The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
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:
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
"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.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Mike Huckabee Is The Most Conservative Republican Candidate For President/Institute for Conservative Studies Founder Endorsement
Below is yesterday’s post with a comment and a response. But, I hadded a late-arriving message from a friend, noting a conservative endorsement of Huckabee. I am entirely exasperated with establishment Republicans that I could list for a few lines (that would include Rush Limbaugh, though he didn’t used to be considered establishment) howling that Mike Huckabee is not a conservative. The charge is ridiculous and only a brief look at his words and record shows it. These “conservative” critics are either outright deceitful or pathetically ill informed and demonstrably incompetent to be making a case.
That is particularly evident given the history of unconstitutional conservative infidelities of every other Republican candidate for President of the United States. If the party is going to chase the truest conservative candidate who also presents the best opportunity to undercut a Democrat, either out of cultural disdain for social conservatism, raw avarice (the Fair Tax is just that: fair – not an advantage for the wealthy – look it up), or just the simple animosity that is the Democrat caricature of a Republican that I have been denying as a Republican since I was a boy, they can take my vote and hang it in their ear. They will probably lose and they will definitely deserve it.
-------------------------------------
A longtime pro-life contact of mine (actually a founder of “Buy Pro-Life” in my sig) sent this message to Rush Limbaugh who, in case you hadn’t noticed, has been trashing Mike Huckabee as not a conservative. It seems that John Stemberger has switched his endorsement to Mike Huckabee. With the roster of supposedly “conservative experts” that have been hard about undermining Huckabee, this founder of The Institute for Conservative Studies, obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing?
Hi Rush,
Is your prestigious institute actually endorsing HUCKABEE???
I just caught this news post: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee
According to the article, John Stemberger, the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, switching from Fred Thompson’s campaign. There are excerpts below. I assume this is not the same ICS from which you occupy the prestigious Attila the Hun Chair – OH WAIT! Yours is the Institute for ADVANCED Conservative Studies . If they had their hats on down in Florida, one must assume a Mayor from New York would be the only true conservative choice….
By the way: I take it from your comments in recent shows that if McCain or Huckabee beats the odds and becomes the nominee, you will support Michael Bloomberg? Or will you just stay home like the social conservatives will if one of the pro-abortion “establishment” guys gets the nod? I know you’re confident one of the establishment guys will win, but I am curious what you, Hannity, Laura and Bill Bennett will do after investing so much energy in insuring Huckabee’s defeat. Looking at McCain’s numbers, I think you all should have spent your efforts on defeating him; Huckabee isn’t a threat either way. Then again, as they say, that’s why you’re the host and I am not.
Blessings,
Tony Silva
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I found it on Family Mentors!" -- Family Safe Search & shop.
www.familymentors.com | www.curriculumfinder.com
"Governor Huckabee is without question the best candidate to breathe new life and fresh hope into a nation and its people who are fed up with scandal, corruption and big-money power politics. Mike Huckabee is a proven leader with executive experience and a solid record as a champion for pro-life and pro-family values," Stemberger said. "As a result, he has won the trust of more social conservative leaders across America than any other candidate. He has also proven that he is a viable candidate who can take us all the way home by winning both the primary and the general elections."
Stemberger is the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies at Florida State University and has been one of the leading pro-life, pro-family advocates in Florida over the past 25 years. He was a lobbyist for Florida Right to Life and served as the Political Director for the Republican Party of Florida during the final campaign of former President George H.W. Bush.
"Like Ronald Reagan before him, Mike Huckabee can restore common sense conservative leadership to America both at home and abroad," Stemberger said. "He will re-envision us to once again become 'one nation, under God' while ensuring 'liberty and justice for all."
Mike Huckabee’s very important speech at the Detroit Economic Club broadcast by C-SPAN, which shows a lot of what Governor Huckabee is about and stands in contrast to the charges that have been lodged against him.
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
posted by Larry Perrault at 6:43 PM on Jan 13, 2008
2 Comments
Fraud Examiner said...
Another item to inform because some are trying to mislead:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen stated on January 13 that he wants Gitmo shut down as stated in an Associated Press story dated January 14. It states in part…”he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.”….and even though he is the top military officer…”He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make”…because it is in the hands of the President.
I saw the article on www.military.com as I have interest in this as one of my sons is in the Army National Guard as a Military Policeman and another son looks to be joining the United States Marines any day.
Mike Huckabee is on target in his position; unfortunately, he is receiving flak on it.
Rod Pitzer
Certified Fraud Examiner
January 14, 2008 6:06 AM
Larry said...
Thank you, Rod:
What is so terribly frustrating is that the most conservative, the most moral, and the most patriotic candidate will not be taken down by Democrats, but if he does not succeed, he will have been taken down by Republicans and supposed "conservatives," some of who are quite well meaning (some plainly aren't. These well-meaning conservatives have absorbed the flourish of mostly didingenuous claims by "conservative" deceeivers. Most of this deceit is in r5eality grounded in hostility to evangelical Christian culture: not evangelicals, per se (who are great if they remember to keep their place and faithfully deliver their votes for an "establishment Republican candidate) No, the problem is with an evangelical culture that not only confesses belief, but has the temerity to talk about it. And in the case of Huckabee, even to say things like, "My faith doesn't just inform me, it defines me," which causes "mainstream" Republicans to shudder: "Please, take this man from the table and back to the kitchen."
