Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, August 31, 2007

Why Mike Huckabee Can’t Be The Conservative Choice For President, Redux

Earlier this week I pointed that Mike Huckabee’s support for a national smoking ban in “workplaces” (but that means everywhere as just about every public space is somebody’s workplace) should disqualify him as a choice for President for conservatives given the lack of respect for both private property rights and federalism inherent in that policy.

A lot of people didn’t think the manifestation of Huckabee’s “nanny state” side was enough to disqualify him as a candidate for conservatives, so today let me present his record as a tax hiker.

From the Club for Growth:

Governor Huckabee touts himself as an economic conservative, writing in his biography that he “pushed through the Arkansas legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history” and “led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” early on as governor (Arkansas Times 09/22/05), but he only offers a small piece of the picture. It is true that Governor Huckabee fought for an $80 million tax cut package in 1997 that was passed by the Arkansas legislature (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98); cut the state capital gains tax in 1999 (The Commercial Appeal 02/29/99); and passed the Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights in the same year, limiting the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit (AP 03/16/99). However, his record over the rest of his ten-year tenure tells a starkly different story.

* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale” (Washington Examiner 09/13/06), even though objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax burden to higher income taxpayers.

Conservatives can quibble about things like smoking bans, I guess (though I don’t see how any conservative can stray from federalist principles and respect for private property rights), but even setting that issue aside there’s little doubt that Huckabee is a “big government” guy when it comes to taxes.

And that’s someone no conservative should want in office.

Remember that just because someone has an “R” listed behind their name in news stories doesn’t mean they’re a conservative or that they’ll support policies conservatives favor.

Comments

When you vote for a candidate, do you have a hiearchy of issues or do you “weight issues” and vote for the least evil?

I have certain issues that are “blockers"… and then I weight other issues. The destruction of human life is a blocker for me. If a candidate was phenomenal on absolutely everything I believed in and perfect… except he was pro slavery, for example, that would be another blocker for me.

Mark my words, this next president WILL choose the next supreme court justice who WILL have the power to overturn the slaughtering of millions of unborn children.

I do not mean to diminish at all the importance of other issues. I have seen and believe in the huge benefits to our economy with tax cuts.

But if it comes down to someone who is solidly pro-life and another who is not or who is suspect, I am voting to save the life of the unborn before I’m voting to put some more cash in my pocket.

I guess if wanting to save human life before making an extra buck makes me a bleeding heart liberal, and not a capitalist, then I’m guilty as charged.


10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

george on August 31, 2007 at 08:36 am
Avatar for Bill Mitchell

The main reason is that Mitt is gonna win.  In the latest poll (by Time no less), Mitt is up 35 to 12 in Iowa.

Sorry, but that’s just a wow moment.

His new “running man” ad is nothing less than brilliant.  It really makes him seem accessible and “one-of-us”.  Also, women will think it’s sexy as hell.

#1 reason Romney is unstoppable for the nomination?

His enemies have used all their trick plays (dogs on station wagons, flip-flops, etc) in the first quarter.  Romney’s bench is deep and the best is yet to come from a man trained as a strategist (hell, he was CEO of one of the top strategy firms in the world!).

3 quarters to go…

Bill Mitchell on August 31, 2007 at 09:48 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Bill, Romney is less of a conservative than Huckabee.  “Romneycare?” Please.

And his polling numbers in Iowa mean nothing at this point. It’s so early as to be meaningless.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on August 31, 2007 at 10:42 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Understand your reluctance to go with Huckabee, but the simple fact of the matter is that everyone, even Paul, has a bit of the taint of the nanny state in him.  As Will suggests, we’ve got an engineering problem here where we choose the best possible alternative, not a science problem where we get a perfect solution.

And I hate to admit it, but Romney is formidable, even though he’s got a lot of problems with his historic stances on prenatal infanticide, firearm rights, and medical care.  If that doesn’t sink him with the GOP, then certainly a dog with the runs won’t do it.

I hope at least, as I’m terrified of the idea that peoples’ logic is so demented that killing babies is less important than dog doo on the rear window.

Robert Perry on August 31, 2007 at 11:56 am
Avatar for Ombre Rose

Last Spring, I saw Huckabee on a Christian TV program of “The Call”, telling TEENS that if ILLEGAL ALIENS got citizenship and the right to vote, he “KNEW” they would vote for “FAMILY VALUES” and would possibly be the key to “VOTING TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE”.

I live in Texas, not so far from the Mexico border, and our problems with border security are horrendous.

