Palin 2012 Correspondence

The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party

Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late

I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.

I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.

But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.

A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.

All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.

Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:

Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.

Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:


http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/

http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com

Howard Richman's Analysis of Bernanke's Monetary Track and The Fair Tax Advocated by Huckabee

At his Blog, http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com , Howard Richman, coauthor of the recent book, “Trading Away Our Future,” comments on another analysis of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s monetary stewardship, including discussion of the merits of The Fair Tax:

Mother Jones and The Fair Tax

I have some comments on gay marriages, which began taking place in California on Wednesday June 18. It raises some relevant questions and an example of my occasional departure from the boilerplate “conservative” positions. I used quotes because I think many boilerplate “conservative” positions are not necessarily consonant with a conservative philosophy but mainly sentimental reactions, which is all that liberals often think conservatism is, anyway. But, Mother Jones posted an article on Huckabee and The Fair Tax on Tuesday: Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax Fallacies (I think The Fair Tax should be made a flagship Republican issue (just another idea that John McCain is not yet on board with – and yes, I’m supporting McCain enthusiastically), and this article raises some standard misguided objections, so I’m posting this, first. A couple of points in this article are legitimate things to consider, though the fear exaggerates the reality. But, mostly, assuming the article is genuine(?), it overlooks and misrepresents a number of factors. Here is the comment I left at the MJ web site:

First, there are statements that countermand each other. The article falls to the standard liberal concern that it is "regressive," because lower-income people must spend more on essentials. This overlooks the obvious fact that people have more extravagant lifestyles precisely because they spend more, and thus will pay higher taxes. Taxes will be a lot higher on BMW's than on a Ford Taurus for example, never mind on planes, boats, and travel, for only a few examples. If people save on taxes by saving or investing, more power to them and more power for society: savings and investment (jobs in liberal-speak) are encouraged.

Later, the slip of the writer's liberal perspective is showing when the article frets the possibility of companies pocketing their tax savings rather than passing it on to the consumer. No one with the barest comprehension of how markets work would raise such a silly idea. Companies will and should always try to maximize profits, but they don't set prices, markets do. And, the "prebate" goes to all citizens, so middle-class taxes are lowered, too.

You concede that economic activity will increase, but greatly understate the probable extent. No income tax for doing business in The United States? Recall that Reagan's tax cuts doubled federal revenues over his term (unfortunately, federal spending tripled). But, if that was an economic surge, The Fair Tax might provoke an economic avalanche. (i.e., economic activity and opportunity on steroids)

This is not just good; the fact is that it is now essential. We are a short distance (the next term will realize it, from a tsunami of entitlement liability arriving for an over-promising federal government. Even I doubt that even the Fair Tax's rush of economic activity will cover the drastic revenue shortfall. In brief, The Fair Tax is the least we can do, given the mistakes made. Frantic and futile foggy-headed government agents will lunge at alternative answers to meet the demand by raising taxes, restricting benefits and inflating away the value of the dollar to pay its obligations with cheap money, all of which will in short fashion make matters worse and increase hardship.

Finally, the article lapses into a typical cynical analysis about a politician's political motivation. Another, straightforward explanation for Huckabee's support of The Fair Tax is the peculiar one which I also embrace: HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE FAIR TAX WILL BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS! (Difficult as that may be to contemplate)

It is true that a vigorous system must be put in place to insure that all imported items bear the same tax to maintain a level playing field for American business. And, it's true that barter and caution in consumption will be encouraged. They used to call that "thrift." Now, it's a BAD thing?

Oh, and speaking of terms, a 5% growth in spending across Huckabee's over ten years as governor of Arkansas, would be around the rate of inflation and a little over 500 million dollars per year. Can you do a little math? That fits your numbers almost exactly. The fact is that taxes as a percentage of income were approximately the same at the beginning and end of Huckabee's governorship. You know what they say about how statistics can be presented… In brief the criticisms of The Club for Growth were mercenary rewards for CfG contributors with political or personal anti-Huckabee interests. Romney's and Thompson's criticisms were transparently political.