If the Republican establishment had embraced Huckabee, at least agfter his Iowa win, he might have easily wrapped up the nomination and won the general election, undermining the broadest and deepest emotional appeal of The Democratic Party that Republicans care only for the wealthy and privileged.
But, mere victory is not worth the cultural indignity of having what they consider a social hobo at the head table: better to be a decorous but still privileged minority.
The "Not a conservative" charges against Huckabere are bogus. Just do some study at his site and on the blogs, not about the scuttlebutt, but about the facts. To begin with and most simply, this man from a Democrat home, town, and state is a Republican for a reason: he's a conservative. And he's a conservative not merely out of some sentiments but out of principle, unlike the demonstrated conservative infidels against whom he competes. But, the Republican establishment prefers one who is an infidel to one they simply consider uncouth.
That is particularly evident given the history of unconstitutional conservative infidelities of every other Republican candidate for President of the United States. If the party is going to chase the truest conservative candidate who also presents the best opportunity to undercut a Democrat, either out of cultural disdain for social conservatism, raw avarice (the Fair Tax is just that: fair – not an advantage for the wealthy – look it up), or just the simple animosity that is the Democrat caricature of a Republican that I have been denying as a Republican since I was a boy, they can take my vote and hang it in their ear. They will probably lose and they will definitely deserve it.
-------------------------------------
A longtime pro-life contact of mine (actually a founder of “Buy Pro-Life” in my sig) sent this message to Rush Limbaugh who, in case you hadn’t noticed, has been trashing Mike Huckabee as not a conservative. It seems that John Stemberger has switched his endorsement to Mike Huckabee. With the roster of supposedly “conservative experts” that have been hard about undermining Huckabee, this founder of The Institute for Conservative Studies, obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing?
Hi Rush,
Is your prestigious institute actually endorsing HUCKABEE???
I just caught this news post: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee
According to the article, John Stemberger, the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, switching from Fred Thompson’s campaign. There are excerpts below. I assume this is not the same ICS from which you occupy the prestigious Attila the Hun Chair – OH WAIT! Yours is the Institute for ADVANCED Conservative Studies . If they had their hats on down in Florida, one must assume a Mayor from New York would be the only true conservative choice….
By the way: I take it from your comments in recent shows that if McCain or Huckabee beats the odds and becomes the nominee, you will support Michael Bloomberg? Or will you just stay home like the social conservatives will if one of the pro-abortion “establishment” guys gets the nod? I know you’re confident one of the establishment guys will win, but I am curious what you, Hannity, Laura and Bill Bennett will do after investing so much energy in insuring Huckabee’s defeat. Looking at McCain’s numbers, I think you all should have spent your efforts on defeating him; Huckabee isn’t a threat either way. Then again, as they say, that’s why you’re the host and I am not.
Blessings,
Tony Silva
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I found it on Family Mentors!" -- Family Safe Search & shop.
www.familymentors.com | www.curriculumfinder.com
"Governor Huckabee is without question the best candidate to breathe new life and fresh hope into a nation and its people who are fed up with scandal, corruption and big-money power politics. Mike Huckabee is a proven leader with executive experience and a solid record as a champion for pro-life and pro-family values," Stemberger said. "As a result, he has won the trust of more social conservative leaders across America than any other candidate. He has also proven that he is a viable candidate who can take us all the way home by winning both the primary and the general elections."
Stemberger is the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies at Florida State University and has been one of the leading pro-life, pro-family advocates in Florida over the past 25 years. He was a lobbyist for Florida Right to Life and served as the Political Director for the Republican Party of Florida during the final campaign of former President George H.W. Bush.
"Like Ronald Reagan before him, Mike Huckabee can restore common sense conservative leadership to America both at home and abroad," Stemberger said. "He will re-envision us to once again become 'one nation, under God' while ensuring 'liberty and justice for all."
Mike Huckabee’s very important speech at the Detroit Economic Club broadcast by C-SPAN, which shows a lot of what Governor Huckabee is about and stands in contrast to the charges that have been lodged against him.
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
posted by Larry Perrault at 6:43 PM on Jan 13, 2008
2 Comments
Fraud Examiner said...
Another item to inform because some are trying to mislead:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen stated on January 13 that he wants Gitmo shut down as stated in an Associated Press story dated January 14. It states in part…”he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.”….and even though he is the top military officer…”He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make”…because it is in the hands of the President.
I saw the article on www.military.com as I have interest in this as one of my sons is in the Army National Guard as a Military Policeman and another son looks to be joining the United States Marines any day.
Mike Huckabee is on target in his position; unfortunately, he is receiving flak on it.
Rod Pitzer
Certified Fraud Examiner
January 14, 2008 6:06 AM
Larry said...
