Huckabee not God’s gift to conservatives
by Owen Courrèges · 08/07/2007 7:46 amOk, I feel compelled to respond separately (again) to bigjolly’s post regarding GOP presidential candidate and erstwhile governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Huckabee isn’t within earshot of winning the nomination, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that he’s the pure, unadulterated conservative while the major candidates (including Thompson) all possess crippling flaws.
The skinny on Huckabee? He’s a lousy fiscal conservative.
Now, this gets thrown around a great deal, but I’ll start out with the basic facts. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee was responsible for 37% higher sales tax, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes. He opposed a repeal of the sales tax for groceries and medicine, opposed an internet sales tax ban, and criticized the Bush tax cuts for being tilted “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale.” On top of it all, state spending increased by well over 60% during his tenure.
Of course, I’m aware that Huckabee has “responded” to these allegations with letter emphasizing, in part, that he cut taxes 94 times, that when he raised taxes it was the public doing so, not him, and that the budget was beyond his control. However, none of these justifications wash. First of all, Huckabee’s tax cuts were dwarfed by his tax increases. In 1996, when Huckabee first entered office, Arkansas ranked 30th in the nation for its state tax burden. By 2006, it had risen to 13th with an average state tax burden well above the national average.
Secondly, it’s highly, highly deceptive for Huckabee to claim, for instance, that “over 80% of the voters of Arkansas supported a 4-cent tax on diesel fuel to fix the roads.” Sure, if you couple a tax increase that doesn’t apply directly to you (most people use unleaded) to a good cause (fixing roads) and then whip up a poll question based on this scheme, people are going to overwhelmingly support it. However, that’s not good policy.
Thirdly, Huckabee cannot argue that he lacked control of the budget process. As governor, he submitted initial budget proposals and ultimately had to approve the entire budget. He could have compelled spending cuts had he tried to use the full power of his office; he simply failed to do so. He is no more helpless in this process than President Bush is.
In short, Huckabee isn’t much of a fiscal conservative. If anything, he leans left on the issue.
However, Huckabee knows that his true intentions and his true record aren’t palpable to the Republican voting public, and so he’s trying to cover himself and make excuses. However, when you’ve presided over substantial overall tax increases and a much higher state budget, you’d better own it. Otherwise you certainly aren’t the only genuine candidate; you’re just another politician.
SNARKY INSERT: It’s a good thing BigJolly’s around to give Owen ideas to blog about.
CORRECTION: It is incorrect that Huckabee has not signed the no-tax pledge. He apparently refused to do so in January, but as changed his mind in early March and signed the pledge. The reference to Huckabee signing the pledge has therefore been deleted.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
50 Responses to “Huckabee not God’s gift to conservatives”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
From a fiscal conservative point of view it’s terrible policy. That 4-cent tax ultimately winds up being paid by the consumer anyway in the form of higher priced goods. As you say, people who don’t use diesel fuel themselves will be more than happy to vote for this kind of crap not realizing that they’re the ones who are going to pay for it in the long run. It’s deceptive on Huckabee’s part and shortsighted on the voters’ part. If people would bear in mind that companies don’t pay taxes but consumers do, they might hesitate to vote for things that supposedly burden the other guy.
Owen et al,
A POX on all the so called fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party. Until they can point to an improvement in their spending habits…well.. they may talk the talk, but just don’t walk the walk. This included the current darling of the social conservative base.
I do agree with you on your last point…they are ALL surely POLITICIANS.
Simple
I think I’ll change my name to Fox Moulder
“Trust No One”
Ted Nugent Baby. He’s getting at least one write in vote here!
In other words, Mike Huckabee is a Governor in the Rick perry mold.
We already have a President like that.
Can we get someone new?
For the past 20 years, Somebody named Bush or Somebody Named Clinton has been President—and all of them have had basically the same kinds of fiscal policy.
I’m ready for something new.
Of course, that might mean electing somebody who would abandon our friends and invade our allies.
Run Fred run!
I foresee a terrible mess when it comes time for the LST contributors to post their endorsements. I wouldn’t expect a consensus.