In truth, with no Fair Tax, economic travails appear utterly unavoidable.

On Huckabee And Conservatives, Dennis Prager And The Fair Tax, And John McCain's Economy Comments

I still have not been posting regularly, though I have been cruising other Blogs. There is much on my mind that I want to get into. But alas, current considerations come to the front.

First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.

As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.

Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.

As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:

…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:

15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry

This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.

Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."

But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.


Dennis Prager:

I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”

Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.

Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.

Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?

Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!

Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,


With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.

I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.

The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.

If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.

If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well

The Pros And Cons Of John McCain

I’m anxious to hang it up for today, but I wanted to say at least a little about John McCain. Understand: Tuesday is the Texas primary, I already voted early for Mike Huckabee, and will promote Huckabee and his ideas in the Texas convention process. Today, I was cited polls supposedly showing a poll margin of twenty or more percentage points for John McCain over Mike Huckabee. But, that will not happen. One direction or another, I think the difference will be single digits. I have a number of reasons to say that, but time will soon tell. As an example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed John McCain. And depending on turnout, that should prove a net (additional) negative for John McCain. A large turnout of relatively casual observers may favor McCain. But, the greater percentage of the vote that is more activist Republicans, the better it will bode for Mike Huckabee. Though it is March in Texas, I wish it would snow.

I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.

But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.

When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.

I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.

Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.

But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.

If McCain Supposedly Has It Locked Up, Why Not Vote For Huckabee? - Wisconsin Tuesday, Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small

Supporters got an email message from Governor Huckabee with basically the same information as the web notice, below, and an appeal for contributions: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ .

Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.

If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.

Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.

February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."

Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee

"Huckanomics" and Fair Tax More "Vertical Politics"

The Mike Huckabee for President Campaign website, on Saturday, posted a useful explanation of Governor Mike Huckabee’s economic perspective which justifies The Fair Tax: What is Huckonomics?

The principles of trade discussed here, could be put in a lined yellow cover and called, "Adam Smith for Dummies." The point of course, is not literally that people are "dummies." It is that the immediate social context is one where the perception of reality is distorted by the very assumption of government "commanding" an economy, from either a supply or demand prejudice.
The summary is that we should pull our heads back from the immediate social context and apply common-sense principles to American society.

What 18th century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith wrote about, was the natural human and social moral principles that underlie the creation and distribution of wealth. America was founded as a nation that respected the natural and unadulterated respect of freedom and the economic forces of supply and demand. Of course, this also led to the creation and accumulation of great wealth, which accrued to the general benefit, though more extravagantly among the investing minority.

In concert with the accelerating development of macro-communications, first through widely distributed print and literacy, this cultivated a great development of the natural human tendencies to horde among the wealthier minority and to envy among the more modestly rewarded minority: this was the seed of class identification and the “demand-side” economics that this Huckanomics article speaks of.

Democracy developed governmental means to impose supposed fairness (in reality it calcified economic divisions) for a dissatisfied majority. These “socialist” developments dominated most of the 20th century throughout Europe and less extensively in America. Its most extreme manifestations were in the ostensibly rightward (see Jonah Goldberg’s recently released book, “Liberal Fascism”) National Socialism (or Nazism) and the acknowledged leftward socialism of Karl Marx (communism), that spread even to the East with the expansion of communications.

This acceleration was intensified with the spread of the electronic communications of radio in the early 20th century and television in the mid-twentieth century. With this electronic couriership, the majesty of the economic “commander” became the status quo social understanding in America, embodied in Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30’s. As marginal tax rates reached 90% in the sixties, production incentives waned and libertarian impulses swelled. In the early sixties, Democrat John Kennedy cut taxes to provoke economic growth, and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater insolently repudiated expanding and intrusive government, suffering a landslide defeat at the hands of the still status quo stewed public. Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, who introduced new government activism with his “Great Society.”