Thank you, Rod:
What is so terribly frustrating is that the most conservative, the most moral, and the most patriotic candidate will not be taken down by Democrats, but if he does not succeed, he will have been taken down by Republicans and supposed "conservatives," some of who are quite well meaning (some plainly aren't. These well-meaning conservatives have absorbed the flourish of mostly didingenuous claims by "conservative" deceeivers. Most of this deceit is in r5eality grounded in hostility to evangelical Christian culture: not evangelicals, per se (who are great if they remember to keep their place and faithfully deliver their votes for an "establishment Republican candidate) No, the problem is with an evangelical culture that not only confesses belief, but has the temerity to talk about it. And in the case of Huckabee, even to say things like, "My faith doesn't just inform me, it defines me," which causes "mainstream" Republicans to shudder: "Please, take this man from the table and back to the kitchen."
If the Republican establishment had embraced Huckabee, at least agfter his Iowa win, he might have easily wrapped up the nomination and won the general election, undermining the broadest and deepest emotional appeal of The Democratic Party that Republicans care only for the wealthy and privileged.
But, mere victory is not worth the cultural indignity of having what they consider a social hobo at the head table: better to be a decorous but still privileged minority.
The "Not a conservative" charges against Huckabere are bogus. Just do some study at his site and on the blogs, not about the scuttlebutt, but about the facts. To begin with and most simply, this man from a Democrat home, town, and state is a Republican for a reason: he's a conservative. And he's a conservative not merely out of some sentiments but out of principle, unlike the demonstrated conservative infidels against whom he competes. But, the Republican establishment prefers one who is an infidel to one they simply consider uncouth.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Information For Those Mislead About Huckabee: Detroit Economic Club Video And The View from the Back of the Bus
Mike Huckabee’s very important speech at the Detroit Economic Club broadcast by C-SPAN, which shows a lot of what Governor Huckabee is about and stands in contrast to the charges that have been lodged against him.
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
Friday, January 11, 2008
Huckabee At South Carolina Debate Video
I hope you saw the South Carolina debate, last night. But, there are clips of Huckabee's response to the usual Baptist/religious question and more importantly, his dicussion afterward with Hannity & Comes, in which he talks about some of the deceitful attacks that came his way in the debate, as is now typical. Massachusetss for Huckabee has posted these videos at Video And Thoughts About The Fox News Debate
And, be sure to read my thoughts about the debate, below.
And, be sure to read my thoughts about the debate, below.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The South Carolina Debate: The Romney-Thompson Winning Strategy?/What About Defining Your Own Agenda?
At tonight’s debate in South Carolina, it appeared that Fred Thompson adopted Mitt Romney’s strategy of first misrepresenting Huckabee in Iowa, and then misrepresenting John McCain in New Hampshire. I hope Thompson has the same crashing success that Romney did with this strategy, even though it may not be as lavishly funded. He has five more days, but based on his tactics tonight, Thompson will not perform as he needs to in order to survive the South Carolina primary on Jan 19. Maybe he should hope that, just as New Hampsire was different from Iowa, South Carolina will be different from both, and lap up the phony toe-hammering tactic. We shall see, I suppose.
But, Thomson charged directly at Huckabee as I expected he would, with Huckabee leading the polls in SC. Listen, I’m not extraordinarily impressed with their records, but I don’t think Thompson or Romney for that matter, are that bad guys. Too bad they can’t sell themselves enough without misleading and misrepresenting other people.
Thompson used Romney’s same (miserably failed) approach of characterizing Huckabee as a “liberal.” Huckabee’s record speaks for itself. Huckabee was elected 3 times as Arkansas governor. And Arkansas is a typical southern rough and tumble, not just historically but still, Democrat-dominated state. And, he’s faced and survived a lot of political attacks. But, I don’t suppose he was attacked too often as “a liberal,” before he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president: and from demonstrable infidels from the principles of America’s founding documents, the kind of American heresies that Huckabee never has or never would engage in.
Thompson was a prime advocate for McCain-Feingold so-called campaign finance reform, which in fact was First Amendment deform. Huckabee wouldn’t have had the fundraising limitations of the first half of the campaign had it not been for that. So, Thompson and McCain got a piece of Huckabee right out of the box. But, it looks like their money deprivation and Romney’s money deluge didn’t stop the message. Romney also has a heterodox history on the 2nd Amendment and the respect for human life in both The Constitution and the opening lines of The Declaration of Independence. In both cases: no problem now; “I’ve changed my mind.”
Here’s what is bothersome in both their cases, though: they both know very well that Huckabee is not a liberal. He has largely supported American foreign policy. To lump him with "blame America first is ridiculous. His fiscal record and instincts are conservative and Arkansas taxes not even relatively exhorbitant. And as for a smoking ban, he didn't introduce the idea, and the one in Arkansas exempted businesses that cater only to adults or have 3 or fewer employees. And with respect to all of this, Huckabnee knows as many appear not to, that state and federal necessities and responsibilities are different. Heck, Huckabee’s not even as liberal as Romney and Thompson are, and never has been. Let them define differences that they may have. But, bald faced lying: that I’m not very impressed with.