I find it odd that you all are complaining about the taxes of a state you never lived or voted in. The fact of the matter is that the people of Arkansas had no issue paying a little higher tax to fix and pave the rural and destroyed roads of Arkansas.
And why do I have the terrible feeling you are all Ron Paul Supporters…
http://www.ktracy.com
“Your Source for Conservative Free Thinkers”
Hey, Owen, I’ll find something else to give you ideas to talk about. Guess the cesspool over there doesn’t have too many, eh?
LOL! You ain’t from around these parts, are ye?
Perhaps because he’s running for President of the United States?
Only an idiot would sign such a juvenile pledge.
Read what I wrote in comment #1 and it might not seem so odd. I am most assuredly not a Ron Paul supporter.
That’s Dr. Ron Paul, buddy, and don’t you forget it…
Hey, this ain’t the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul thread!!
# 6 Semp,
Yes, we are all Ron Paul supporters here.
(heh heh….)
bigjolly,
There’s plenty to talk about here, although not much of any interest to LST (Vitter being a major exception).
In any case, it turns out I was wrong about the no-tax pledge. Huckabee refused to sign it in January, but then changed his mind in March. Accordingly, Huckabee has “signed such a juvenile pledge.”
IMO the only thing that can save the Republican Party or make it what a Republican party should be in the long run is to vote for Hillary…..yes it will hurt but I think I will.
Seems to me the current crop of Republicans did not learn much from the last elections local or national.
Not that Huckabee had anything to do with it, but being from Arkansas, I can tell you that at one time the good old boys poly-tickers passed a poll tax, requiring a fee (tax) from individuals for the priveledge to vote. And that’s the truth! It has since been repealed.
Yes, I actually knew that he signed the idiotic pledge. He is an idiot for doing that.
You show me where I christened him as the altar boy of this race. All have flaws, which I’ve stated. His flaws are far fewer as best I can tell.
Actually, I think the readers would be interested in a first hand account. But I’ll try to keep the ideas flowing for you.
Speaking of Dr. Ron Paul, did anyone else notice that the only physician in the race had nothing to say about health care during the debate on Sunday?
For Bonus Points, tell me the name of the only elected president with a medical degree (I believe he chose not to actually practice medicine). There is great irony in the answer …
19
It has to be George W. Bush. He must be a Podiatrist-Dentist, since he spends so much time with his foot in his mouth.
Simple
I believe it was Harrison. He died in office of pneumonia.
Owen or whoever wants to answer,
First, How do roads get paved? Where does the money come from? Are you aware of the massive disrepair the interstates and roads were in when Huckabee took office? Large trucks cause most of the damage, so does it not make sense to tax Diesel fuel to maintain these roads?
The rest of your diatribe has more to do with the demographics of Arkansas. As governor, you have to govern the state and work for the people. It isn’t like he had a lot to work with in this department. I think, under the circumstances, he did a pretty good job.
Yes (we have no bananas today) it does not make sense. Large trucks aren’t the only users of diesel fuel. I know the tax structure is somewhat different for off-road diesel use, but what about pickups and diesel cars? Do they deserve to be taxed higher to pay for roads they had a very small part in destroying? Actually, I’m not sure if the 4-cent tax applied to off-road diesel use as well or not. Maybe one of you LST wiz kids could look into that and find out.
It still comes down to what I said in #1 though. Taxes paid by construction or freight companies ultimately get passed right on to the consumer in one form or another. Companies don’t pay taxes, consumers do. Imposing a 4-cent tax on diesel is not a fiscally conservative action, no matter how good it makes the folks up yonder feel.
Huckelberry is a big spender like GW. We don’t need another. He’s a good social conservative, but he loses me when he says things like he had no control over this or that tax/spending bill. Ever heard of a veto, Huckelberry?
Yeah, the GOP is in deep do-do.
Huckabee’s nickname, should he be the candidate, would be “Huck”.
I foresee a problem with the Dem’s opposition chant.