But of course, Goldwater’s campaign was the birth of the National Review-driven conservative movement. Ronald Reagan had recognized the excesses of the New Dealism that he had supported as a young man, had come to harm the America and its people that he had grown to love. After he had risen with this message to the presidency in 1980, he introduced the command reaction of “supply-side” economics, to which establishment conservatism now frantically clings.

“Huckanomics” and The Fair Tax represent the true economic conservatism that would remove the command element of the economy, returning it to the natural and dynamic unsullied forces of human commerce. Though untamed and potentially volatile, these principles restore the fertile soil of prodigious production and the broad expansion of wealth and economic prosperity. The century of command economics was not just one of muzzled production, but one that also provoked unprecedented acrimony and bloodshed. It is a legacy the passing of which should not be mourned.

It is true that, as many challenge, Congress could never be expected to voluntarily cede its massive its power to negotiate and manipulate the tax system, and implement The Fair Tax. That is why an executive is required to inform and inspire the public to hold Congress to account. The Fair Tax is well-named, because taxation would be imposed on the level of consumption rather than the level of production. More extravagant consumption means more extravagant taxation. The poorer are untaxed by a universal “pre-bate” which monthly provides each household with the tax rate of the poverty level. So, you start the month with that AND you receive the entirety of your earnings.

Using rough current numbers, each family starts the month with over $5000 dollars. If of four earns $8000/month, there is $13,000 to spend for the month. Retail tax on spending will be 23%. Burt remember that the average 22% taxation will be removed from the imbedded cost of goods produced in America, lowering those prices dramatically, and making them more competitive with imported goods, which would be taxed equally. This represents a huge boost to American commerce, which also may sell their untaxed goods in foreign markets. Additionally, the untaxed underground economy is eliminated. Illegal members and illegal earners like pimps, prostitutes, drug-dealers, and gamblers will pay taxes on purchases like everyone else. Of course people will barter and bootleg around the system. But at least then, cheaters will be cheaters, not just expert gamers of an arcane system: street-corner hustles not luxurious tax-exemptions. This is no upper-class bonanza.

One very important thing is left to say. And, if we should embark upon this change without resolute attention to it, I fear that it is inevitable that the hording, envy, and acrimony will surely rise again. The mass-culture dampened uninhibited commerce in an effort to impose a social morality. But, an “imposed morality” is an oxymoron. And along with economic limitation, a macro-morality brought a dereliction of personal morality. What Americans must tend even more urgently than free and un-commanded markets, is the resolve to become better people. Even more important than the heightened creation of wealth, is that we support and encourage each other as moral and considerate people in the face of the irregularities of such an unregulated society.

In addition to the market-liberating principles of what the article calls, “Huckanomics,” Mike Huckabee strives to exemplify a model for such consideration that is the provocation of many of his “conservative” critics who have come to hear the idea of compassion only in terms of expanding and intruding government. That disposition is also illustrated in Huckabee’s frequent statement that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” Conservatism recognizes the value and prudence of personal and market freedom while commending an empathetic application of that freedom. In Christian terms, it respects but exhorts a virtuous rather than errant expression of a God-given freedom.

Huckabee also advocates what he calls a vertical rather than horizontal politics that is directed not at the triumph of the left or right but at the elevation of American society. Conservatism is virtuously applied to this objective, and ignobly applied to the conquest of fellow Americans.

Iowa Caucuses Tomorrow/Moneybag And Flustered Critics Notwithstanding, Huckabee The "True" Fiscal Conservative/Blog On Romney's negatives

I want to do some more reading, but I want to put this up now, since the Iowa Caucuses are tomorrow. Here are a few blog exchanges that I have had in the past day or two. The first is with a fellow Huckabee blogger, the others are exchanges with expressed (and misguided) Huckabee detractors. At bottom is a blogger question about

Romney that I thought merited consideration.

