beauty of trash talk. It doesn't have to be accurate or the whole truth to do the dammage. Let's leave the dirty polotics to Clinton et.al.
To further comment on the Fair Tax, Boonton, it is not just an increase on the middle class, the poor will get soaked too, especially older folks on a fixed income, as medicine and medical services will also be subject to the "Fair Tax".
His first paragraph is diametrically the opposite of more than half of his stated agenda. He only believes in limited government (or even just federalism) when it supports his values. Otherwise he wants to impose his will on everybody else via government decree. This is a man who wants to be President of a nation of Evangelical Christians. And if you don't fit his vision of that he will just have to pound the full force of government power down your throat until you do.
And please, the anti-gay marriage amendment. Can we have just one election without having to stir up the fear and prejudice of voters toward gay and lesbian people? I'm so tired of the "faggots are coming to get you and your marriage!" subtext of all this campaign snot.
Not a single marriage has been saved since the passage of all those state referendums in the last election. Not one. There is NO justification for the federal amendment as it does not in any way accomplish its stated goal. What it does however, is accomplish its unstated goal: To punish those uppity faggots who dared to think themselves of the same worth as us normal god-fearing folk.
You all calling him a "Republican Edwards" are dead wrong!
How is his rhetoric on the economy different in substance from Edwards?
Edwards is a silver spooned Trial Lawyer! They come from such different backgrounds, that dog won't hunt!
Edward's dad was a mill worker who worked his way into the middle class. How is that silver-spooned? Maybe you mean that Edwards is a "silver tongued" trial lawyer. If so, how is that different from a "silver tongued" preacher or politician?
Boonton, in answer to your question, yes, it’s incredibly annoying to have my own party campaign on a platform of cutting taxes and spending, and then go out and spend like crazy. I do know fellow Republicans who have said that if Huckabee wins the nomination, they plan to vote democrat instead, figuring that there’s a better chance of opposing a democrat’s spending proposals, than when a republican makes those same proposals, since party loyalty will limit opposition. I’m not really sold on that, but it has some validity.
But I would disagree that a dollar spent is a dollar taxed, at least not always. There is a point where a cut in taxes results in increased revenue. Obviously, there’s a lot of debate about what that point is, but I’m of the opinjon that cutting taxes from where we currently stand, in the right places, will increase the government revenue to at least partially offset some of the spending.
Now, I’d much rather both taxes and spending be cut. I think the government is involved in a lot of areas it has no business being involved in. And I’m very upset that my own party took to spending like drunken sailors on shore leave when the voters entrusted them with power. I hope that the last election cycle has taught them the penalty for that, but I don’t know. But I still have to support a side that cuts taxes over a side that will cut neither taxes nor spending.
ucfengr
on the other you have his campaign rhetoric which sounds a lot more like John Edwards than Ronald Reagan. Who is the real Mike Huckabee?
yet both did the same thing. Both pretended their modest tax cuts to the middle class were a big deal while targetting the bulk of their tax cuts towards the rich.
To further comment on the Fair Tax, Boonton, it is not just an increase on the middle class, the poor will get soaked too, especially older folks on a fixed income, as medicine and medical services will also be subject to the "Fair Tax".
Indeed, although you may want to check out Slate.com's take on it. You can avoid that problem by creating 'unlimited 401K's'. Essentially all your income goes into this 401K like account that you only get taxed on when you take it out (and you can take it out whenver you want, unlike today's 401K's). Essentially then you can keep the progressive structure while moving the tax base to consumption. That would defeat the simplicity feature of Huckabee's plan, though.
Darrell
But I would disagree that a dollar spent is a dollar taxed, at least not always. There is a point where a cut in taxes results in increased revenue. Obviously, there’s a lot of debate about what that point is, but I’m of the opinjon that cutting taxes from where we currently stand, in the right places, will increase the government revenue to at least partially offset some of the spending.
There isn't that much disagreement by people who are serious about this. We are on the low side of the Laffer curve, tax cuts cost. But the assertion still stands, a dollar spent is a dollar taxed.