And, speaking of McCain(-Feingold), here’s what is notable about him. Though a strong and telling one, McCain-Feingold is just one place where I disagree with him. McCain is a good and honorable patriot, but he’s philosophically opaque. Philosophically-speaking, I disagree with McCain far more than I disagree with Romney or Thompson. But, he’s obviously a much nobler man. Consider:
Huckabee won in Iowa and McCain won in New Hampshire. So, if someone needed to attack Huckabee, wouldn’t it be McCain? Did he? No: he’s better than that. He can be lead down the wrong path (sometimes it seems like he’s been drinking Washington water for too long), but, he isn’t about dishonest disparagement.
Before Thompson dies in South Carolina, I hope McCain and/or Huckabee dispose of Romney (please, Mitt: 3 strikes and you’re out?) in Michigan. Maybe then we can have an honest competition of sincere expressions. That day can’t come soon enough for me, because I’m sick of this sleazy stuff. Huckabee has even expressed an admiration for the fact that Rudolph Giuliani (who hopes to hop the campaign train in Florida), who at least is honest about his disagreements. Yeah, that’ll work: stark but honest differences.
But, Thomson charged directly at Huckabee as I expected he would, with Huckabee leading the polls in SC. Listen, I’m not extraordinarily impressed with their records, but I don’t think Thompson or Romney for that matter, are that bad guys. Too bad they can’t sell themselves enough without misleading and misrepresenting other people.
Thompson used Romney’s same (miserably failed) approach of characterizing Huckabee as a “liberal.” Huckabee’s record speaks for itself. Huckabee was elected 3 times as Arkansas governor. And Arkansas is a typical southern rough and tumble, not just historically but still, Democrat-dominated state. And, he’s faced and survived a lot of political attacks. But, I don’t suppose he was attacked too often as “a liberal,” before he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president: and from demonstrable infidels from the principles of America’s founding documents, the kind of American heresies that Huckabee never has or never would engage in.
Thompson was a prime advocate for McCain-Feingold so-called campaign finance reform, which in fact was First Amendment deform. Huckabee wouldn’t have had the fundraising limitations of the first half of the campaign had it not been for that. So, Thompson and McCain got a piece of Huckabee right out of the box. But, it looks like their money deprivation and Romney’s money deluge didn’t stop the message. Romney also has a heterodox history on the 2nd Amendment and the respect for human life in both The Constitution and the opening lines of The Declaration of Independence. In both cases: no problem now; “I’ve changed my mind.”
Here’s what is bothersome in both their cases, though: they both know very well that Huckabee is not a liberal. He has largely supported American foreign policy. To lump him with "blame America first is ridiculous. His fiscal record and instincts are conservative and Arkansas taxes not even relatively exhorbitant. And as for a smoking ban, he didn't introduce the idea, and the one in Arkansas exempted businesses that cater only to adults or have 3 or fewer employees. And with respect to all of this, Huckabnee knows as many appear not to, that state and federal necessities and responsibilities are different. Heck, Huckabee’s not even as liberal as Romney and Thompson are, and never has been. Let them define differences that they may have. But, bald faced lying: that I’m not very impressed with.
And, speaking of McCain(-Feingold), here’s what is notable about him. Though a strong and telling one, McCain-Feingold is just one place where I disagree with him. McCain is a good and honorable patriot, but he’s philosophically opaque. Philosophically-speaking, I disagree with McCain far more than I disagree with Romney or Thompson. But, he’s obviously a much nobler man. Consider:
Huckabee won in Iowa and McCain won in New Hampshire. So, if someone needed to attack Huckabee, wouldn’t it be McCain? Did he? No: he’s better than that. He can be lead down the wrong path (sometimes it seems like he’s been drinking Washington water for too long), but, he isn’t about dishonest disparagement.
Before Thompson dies in South Carolina, I hope McCain and/or Huckabee dispose of Romney (please, Mitt: 3 strikes and you’re out?) in Michigan. Maybe then we can have an honest competition of sincere expressions. That day can’t come soon enough for me, because I’m sick of this sleazy stuff. Huckabee has even expressed an admiration for the fact that Rudolph Giuliani (who hopes to hop the campaign train in Florida), who at least is honest about his disagreements. Yeah, that’ll work: stark but honest differences.
Monday, January 7, 2008
McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Paul, Huckabee
Dennis Prager’s thoughts about John McCain are accurate. He believes in restraining imprudent spending and a strong America with resolve against terrorism. And, he is a noble and sincere man, who generally follows his heart. But, his heart is not constrained by a lucid ideal about the proprieties and capacities of the federal government. Perhaps that relative ambiguity has permitted him to acclimate to the misguided culture of Washington, which tends to see itself as master of everything. And, it results in incongruities such as Prager mentions.
I think that Mitt Romney is obviously a competent man and probably a good man, with an obviously good and loyal family. But, I suspect that both his ambition and his great wealth incline him to be pliant in his assertions and intolerant of potential disappointment. To me, this has created a desperate and misleading candidate. Maybe he could have done better, but he hasn’t.