I was referred to a post at Matt's Corner and read down to Thursday’s post:

Thursday, December 27, 2007
How Fiscal Conservatives Use Social Conservatives
In an article at bloomberg.com, columnist Matthew Benjamin succinctly describes the division of labor (and rewards) in the Republican Party:
In doing so, he [Huckabee] threatens the uneasy if effective coalition Republicans have counted on for three decades: abortion opponents and other social-issue activists supplying foot soldiers, proponents of tax cuts and business-friendly regulatory policies putting up the money and getting the biggest economic benefits.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aW4kA.Dle4BU&refer=politics

Fiscal conservatives have used social conservatives to do all the heavy lifting so that they (the fiscal conservatives) can make a sizeable return on their investments. However, while the fiscal conservatives are making money off of the efforts of social conservatives who labor for their selected candidates, the social conservatives end up getting stuck with the bag. Instead of having a truly pro-life, pro-family candidate who will go out on a limb and say, "Right is right, wrong is wrong," social conservatives are told to be pragmatic. "Would you rather have Hillary Clinton?" they are told.

Well enough!

Even though he may lack financial backing, Mike Huckabee is demonstrating that social conservatives can unite behind a viable cnadidate. In fact, he has demonstrated that money cannot buy elections; otherwise, Mitt Romney would already be picking curtains for the Oval Office.

Larry said:

I have written about so-called fiscal conservatives taking social conservatives for granted. I wrote that social conservatives have always been asked, "Do you want to see the Democrat elected?" And, social conservatives have usually gone along.

But I then asked, "If Huckabee is nominated and the shoe is on the other foot, will the fiscal conservatives go along? I'm not so sure. Democrats too, are up to their necks in corporate money and commitments. And socialistic tendencies favor established financial interest: they will take a tax hike with policies that restrict entry into markets, maintaining/expanding established market-share.

True conservative/free-market policy like Huckabee advocates is friendly to market entry and innovation for enterprises not yet established. That's why all of this so-called fiscal conservative criticism is nonsense. When he talks about being Main Street and/or small business friendly, and about things like the Fair Tax (which would fairly tax EVERYONE'S expenditures, that's what he's talking about. The established money have teams of accountants to make things tax-free and shift the tax burden downward to the middle class.

Now, which side do you think multi-millionaire investment counselor Mitt Romney, looking for sure investments in a less-dynamic and unpredictable economy would be on? You can almost see the hair of he and other big-money investors curling when the consider the Fair Tax. "Fair," means that they won't be special, anymore.

Here is one critical excerpt at Below The Beltway , John McCain’s New Hampshire Surge , and a response:

>So it looks like the Republican race in New Hampshire will be a battle between McCain and Romney, with the rest of the field battling it out for third place. If Huckabee wins in Iowa and McCain takes New Hampshire, we could see a quick end to Mitt Romney’s campaign. And, more distressingly, I may actually find myself rooting for McCain over the Huckster.

• Larry Perrault Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I would like to ask, speaking as a lifelong conservative, who many have considered an extreme ideologue, especially after I left being a Republican activist to vote 3rd-party for 2 cycles, what at this point does one who spends a lot of time on the Internet where the truth can be uncovered (as opposed to misguided scuttlebutt), find offensive about Mike Huckabee? This seems especially ironic from someone who has found an appeal in Mitt Romney.
I have speculated about these objections from conservatives and only come up with a few possible explanations beyond the apparent absence of a PRIMARY concern about the sanctity of human life.
Many large money-movers, accustomed to writing off every luxury as a “business expense,” might find the Fair Tax that Huckabee supports, which would levy a tax on everything from paper clips to jets. Accustomed to special treatment, a “Fair” tax system might not be so appealing.
Also, among some “establishment” Republicans, an unshaded evangelical Christianity might be considered just culturally gauche: a little “creepy.” Speaking of that, it’s a little interesting to me to consider a man with his personal history a “cynical opportunist.” (as I began writing, I saw the reference to this post in the margin, which I’ll check out - again, and converesly(?), Romney is just the most genuine and straightforward guy in the race?
Lastly, I think for a lot of particularly aggravated conservatives, there may be some displeasure with Huckabee’s disposition: he often says, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.”
Some conservatives might say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE!” Would they find “cynical,” a conservative who is not perpetually angry?
--By the way, I’m a conservative who is working not to be mad about it.