Darrell,
To see the point more clearly, think about how much income you need to generate to make up for a tax cut at various rates.
For example, say the rate is 50%. $1 in income would yield $0.50. If you lowered the rate to 40% you would need income to be $1.25 to yield $0.50 in taxes ($0.50 divided by 0.40). Before you say that's easy think about it. A person gets an extra $0.10 and somehow invests that to yield $0.25 in additional income.
Yes there are things like multipliers that make the job easier in economics but the challenge is still pretty tough. Also keep in mind few rates are at 40%, they are usually much lower. There might be some specialized taxes that can be cut in such a way that the increased economic growth cancels out the lost revenue but I doubt you will find a politician smart enough to find them. You're talking about a fairy tale just as much as the liberal equiliviant...the gov't spending program that yields an equal amount of additional tax revenue.
Boonton:
I was unaware that we were in some type of war with Mexico. A good governor would welcome anyone building in their state.
The Mexican gov't wasn't building in the state. They got a sweetheart deal on rent to establish a consulate in Arkansas. Simply put, Tyson and some other big corporations like to hire illegals or people brought in as refugees. I'll tell you what, Mexico can build a blasted consulate on every corner for all I care if we get to and do apply their immigration laws.
Responsible for everything? Farmers aren't looking to hire live in nannies, they are hiring people to pick crops.
When you bring people from another country to do work for you, it's not my responsibility to make sure they have medical care, responsibility to see that they get back to where they came from, etc. Plus, if you don't like the law, get it changed. Breaking the law because you don't like it isn't an excuse.
Delaney - A slight correction on your smoking ban "accusation." Yes, Huckabee does support a ban in the WORKPLACE, but NO he does not support a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, homes, cars, etc. Guess what? We also have a nationwide ban on shooting people. Would you say that is excessive governmental interference? Why is the government allowed to protect us from gunmen who might kill us, but not from secondhand smoke which might kill us? If smokers are too rude to keep their smoke to themselves, you'd better believe I want the government to make them do it. Huckabee is very clear that he does not believe the government should interfere when it comes to consumer choice. If you want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, fine. Choice is involved in this case. In the workplace, choice is not an option. Laws are written to protect others from the damaging actions of others. What beef do you have with a law that says you can't contaminate the workplace? Huckabee says we have laws that prohibit pumping radon gas into the workplace. Same policy should apply to noxious cigarette smoke. Please explain your opposition to this "government interference."
Yes, Huckabee does support a ban in the WORKPLACE, but NO he does not support a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, homes, cars, etc.
Uhh, don't restaurants and bars employ people? And aren't most of the people who work in bars relatively poor? So Huckabee supports clean air for rich people who work in offices, but not poor single moms who wait tables? Just when I was convinced that Jimmy Carter was history's greatest monster, along comes Mike Huckabee to give lung cancer to poor single moms.
If thinking that gov't must never, ever intervene into the marketplace is the sign of a conservative, then Huckabee is not a conservative. Neither is any other candidate in either party except for maybe Ron Paul.
And he's a Libertarian which is an honorable, but simplistic ideology. Free markets are wonderful, but they are not the Alpha and Omega of conservatism.
The gov't getting involved to solve a problem as the last method is the conservative solution.
Besides, I suspect that CEO's getting overpaid, and workers getting the knife is the result of gov't decisions which slanted the field unfairly to begin with. I rather doubt this is a free market operation because its not remotely rational....unless, the elite rigged the deck before the game by cheating with the gov't's help. And that's rational for the elite, and the market just responds to original conditions built into the playing field.
This bears a remarkable resemblance to the positions that George W. Bush ran on. Here's a bumper sticker idea for free: "If you like Bush, you're gonna love Huckabee!"
It appears ex-preacher has hit the nail on the head. This argument was had 8 years ago when GWB was running, albeit on a much, much smaller scale, with only a few prophetic voices predicting the disappointment GWB would be to conservatives.
Maybe Mr. Huckabee is suffering from a new form of gun shyness created by GWB. Maybe Joe's right about his conservative credentials. Maybe, if it walks like a duck and quacks, it might not be a duck. Maybe Huckabee's fine, but why throw the dice with a guy that a lot of people seem to hear quacking a lot? Why not choose a candidate who doesn't quack at all?