Personally, I LIKE Rudy Giuliani and would recommend him for many jobs. But, one of them is NOT chief executive of The United States, charged with protecting and defending The Constitution, which to me he seems plainly not to understand. I AM a conservative who believes that a culture is in decline that is loosing its respect for human life, especially its own offspring. I believe that a culture that does that can express selfishness and incivility in every area of human commerce. It is striking to me that no political party will generally affront a core constituency. Democrats for example, would understandably never nominate someone who had breathed a word to drive away any homosexual, even though that relatively small constituency is not uniform. Republicans would not nominate someone who called for expanding federal power and taxation, or for the collection of private firearms.
Interestingly though, I think because of pop-culture, put forward early and many lined up behind, a man who does not embrace a defining confession of the largest constituency in America in either party. Is this because they became accustomed to delivering a nominee and watching social conservatives line up to support him, and finally decided to go for broke? Hey, it worked for Pat Robertson, who obviously is not a shepherd, at least any more. But, the brazenness is very striking. I mentioned pop-culture: if media did not largely endorse and promote treating human life as a matter of personal expedience, no politician would endorse that; not even Democrats, I don’t think. “Pro-choicers” would be a smaller constituency than Ron Paul’s.
Speaking of whom, I think Ron Paul WILL make a showing in New Hampshire, competing with Huckabee and Giuliani for third. But, I think that will be his high-water mark. Paul is smart and he is philosophically clear. Unfortunately, his philosophy entails severe moral and security blind spots. Ron Paul has a floor to his support: an intense group will always support him. But, he also has a definite ceiling: He will never gather even 10-15% of Republican support, nationally.
I want to understand your misgivings about Mike Huckabee. Full disclosure: I am an ardent and longtime Huckabee supporter. You played an expression of his firmness about terrorist aggression. Taxes? Just look at the facts not the scuttlebutt, available on the web. As a governor, he had to balance budgets and make state government work, renewing inadequate road and education systems and improving public parks. Yes, in ten and a half years, taxes increased in Arkansas by 500 million dollars. But, the percentage of tax burden increased at half the rate of the average state, over that time. And, the improvements were measurable in all cases. And, Huckabee understand and often cites the difference between the province of state and feral government defined in the 10th Amendment.
I spoke with you a couple of months ago about the smoking ban clamor, saying that he approved a workplace regulation, in response to a Chris Matthews question, and, that he would not target private smoking accommodations. Again, just look at the record: a ban was passed in Arkansas, exempting businesses that catered only to adults or with three or fewer employees. I also cite the black and white fact that the federal government has in fact, assumed a HUGE liability for future medical costs. Discouraging unhealthy behavior is bare humane and fiscal prudence. The hostility some have toward Huckabee is not justified, certainly by facts cited. And, frankly, I am WAY more conservative philosophically than Dennis Prager or any of the vocal Huckabee critics, and my history shows it. Prager once described himself as a having been a Kennedy Democrat. Not me. Economically, George Will once said, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” No, we’re not
I think that Mitt Romney is obviously a competent man and probably a good man, with an obviously good and loyal family. But, I suspect that both his ambition and his great wealth incline him to be pliant in his assertions and intolerant of potential disappointment. To me, this has created a desperate and misleading candidate. Maybe he could have done better, but he hasn’t.
Personally, I LIKE Rudy Giuliani and would recommend him for many jobs. But, one of them is NOT chief executive of The United States, charged with protecting and defending The Constitution, which to me he seems plainly not to understand. I AM a conservative who believes that a culture is in decline that is loosing its respect for human life, especially its own offspring. I believe that a culture that does that can express selfishness and incivility in every area of human commerce. It is striking to me that no political party will generally affront a core constituency. Democrats for example, would understandably never nominate someone who had breathed a word to drive away any homosexual, even though that relatively small constituency is not uniform. Republicans would not nominate someone who called for expanding federal power and taxation, or for the collection of private firearms.
Interestingly though, I think because of pop-culture, put forward early and many lined up behind, a man who does not embrace a defining confession of the largest constituency in America in either party. Is this because they became accustomed to delivering a nominee and watching social conservatives line up to support him, and finally decided to go for broke? Hey, it worked for Pat Robertson, who obviously is not a shepherd, at least any more. But, the brazenness is very striking. I mentioned pop-culture: if media did not largely endorse and promote treating human life as a matter of personal expedience, no politician would endorse that; not even Democrats, I don’t think. “Pro-choicers” would be a smaller constituency than Ron Paul’s.
Speaking of whom, I think Ron Paul WILL make a showing in New Hampshire, competing with Huckabee and Giuliani for third. But, I think that will be his high-water mark. Paul is smart and he is philosophically clear. Unfortunately, his philosophy entails severe moral and security blind spots. Ron Paul has a floor to his support: an intense group will always support him. But, he also has a definite ceiling: He will never gather even 10-15% of Republican support, nationally.