One libertarian blogger at http://www.jasonpye.com/ wrote to Neil Boortz, the libertarian radio talk-show host, expressing dismay at Boortz endorsement of Huckabee. Boortz is a Fair Tax supporter who has actually co-authorerd a book with US Rep. John Linder. But, this blog lists the familiar laundry list of conservative (and inaccurate) objections to Huckabee.

I responded:
These points could be responded to one by one: perrault@sbcglobal.net , if you like. But, all of this dispairing about Huckabee is misguided. In the first place, the idea that Huckabee is a liberal spendthrift is nonsense. People believe that who believe other peoples' words without doing any study of their own. Money inflates and budgets grow. Over the course of Huckabee's governorship, his state's budget grew at about half the rate of the average American state.
In the second place, it is a CRASHING irony for these concerns to be stated over Huckabee, given the conservative/constitutional infidels who are the nearest competitors: Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson? Philosophically clueless. At least Romney knows to pull any leg that sticks out in front of him. None of these are close to as constitutionally constrained as Huckabee. He constantly cites the appropriate state v. federal distinction of powers of the 10th Amendment. Anyone who was paying attention would know that.
The supposed "fiscal conservatives" that oppose Huckabee have ultrior motives, and opposition to The Fair Tax is one of them. People who write off nearly every luxury as a "business expense," effectively shifting the tax burden down to the middle class, don't want it "fair." They are used to being privileged.
The idea that Huckabee is cynically using The Fair Tax to gain power and will then ignore it and tax away is unmitigated paranoia. Huckabee has signed the Americans for Tax Reform "no new taxes " pledge and constantly says the federal government doesn't need more money. Again, pay attention.
And lastly: so-called "populist" rhetoric does not define liberal policy. Huckabee is a smart and honest man who grew up in a Democrat family, in a Democrat town, in a Democrat state, and BECAME a Republican. But not just because he doesn't care about middle and lower class people. He knows that true conservative free-market policy (like our current tax system ISN'T) provides the most opportunity for EVERYONE!
The sound of that rhetoric is the sound of the Democrats' most powerful emotional tool being cut right out from under them. It's the sound of general election victory for conservative principle. Take a muscle relaxer.

Another critical excerpt at http://hardstarboard.blogspot.com and a response comment

>…Nothing shocking or unusual about that (Romney’s) thirty-second spot. It just seeks to remind Republican voters that Mike xxxxx Huckabee is no conservative on foreign policy, national security, fiscal policy, or crime. And it does so very effectively
---I'm sure Mike Huckabee is a swell guy, but in my eyes, he's a mixture of everything I didn't like about Bill Clinton and George Bush.
A big government conservative with a history of accepting gifts from donors, a compulsion to legislate morality, and an "aw shucks," personality designed to catch you off guard, right before you find yourself taxed more to get less freedom.
If our friends in Iowa could give us a hand, we could Chuck Huck January 3rd.

Larry says:
Huckabee is well aware that success breeds criticism. He doesn't expect otherwise. He is just replying that the content misrepresents the facts.
He's not a big government conservative like a Bush. While he was governor, his state raised taxes to tend to state essentials, as state governments must (roads, education, parks, most notably) Huckabee is well aware of and outspoken about the 10th Amendment distinction between federal and state responsibilities, which some pupular culture-saturated "conservatives" evidently no longer are.

Romney’s negative campaigning: is Romney willing to take the party ...
By dotan
“MANCHESTER, NH - The battle between Mitt Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire’s Republican primary took a significant turn yesterday as Romney unveiled his first television advertisement attacking McCain’s record,” writes Michael ...
who is willard milton romney? - http://dotan.wordpress.com