If smokers are too rude to keep their smoke to themselves, you'd better believe I want the government to make them do it.
How about this? One company says, "We don't hire smokers". The next company says, "Our smokers can smoke at their desks if they want... and if you don't like it, go find another job". Another company says, "Smoke on your own time, or on breaks out in the parking lot, but not while you're working". Another company allows smoking in the office but one of the top performers goes to his boss and says, "if you don't tell that f*#ker sitting next to me to stop smoking, I'm going to quit"...so the boss tells the guy to quit smoking or he'll get fired.
Nah. Too many options. Having all those options would mean we live in a free country. Having the Nanny State enforce our preferences is much more preferable. Freedom is scary!
“There isn't that much disagreement by people who are serious about this. We are on the low side of the Laffer curve, tax cuts cost. But the assertion still stands, a dollar spent is a dollar taxed.”
You can’t just throw away the issue by claiming that people who disagree with you aren’t serious. There are obviously plenty of economists who disagree, whether you read or respect them or not. And yes, I do believe that people who have more money are more likely to use it, in slightly larger values that ten cents. I can say that easily about myself. With more money, I’d make some improvements on my home, look at a new car, take my wife on a vacation or treat her to some nicer gifts. All of these things would result in more income for those who would provide such services, and so forth.
“Delaney - A slight correction on your smoking ban "accusation." Yes, Huckabee does support a ban in the WORKPLACE, but NO he does not support a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, homes, cars, etc. Guess what? We also have a nationwide ban on shooting people. Would you say that is excessive governmental interference? Why is the government allowed to protect us from gunmen who might kill us, but not from secondhand smoke which might kill us? If smokers are too rude to keep their smoke to themselves, you'd better believe I want the government to make them do it. Huckabee is very clear that he does not believe the government should interfere when it comes to consumer choice.”
If you believe smoking to be the equivalent risk to people as shooting, then go ahead and make cigarettes illegal. But if you’re going to have them as a legal product that people are free to use, then yes. Otherwise you’re saying that Huckabee doesn’t believe in government interference unless people choose differently than he wants them to, in which case the government should put a stop to that.
Huckabee's comments regarding the Constitution and God's standards are out of line for American politics. True Republicans Barry Goldwater and Teddy Roosevelt warned us about injecting religion into American politics. After the decimation of our party by W and Lott and Delay and the rest of the Southern Republicans, if Huckabee is the nominee I fear they’ll be no more GOP north of the Mason-Dixon. The last Republican in NY, please shut out the lights.
I do find it amusing when the worst thing that some commenters can say about Huckabee is that he's too Christian.
Exactly how much Christianity is too much Christianity in a candidate? If he acts like a Christian on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday, but acts like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens (any takers for Stalin?) on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, does that strike the right balance?
Please give me the breakdown in percentiles on how much Christianity is too much Christianity in a Republican candidate.
Simply put, Tyson and some other big corporations like to hire illegals or people brought in as refugees. I'll tell you what, Mexico can build a blasted consulate on every corner for all I care if we get to and do apply their immigration laws.
And this is Huckabee's fault how? Last time I checked a government can buy land on the market and build a consulate on it without permission from the governor.
Tina
Delaney - A slight correction on your smoking ban "accusation." Yes, Huckabee does support a ban in the WORKPLACE, but NO he does not support a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, homes, cars, etc. Guess what? We also have a nationwide ban on shooting people. Would you say that is excessive governmental interference?
Well people do work in restaurants and bars so a nationwide ban on workplace smoking would apply to those places too. Also shooting people, except under some circumstances, is not a Federal crime but a state one.
Eric R. Ashley, I think, got it right with The gov't getting involved to solve a problem as the last method is the conservative solution. Workplaces probably should be smoke free but there's a lot of ways to achieve that without a nationwide ban.
Darrell
You can’t just throw away the issue by claiming that people who disagree with you aren’t serious. There are obviously plenty of economists who disagree, whether you read or respect them or not.