Illegal Aliens have demonstrated that their idea of “FAMILY VALUES” is AMERICAN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS (LIBERAL).
AMERICA being “ALLOWED” to VOTE on ROE V WADE? I don’t see Huckabee being in a position to “ALLOW” THAT or a vote on any of the other destructive Liberal policies that have taken over in America without a concensus by AMERICAN citizens.

Meanwhile, besides smoking, I’ve heard him make similarly Liberal comments about American obesity and American health care programs.
I know more people whose weight problems are pre-existing HEALTH PROBLEMS than they are EATING problems. And none of them, or me or lots of other people want the Federal government telling us what we can eat, or not - especially since they listen to political idiots with agendas on diet, instead of nutrtitionists - and end up changing their minds every few years about “what is healthy or not - like they have changed their recommendations on EGGS so many times the last few years - AND TOOK BRIBES TO CONVERT AMERICA TO TRANS FATS - and now prefer ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS to some healthy natural alternatives, at this time, in spite of study after study on ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS in sweeteners, foods, trans fats, hormones, and medicines, showing the inherent and skyrocketting dangers of artificial ingredients that the FDA is FOND OF, STILL.
Sorry, didn’t mean to rant on THAT.

POINT BEING - I don’t want Huckabee, self-professed “CHRISTIAN” or NOT, telling my family what we have to eat, or promoting government health programs at exhorbitant TAX RATES, in order to gain control of people’s eating habits. This would affect farming subsidies as well. Lots of room for abuse of government micromanaging.

I won’t vote for “fellow Christian” Mike Huckabee - not for DOG CATCHER!

Ombre Rose on August 31, 2007 at 01:09 pm
Avatar for Ian

You decide if Huckabee’s candidacy is rising:

(1) ”Huckabee Building Support in New Hampshire” by Soren Dayton in The Daily Acts
Wed Mar 14 2007 11:04 AM

“Though he is mentioned derisively as a “second-tier” presidential candidate, former Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee is quietly making gains in New Hampshire, the earliest primary state.

Debra Vanderbeek signed on last week to run Huckabee’s New Hampshire operations.  Venderbeek served as chief of staff for former Rep. Jeb Bradley and is an experienced Republican political hand.

“I was surprised to see Deb go with Huckabee,” one Republican state legislator told The Daily Acts.  “That fact alone is enough to get me to take a second look at him.  I respect Deb’s judgment.”

-----

(2) ”VIVA HUCKABEE!” by Noah Scheiber in The Plank
08.11.07

“Whatever the case, it’s hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee’s performance here. Combined, Huckabee and Brownback--the field’s two leading social conservatives--outpolled Mitt Romney today 33 to 31.5. If, as the results suggest, Huckabee emerges as the lone standard bearer for this group, he’ll probably end up with a block of support to rival Romney’s. (Most “Brownbackers” I spoke to would feel extremely comfortable throwing their support behind the Arkansan.) But, of course, just combining Brownback’s and Huckabee’s numbers actually way understates Huckabee’s potential ceiling. For one thing, he’s come this far running on fumes. It will be interesting to see what he can do with the fundraising boost he’ll enjoy after today. On top of that, there seem to be a lot of social conservatives currently supporting Romney because he’s running as the most conservative of the top-tier candidates. Now that Huckabee has demonstrated his viability, it’s not hard to imagine him peeling off a decent number of Romney’s conservative backers.”

[This may well be a resurgence of the Reagan-democrats of a couple of decades ago.  It’s going to be VERY interesting to watch.]

-----

(3) ”Democrats Beware: An Economic Populist Is Rising In the GOP’s Presidential” by David Sirota in SirotaBLOG 8/14/07

“Huckabee has an extraordinarily different message than any of the other Republican presidential contenders - a populist economic message that may be shunned by conservative operatives and K Street lobbyists in the GOP-dominated Money Party in Washington, but likely has an appeal among rank-and-file working-class Republican voters.”

-----

(4) Jokisch & Kotlikoff on The Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax at TaxProf Blog 8/16/2007

“America’s aging coupled with high and growing old–age health and pension benefits augers for much higher payroll taxes, with damaging effects on the U.S. economy. This prognosis is supported by our analysis of a detailed dynamic life–cycle general equilibrium model. The FairTax, which proposes to replace the federal payroll, personal income, corporate income, and estate tax with a progressive consumption tax, offers a potential alternative to this dismal economic future. According to our simulation model, these policy changes would lead to major improvements in the U.S. capital stock, long–run real wages and the well–being of the majority of Americans.”

Ian on August 31, 2007 at 09:02 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.