I want to understand your misgivings about Mike Huckabee. Full disclosure: I am an ardent and longtime Huckabee supporter. You played an expression of his firmness about terrorist aggression. Taxes? Just look at the facts not the scuttlebutt, available on the web. As a governor, he had to balance budgets and make state government work, renewing inadequate road and education systems and improving public parks. Yes, in ten and a half years, taxes increased in Arkansas by 500 million dollars. But, the percentage of tax burden increased at half the rate of the average state, over that time. And, the improvements were measurable in all cases. And, Huckabee understand and often cites the difference between the province of state and feral government defined in the 10th Amendment.
I spoke with you a couple of months ago about the smoking ban clamor, saying that he approved a workplace regulation, in response to a Chris Matthews question, and, that he would not target private smoking accommodations. Again, just look at the record: a ban was passed in Arkansas, exempting businesses that catered only to adults or with three or fewer employees. I also cite the black and white fact that the federal government has in fact, assumed a HUGE liability for future medical costs. Discouraging unhealthy behavior is bare humane and fiscal prudence. The hostility some have toward Huckabee is not justified, certainly by facts cited. And, frankly, I am WAY more conservative philosophically than Dennis Prager or any of the vocal Huckabee critics, and my history shows it. Prager once described himself as a having been a Kennedy Democrat. Not me. Economically, George Will once said, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” No, we’re not
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Let's Talk Taxes in New Hampshire
Internet polling showed that Governor Huckabee showed strongly in the debate, tonight. Obviously, New Hampshire has changed and is changing since I lived there, over 15 years ago. But, New Hampshire has always been considered an extraordinarily tax-conscious state. As such, I way surprised that there was very little or no time spent in the debate, on the subject of taxes.
Introducing one question, Charles Gibson raised charges that had been made against each of the candidates. Referring to Governor Huckabee, he said that he had been called a tax and spender and was trying to change that perception. With he and most of the other candidates, by the time they spoke, the focus of the topic had shifted. But, I wish Governor Huckabee could have said, with regard to taxes, I make the best possible plea: in the Internet age, we have the unprecedented ability to look directly at the discussion and the record on al of these questions, and I urge you to do just that. If you think that a state raising taxes to renew highways, or to improve education or parks maintenance is not good and legitimate state action, then I may not be the kind of executive you would approve. The only question I have is, “Who is?”
I know that in campaigning this week in NH, Governor Huckabee is doing a lot of discussion of The Fair Tax. I hope there is a strong contingent of Fair Tax advocates working in New Hampshire for these few days, and I hope it can be discussed at tomorrow night’s FOX debate.
Introducing one question, Charles Gibson raised charges that had been made against each of the candidates. Referring to Governor Huckabee, he said that he had been called a tax and spender and was trying to change that perception. With he and most of the other candidates, by the time they spoke, the focus of the topic had shifted. But, I wish Governor Huckabee could have said, with regard to taxes, I make the best possible plea: in the Internet age, we have the unprecedented ability to look directly at the discussion and the record on al of these questions, and I urge you to do just that. If you think that a state raising taxes to renew highways, or to improve education or parks maintenance is not good and legitimate state action, then I may not be the kind of executive you would approve. The only question I have is, “Who is?”
I know that in campaigning this week in NH, Governor Huckabee is doing a lot of discussion of The Fair Tax. I hope there is a strong contingent of Fair Tax advocates working in New Hampshire for these few days, and I hope it can be discussed at tomorrow night’s FOX debate.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
On his radio program Thursday, Michael Medved asked people who dislike or hate Mike Huckabee to call and explain why:
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.
You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?
Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.
But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.
But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!
What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.
But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?
Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.
Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?
But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!
Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.
You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?
Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.
But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.
But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!
What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.
But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?
Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.
Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?
But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!
Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
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
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
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
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
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Thinking About The Perpetually-Heating Criticism Of Huckabee
I got an email from a friend today:
Huck has been getting hammered on liberal behavior when it comes to illegals and taxes based on what he has said and done. What do you say to that.
Of course, the criticisms get worse and probably will continue to until Huckabee wins or loses. Why might that be? Lacking a crystal ball, here are my speculations.
-----------------------------------------------
I have written about the fact that this criticism comes not from liberals, but from conservatives. Of course, I understand it coming from Republican competitors and their supporters. But, what is bothersome is when it comes from ostensibly conservative sources. The fact that it comes from acknowledged smart people highlights to me that it is frantic grasping at everything but the kitchen sink by people who otherwise would know better than what they are saying. So, why are they so agitated?
I’ve only come up with a few possible factors, which I’ll list and qualify. But first, anyone who knows me might ask why I would support such a supposed conservative infidel? I wrote about this in my last post: If I thought these accusations were valid, I wound not support him. But, I don’t think they are true or totally sincere. Some of these conservatives say that once Republicans get informed about what Huckabee is really about, his support will fall. But, the fact is that 99.9% or more of even the active and engaged Republicans are not as informed about Huckabee, his competitors, and even conservatism in general, as I am. Am I just stupid? Well, I guess people will decide for themselves. If so, I have read a lot on all sides of many questions, for nothing.