Actually economists are in agreement. At best you're going to find some who will point out that tax cuts cost less than the CBO estimates but they still cost. But my dismissal was that EVEN IF you are on the high side of the Laffer Curve, $1 spent is $1 taxed. This is a simple truism, at some point every dollar spent will be paid by someone writing a check for a dollar to the gov't. Therefore there is no such thing as gov't spending without gov't taxes.
And yes, I do believe that people who have more money are more likely to use it, in slightly larger values that ten cents. I can say that easily about myself. With more money, I’d make some improvements on my home, look at a new car, take my wife on a vacation or treat her to some nicer gifts. All of these things would result in more income for those who would provide such services, and so forth.
Yes such multipliers do exist but the important thing is the rate. If the tax rate is 50% then a $1 tax cut needs to produce $2 in order for revenue to remain the same. If the tax rate is 10% then that $1 cut needs to make $10 in income. The same multiplier exists with gov't spending. If you got $0.10 from the gov't you would likewise spend it on nice things like that which would make income for other people but it's unlikely that additional income creation will net out the original cost.
Indeed, although you may want to check out Slate.com's take on it. You can avoid that problem by creating 'unlimited 401K's'. Essentially all your income goes into this 401K like account that you only get taxed on when you take it out (and you can take it out whenver you want, unlike today's 401K's). Essentially then you can keep the progressive structure while moving the tax base to consumption.
Maybe you are not explaining this in enough detail for me to understand it, but I fail to see how this would change anything. With the "Fair Tax", savings aren't taxed, only consumption is, so all bank accounts would be like the "unlimited 401(k)" you describe. Medical expenses, food, etc. would still be taxed on the consumption side, though the "prebate" would help with some of that. It still doesn't change anything for the hypothetical "old lady on a fixed income" who tends to spend more on health care.
Take a peek at http://www.slate.com/id/2181833
The way I understand it is that your money would go into a 401K. When you take it out, that gets registered as income....just like it does with 401K's today. The difference is that you don't have the penalty for early withdrawal that today's 401K's do and no limit on how much gets put in.
Since you have to take the money out to use it your 'income tax' is really a consumption tax. But like the current income tax, it's progressive as taking out a lot of money will put you in a higher tax bracket. Also like the current income tax you have the benefit of deductions so things like medical expenses and mortgage interest would reduce your tax bite while spending your money on, say, all comic books would not.
This defeats Huckabee's simplicity goal, though. Also I'm still skeptical whether our entire tax burden can be placed on consumption without causing some major distortions.
This defeats Huckabee's simplicity goal, though.
It also would require a significantly higher rate. Medicine is a pretty big chunk of the economy, by eliminating it you would have to raise the tax rate quite a bit.
Despite the spin coming from:
ucfengr
Boonton
Tony Iovino
J. J.
Chris Lutz
and others
I am still a Huckabee supporter and more determined than ever to help get his message out. Apparently, there are still a lot of people out there believing the spin put out by rival campaigns and some media outlets.
I find it extremely funny that all the candidates from both sides are now jumping on the Huck and Obama bandwagons with their rhetoric. Suddenly, changing Washington is a good thing because Washington has somehow become broke since Iowa. Suddenly, we have also developed a middle class here in America since Iowa. Suddenly, criticizing Bush's policy in regards to Foreign Policy since Iowa is ok. Suddenly, the economy has taken a dramatic left turn and is now going in the toilet since Iowa. Suddenly, Fred Thompson falls out of bed and comes to the conclusion he must help John McCain win the nomination at all costs by trying to split the Social Conservatives.
I wonder if the supporters of these other candidates are now going to turn their spun logic against them just as they have been doing against Huckabee? Probably not and that should tell you something right there.
Suddenly, Fred Thompson falls out of bed and comes to the conclusion he must help John McCain win the nomination at all costs by trying to split the Social Conservatives.
"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers..."
