Say Anything Blog

I’m not concerned that he wants to raise taxes.  Fred Thompson refused to promise he would not raise txaes and he is considered the “most consistent conservative” in the race.

So no, Huckabee’s willingness to raise taxes is right in line with the Thompson Doctrine - so it must be “conservative” by definition.

Thompson’s conservative values are working well for him as his average support in the first 5 primary states holds firm at about 13-15%.  Huckabee’s numbers are similar if not a bit better. 

The fact they share the same position on raising taxes may be the reason for their strength in the polls.

On the other hand, Romney keeps flip-flopping between:

1. “I promise not to raise taxes”.
2. “I won’t raise your taxes”.
3. “No way in hell I will ever raise your taxes”.
4. “I actually plan on cutting your taxes”.

No wonder people don’t trust Romney.  All those contradictory messages are so confusing.  If only he could be “consistent” like Thompson.

Bill,

Actively asking for tax hikes is not the same as declining to promise not to raise taxes.  Your claim that Huck and Fred share a similar stance is some very fuzzy logic.

Bill Mitchell - that’s a stretch.

You’re caught. You’re a shill who can only change the subject when your candidate’s less than conservative bona fides are spotlighted.

Huckabee has signed the “no new taxes” pledge - Rudy Giuliani hasn’t even signed this. Huckabee won’t raise taxes - end of story. He supports the FairTax, which would eliminate the IRS.

He supports the FairTax,

Apparently he supports ANY way to get more taxes.

Or are you going to claim that was an impostor.

TANSTAAFL

Apparently he supports ANY way to get more taxes.

Or are you going to claim that was an impostor.

He supports the FairTax. All of this other stuff is from the past, and its kind of irrelevant now since he’s signed the no new taxes pledge. Huckabee didn’t have a perfect record as Governor - but neither did Ronald Reagan.

Um, look at the video closely; ‘ol Huck is carrying close to 300 lbs there, which means that the more accurate way of describing this is that “he was a tax hiker.” He hasn’t been at that weight for years.

All of this other stuff is from the past, and its kind of irrelevant

Why don’t you want to talk about the candidates’ records?  What DO we have to go off of?

now since he’s signed the no new taxes pledge.

I’ve actually heard of politicians fibbing before.  I think their record is more important.

TANSTAAFL

Why don’t you want to talk about the candidates’ records?  What DO we have to go off of?

We can talk about the record, but if a candidate comes out with a statement “I will not raise taxes or create new taxes”, it must be taken into consideration.

Um, look at the video closely; ‘ol Huck is carrying close to 300 lbs there, which means that the more accurate way of describing this is that “he was a tax hiker.” He hasn’t been at that weight for years.

The title of this post should read “Huckabee Wanted New Taxes”. He doesn’t currently want new taxes and he’s made that very clear.

What… is this like from 1987? Looks like just yesterday to me.

Why should we have less abortions if you’re not really killing someone?

He supports the FairTax.

after watching this video I think Huck means us paying and him spending is fair.

TANSTAAFL

The best thing we could do for the U.S. economy, and the U.S. dollar, would be another round of tax cuts.  The “death tax” should be permanently eliminated, and taxes on capital, specifically capital gains and dividends, should be further reduced from their current 15% rate to no more than 10%.

And any discussion of government finances ought to disallow any talk of tax increases at all without first addressing out of control social spending and entitlements.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Cut the AMT rate to 15%.

TANSTAAFL

Probably not exactly the place to discuss tax cutting strategies, but those who just advocate cutting tax rates often forget that it costs something like $200 billion each year to comply with the tax code.  Ironically, you could theoretically increase nominal tax rates while drastically reducing the cost of taxation if you made sure that the tax code was simplified.

Cutting tax rates doesn’t get you there.  Cutting out provisions in the tax code would.

With the cuts I’ve suggested in taxes on capital, a reduction in the top income tax rate of 33%, and some discipline on federal spending, we could phase out the AMT altogether and start to focus on a meaningful, fiscally viable solution to Medicare and Social Security.

The last time the White House suggested a no-holds barred, everything on the table discussion of Social Security reform, Democrats refused to even show up.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

BB,

It would certainly be advantageous to simplify the tax code, for a myriad of reasons.  But doing so hardly justifies an increase in tax rates for anyone, as you have implied.

Cutting tax rates has resulted in increased economic growth, and increased federal tax revenues every time it’s been done… from Calvin Cooledge right up through George W. Bush.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I’m not trying to justify high tax rates for anyone, just pointing out that an often-ignored reality is that the myriad of provisions in the tax code (and its 70,000 or whatever pages) makes it a tremendously expensive tax to collect.  I’d suggest that the benefits made by simplifying the tax code could be even greater than those made by cutting tax rates, because it would free up capital to put tons of accountants and others involved in tax compliance to productive work instead.

I agree with that Bubba.  Simplifying the tax code is not only a way to cut back on tax burdens (reduce the cost of compliance in money and time) but also a way for Americans to better keep track of how much they’re being taxed.

I strongly believe that one reason our tax code is so complicated now is to obscure the amount of taxes we pay.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Tax code simplification could have another possible benefit in that it might include more people, not fewer, among those who actually pay taxes.

Politicians of both parties, and liberals in particular, take some sort of perverse pride in the number of people who are dropped from the rolls of tax-paying citizens.  That is simply wrong-headed.

Those who bray incessantly about “fairness” whether the subject is income distribution statistics, access to healthcare, or the institution of a military draft, sure are hypocritical when it comes to a fair distribution of the costs of their secular largess.  Everyone should pay something, and if more people were paying taxes, presumably there would be even more reason to lower marginal tax rates.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Get a little context here folks: 

“Gov. Mike Huckabee and legislative leaders acknowledge that the $ 100 million tax increase enacted during last week’s special session is only a temporary budget fix if the economy doesn’t improve and growth in Medicaid and other programs isn’t contained.”

“Spending on Medicaid, corrections and education at public school and higher education levels takes up 91 percent of the state budget, the governor said. ‘That’s where the cost is, and that’s what continues to go up. They go up at a higher rate at the expense of everything else.’”

“It would be up to Congress to make changes that would allow the state to cut its Medicaid costs, Huckabee said. Controlling spending on education and criminal justice will be up to state officials, he said…” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/11/03)

Easy to bash when you don’t have the full picture.

Yep when your pitiful attempts to control spending end after looking at your shoes for five minutes it’s time to stick it to the taxpayers any and every way you can think of.

By the way postaldog.  Was that massive tax increase a temporary measure or are the poor people of Arkansas still paying for the temporary budget fix?

Enquiring minds want to know.

TANSTAAFL

This clip was taken out of context. So what was the context? Anybody know? Perhaps it was connected to the highway and road system in Arkansas, which at the time were the worst in the country, or at least 49th.

Governor Huckabee HAD to raise taxes at least temporarily to take care of that problem. There was no choice. 80% of the citizens of Arkansas were for the tax improve the highway system, and Gov. Huckabee didn’t care how it was done.

For people to take something like this snippet out of context is unfair and could be considered propaganda smear tactic—either that, or just plain ignorance. We can all be guilty of the latter from time to time, so it can be forgiven, once, but not twice.

It wasn’t at all out of context.  In fact your bud Huck lied about it.  He said it was over the court ordered school funding.

However it turned out that it was a run of the mill budget shortfall.

When the budget is short it’s either because of increased spending or hard times resulting in less revenue to charge taxes.

Either way it’s wrong, dead wrong to stick it to the taxpayers when simple spending responsibility would take care of the problem.

But for tax and spenders like Huck we just never do enough to help out the government.

TANSTAAFL