Let me emphasize that a lot of this criticism comes from people who are certainly smart enough and should be informed enough, not to throw out the things that they are. So, I would ask anyone who says or repeats these things what, specifically, they are referring to relative to immigration and taxes; and I hope we can dismiss the nakedly politically motivated assertions of Romney and Thompson. Speaking of that, consider this: why do I not support Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, or McCain? In the simplest terms: because they are not conservative. They have some propensities in a conservative direction. But, they have no clear view of the proper role of government at its various levels and about human nature, in general. That is clear with respect to every one of those I mentioned. I’m not mad at them, personally. You aren’t mad at someone for their incapacities. I am not near in the position that I can determine intentions. But, I can say that there is a problem either with intentions or perceptions and the facilities to form them. As I have said before, if they are serious, I don’t want these incompetents as chief executive charged with defending American principle, anymore than I would hire an honest carpenter to perform surgery.
So, set aside the politicians. What about the conservative writers? They are saying things that literate people (and some of them are very literate) are plenty able to find invalidating information about. If you know what you are talking about, you know that the charges are inaccurate and/or unfair. And again, the suggestion of insincerity is underscored by the fact that many of these are vested in other candidates, all of whom as I said, are eminently vulnerable to criticism on conservative grounds. So, what might be an unspoken motivation for these criticisms?
First, I’ll mention the most nakedly visceral possibility: There are a few public observers who simply have a sentimental reaction to the fact that they do not see enough fury from Huckabee about things that they are themselves all in knots about. That’s why it’s easy to fall for the immigration criticism. If you look at Huckabee’s immigration plan (at his website), I see nothing to object to: immigrants should leave the country within 4 months and get in line for legal entry, if they want to come back.
But!: the process for legal entry should be streamlined for people who plainly want to be law-abiding and work. And in
I entirely agree with that. But for some people whose anger is not just with the legal chaos that government has allowed, but extends to people who like ordinary human beings have exploited chaos to provide for themselves and their families. And, that does extend to the children of illegal immigrants. And, they often don’t want them in the country, under any circumstances: Tom Tancredo proposed a moratorium on legal immigration, which is basically to redefine
Ann Coulter for instance, though she is bright and her books are usually well-documented (never mind the snide and provocative comments) has blistered Huckabee about even accommodating statements toward people who disagree, previously criticizing Huckabee’s comments about immigration, among other things. Last night she took another tack: like Alan Keyes the night before, she credited Huckabee on things like abortion. But then, flipping the liberal criticism about not believing in evolution, she suggested he was “backing down” because when pressed in a debate, Huckabee said, “I don’t know how God did it…I wasn’t there. But, I believe that God did create.” Coulter’s last book heavily criticized the lack of evidence of the case for evolution, and I agree with her. But, I think Huckabee is absolutely right that that argument is only a distraction and has nothing to do with the business of being President of The United States. Ann Coulter likes Duncan Hunter: a serious and decent guy, last polled at 1% in Iowa and between that and nil, elsewhere.
Now, let’s consider these other people like Robert Novak, George Will (who attacked again, today), Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes and others. For one thing, I think a lot of wealthy people don’t like The Fair Tax that Huckabee is proposing. They are doing fine with accountants writing off most of the luxuries in their life, thank you very much. Under The Fair Tax, they will pay for everything new that they or their businesses purchase, from paper clips to vehicles for road, water, or air or for real estate and developments. The net effect of all of those tax write-offs is to shift the tax burden toward less wealthy Americans: people accustomed to being special, may not be happy about a system being “fair.”
But larger than that, and this is admittedly speculation encouraged by what seems to be hollow and unnecessary criticism, I think a lot of establishment people are just ill-at-ease with someone at the head of their party who is an undaunted evangelical Christian: “EEEuuuww!” To quote Frank Costanza: “This guy…he’s not my kinda guy!” They’d prefer a flip-flopping and posturing plastic man like Romney, a social liberal Mario-Cuomo-endorsing cosmopolitan who doesn’t understand bedrock American principle like Giuliani, or a muddled-headed infidel to constitutional principle like McCain or Thompson. “Evangelical Christians are great for delivering us votes, but not for sitting at the head of our tables: Ick!”
This noise gets ever more frantic, the longer Huckabee sits at the top of the polls. On the blogs of course, particularly the viscerally conservative ones, you read al the people who in their zeal have picked up and run with these charges about Huckabee’s supposed fiscal liberalism and illegal immigration friendliness. I ask as a lifelong conservative and intense observer of the process, “Never mind what you’ve HEARD. Can you tell me what you have heard Mike Huckabee SAY that tells you that he favors illegal immigration, or even amnesty or sanctuary? Or why would you think that he just loves to spend government money without constraint and would do so as an American President?”
Mike Huckabee has opposed amnesty and sanctuaries all along. He opposed the “comprehensive” immigration bill that would have defined a path to citizenship for illegal aliens (amnesty with a slap on the wrist) and which gave John McCain’s campaign a huge blow earlier this year. And on taxes, Mike Huckabee governed a state with a Democrat legislature and a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. At one budget shortfall, he consented to the legislature’s choice of tax hikes to balance the budget AFTER the legislature had rejected spending cuts. The Club for Growth’s mercenary attack-Huckabee campaign made an ad of this special balance-the-budget session of the legislature, splicing together Huckabee’s listing of the tax options left available, to make it appear that Huckabee was inviting taxes.