“Actually economists are in agreement. At best you're going to find some who will point out that tax cuts cost less than the CBO estimates but they still cost. But my dismissal was that EVEN IF you are on the high side of the Laffer Curve, $1 spent is $1 taxed. This is a simple truism, at some point every dollar spent will be paid by someone writing a check for a dollar to the gov't. Therefore there is no such thing as gov't spending without gov't taxes.”
But that ignores the fact that in cutting taxes, more dollars will be coming into the government. So if you’re on the high side of the laffer curve, a dollar spent will be better paid by cutting the tax rate.
Again, I’m not trying to defend spending the dollar in the first place. I’m just saying I’d prefer to get one of the two rather than neither.
Again think about it very carefully. Imagine some magic tax cut does increase the dollars coming in. So what? Still a dollar spent is a dollar taxed (at some point). Even if more dollars come in if spending doesn't happen then you can cut even below the max. point on the Laffer curve.
All in all, the point is that if you want an honest measure of taxation forget about tax rates or nit picking arguments over whether or not someone raised taxes 24 times or cut them 13 times or whatnot. Simply look at spending in relation to the underlying economy. The one with more spending is worse on taxes, end of story.
ucfengr- man you got some stuff wrong. the rate WOULD actually be 23% not 30+. that has been rebutted so many times. actually if you look at the "experts" who criticize the fair tax they are all ones who would feel the burn from it. the fair tax would get rid of the IRS and many, i repeat, MANY experts have said it would be awesome.
it is not huckabee or his supporters that make it hard it is the media and the libs and romney that make it hard by twisting facts and smearing huckabee.
MIKE HUCKABEE all the way! a real conservative as POTUS!!!
please stop the smearing!!!
ucfengr- man you got some stuff wrong. the rate WOULD actually be 23% not 30+.
It depends on how you calculate the tax. If you calculate the "Fair Tax" way every other state calculates sales tax (the tax rate is the number you multiply by the price to get the amount of tax on an item) it is 30%. It is only 23% if you use the unconventional (and in my opinion, dishonest) method of backing the tax out of the final price.
the fair tax would get rid of the IRS
Then who is going to make sure the tax is collected?
Sorry, but the "Huckaboom" seems to be another symptom of the tendency towards anti-intellectualism in modern Evangelicalism.
So what do you say about all the Huckabee supporting push-polls that are anti-everyone except him going on in SC right now. Sure shows where his principles are now right?
Look, I trust that Huckabee would be a great president. I've seen him in debates and his take on pro-life. He stands for what us who call ourselves "christians" should stand for. How dare we call ourselves "christians" if we even look at any other candidate and what they stand for. I believe he's been the only one that has been truthful in what he stands for. And for christians to vote for anybody else, it's a shame!!!!
Ucfengr, there is nothing deceptive about 30% vs 23%. The former is how sales taxes are calculated whereas the latter is how income taxes are calculated. Americans for Fair Taxation explains it both ways. I imagine you’ve seen some negative comments which have already been refuted at fairtax.org. There are people like Bartlett who continue to say the same old things despite being corrected, which suggests to me he is a lobbyist.
"The one with more spending is worse on taxes, end of story.
If a guy has to repair roads, he repairs them. If he has to raise taxes temporarily, he raises taxes to accomplish that task. It is not fair to be a "bottom line man".
Entering into Dialogue with a Fellow Christ-Follower
I would like to respond to two quotes from Huckabee's "Issues" section on the "war on terror":
He wrote:
"I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission."
Haven't you ever preached, as a pastor, on John 3:16 and the overwhelming love that was able to defeat evil at the cross?
"I will expand the army and increase the defense budget."
Do the prophets not speak about a time in which we will beat swords into ploughshares? Does Jesus Christ not speak about turning the cheek and loving our enemies? Does this quote not undermine the words and work of Jesus Christ THE Commander and Chief of all that is?
It saddens me to read of how willing Huckabee is are to sacrifice the fathers and sons of our enemies even as you passionately plead for the life of the unborn child. Does God not love both enemy and unborn child? Is the gospel not meant for the killed fetus and also the disemboweled extremist?
If Mike Huckabee is sincere about becoming President, why does not attack McCain instead of Romney?