Huckabee signed on early to the no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. He correctly says the federal government doesn’t need more money. And unlike his relative dullard competitors for the Republican nomination, Huckabee perfectly well understands and respects the 10th Amendment distinction of federal and state jurisdiction and power, and cites it, frequently. That’s why I suspect that there is underlying motivation: many of these critics are not so silly and incompetent as to not understand these facts. I think their words are a way to try to spook conservatives from a cultural interloper.
Here’s what Huckabee is “guilty” of. He doesn’t let differences of opinion drive him to either scorn or to neglect of a problem because he can’t unilaterally impose the solution. And yes, he would use the bully pulpit of the president to verbally admonish Americans to strive for morally prudent behavior in their commercial operations (from this is derived criticism of his supposed disrespect of free markets), and he would ask foreign imports to meet basic American standards of safety (from this arises criticisms of his supposed disrespect of free trade) If you prefer spite and dysfunction, then yes, perhaps he isn’t the candidate for you.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
BS Laid Bare, This Year
Mitt Romney launched a new ad yesterday in
Also yesterday, Huckabee introduced his 9-point Immigration: Secure America Plan . You’ll see there is nothing objectionable about this plan. And, the desperation accusations of Romney and Thompson aside, the more important thing is that there is nothing inconsistent with what he’s always said: Secure the border, immigrants must return home and if they wish, initiate the process of legal immigration. I will say that if you are a Tom Tancredo conservative who wants to punish and/or purge Hispanics from The United States, Huckabee does not say that, and he doesn’t intend it. If that’s what you want, he isn’t it. And really, it does not describe anyone in this nomination race, but Tancredo and a not-so-strident and curt Duncan Hunter.
But, Bill Cli…err Mitt Romney will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear, as in he aforementioned commercial, for instance. Also, to put a cherry on Mike Huckabee’s posture on immigration, Jim Gilchrist who started the Minuteman program to monitor the border, endorsed Mike Huckabee, today: Jim Gilchrist Endorses Mike Huckabee . That flush you hear may be the sound of Mitt’s money going down the toilet. And Fred Thompson’s campaign aid Mary Matalin appeared on Hannity & Colmes Tuesday night, saying vaguely that Huckabee is a tax-raiser and weak on immigration.
In a more than ¾ Democrat state, Mike Huckabee pushed through the largest (the only) broad-based income tax cut in Arkansas
So, what we have here is demonstrated flip-floppers accusing a non-flip-flopper of flip-flopping That’s an ambitious strategy. But like I said, there is no choice: Romney is a wealthy man who has big-time investment tied up in Iowa
One of the things The Club for Growth has harped on all year is that during the 101/2 years of Mike Huckabee’s governorship, the overall tax burden on Arkansans went up 47%! Pretty scary, huh? They leave out the fact that in that time period, the average tax burden in all states went up twice that much! And, it increased more than Huckabee’s 47% over 101/2 years in 4 years under Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts
Remember that I called The Club for Growth’s campaign dishonest? It isn’t about growth and economic vitality. Besides Jackson (Steve) Stephens Jr.’s vendetta, big money people don’t like The Fair Tax that Mike Huckabee supports, which eliminates income, corporate, fuel, capital gains, death taxes…everything, and replaces them with a 23% sales tax on new items.
You might say that a simple explanation for their dislike is right in the name: people accustomed to being on top, don’t like to just be treated “fairly.” They have teams of financial advisors who get most everything written off from taxation as “business” expenses. The net effect of this is to shift the overall tax burden downward. Under The Fair Tax, they won’t have to pay their accountants to prepare their taxes. But, every extravagant expenditure will have an equally extravagant tax. You aren’t taxed according to your production minus write-offs. You are taxed according to your lifestyle.
The sad irony is that there will be some people who buy all of this blather and vote for a manifestly more liberal (or elastic, in Romney’s case) candidate over a genuine conservative one. And, there’s more attacks to come: desperation time, remember? Everyone knows that negative ads will be run right before the Caucuses: probably about Wayne Dumond, the rapist who the parole board released after 30-some years of a life sentence, while Huckabee was governor, who then raped and killed someone else. Yes, Governor Huckabee had agreed with the release and had expressed so. But, 6 years afterward, during a campaign, when some of those Democrat appointess hadn’t been reappointed by Huckabee, Huckabee’s agreement was called “pressure.” Huckabee of course, now regrets the release, but he had denied clemency so a parole board could parole Dumond with oversight, a few years later. But, those details will not be the point of a negative campaign commercial.
And, if you really care about the sanctity of life, Mike Huckabee’s conviction about that, isn’t just words. I’m pretty confident that the others would pass their terms as president without moving the country away from its socially deadly indifference to the sanctity of life. We’ll see how many people buy the noise in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)