Bottom line on all of this political tax raising issues or income generation to pay for basic infrastructure repair or construction. True conservatives would push to get any funds for something from the existing giant budgets they have. That means cutting out some waste or eliminating a program that is not meeting expectations or is essentially a boondoggle for some business lobby. You never see any political figure cutting or eliminating something from the existing coffers to fund whatever is the hot issue. Until a GOP member does that consistantly or shows they are trying to do that you cannot call them fiscally conservative.
#22, Jeremy
and why were the roads in such horrible condition maybe because of the poor leadership leading up to his term in office. And before you ask with the exception of a 2 year stretch there were liberal democrats in office
and even Frank White was on the left of center. These guys wasted more money than we could see. I was in Arkansas during Clinton’s second time a governor and unemployment was nearly double that of the nation, and I could go on and on and on. But I shall stop. Huckabee is only a step to the right of Clinton and that is only in the social aspect.
BTW I think Ron Paul is not the right choice either…
GAHHHHHHH!!! *pulls hair* I am NEVER going to find someone I want to vote for!!
Meglet, you just have to remember not to believe the rhetoric. For anyone to say Huckabee isn’t fiscally conservative is just plain spin. Or Hunter. Or Romney. Or Giuliani. Or Tommy Thompson. Or, if he enters the race, Fred Thompson. Or Ron Paul. Or Tancredo. Or Brownback.
They are all conservatives, especially in comparison to the choices in the other party. Relax, you’ll have a good choice in the end.
Jeremy,
Taxes pay for roads. Arkansas already had plenty of money to repave its roads if properly managed. Unfortunately, Huckabee was about raising taxes and spending more money, rather than better management of existing funds.
bigjolly,
Why is is stupid to sign a pledge not to increase marginal income tax rates? I thought that we, as conservatives, thought that income tax rates were too high as things are.
I also disagree that Huckabee is a fiscal conservative. He’s doing his best to pretend he is one, but his record clearly shows that, given the chance, he will implement higher taxes and spending. If that’s fiscal conservatism, the designation has lost all meaning.
Owen, his record shows anything but that but you only want to see the spin from the Club for Growth. Every one of your points is taken straight from them. And they have been refuted over and over again but as they say, repeat a lie often enough and…well, you know the rest.
Why is it stupid to sign a pledge like that? Because you don’t know the future. Is it smart to say I will cut spending long before I raise taxes? Yes. And as a matter of fact, Huckabee did that.
Look at Arkansas’ economy today. It’s booming. I’m in the process of building a plant there. Why? The economy. The road improvements were not only necessary, they were essential for that.
Was Reagan a fiscal conservative?
Look beyond the spin and look at reality. Huckabee doesn’t pretend anything on any issue as best as I can tell and I’ve seen every single debate, as well as a Dem one.
Bigjolly,
It’s isn’t just the Club for Growth. The Cato Institute and the Tax Foundation have also weighed against Romney. And the rankings don’t lie — Arkansas went from 30th to 13th in the country in terms of its state tax burden under Huckabee’s tenure. The bottom line is that he jacked up both taxes and spending substantially.
Huckabee has never, ever managed to refute this. These are not lies.
The road tax is a primary example. Fiscal conservatives are supposed to rearrange budget priorities in order to improve infrastructure, *not* raise taxes. The economy is booming everywhere, but not every state has opted to grow a bloated government the same way Arkansas has. When an economic downturn occurs, there will be major budget problems.
I’m certainly not saying that Huckabee isn’t conservative or is fundamentally dishonest, but by trotting out meaningless fact like he “cut taxes 94 times,” it’s plain that he wants to hide the fact that he raised taxes overall. It’s also cowardly to blame the legislature for spending increases when he had the option to veto. He was in control; it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
You were down on Thompson for a possible misstatement from a campaign spokesperson about an issue that was arguably irrelevant; here there are highly deceptive statements coming from the Huckabee campaign about his record on a critical policy issue. That should be of far greater concern.
Could you please link to these statistics? Thank you in advance.
Arkansas - bloated government.
That’s a first. Wow.
Ever do an economic analysis on where to locate your business today?
I take it that you are using the Tax Foundation numbers? Did you know that they include state & local taxes together?
Does 0.3% mean “well above the national average”? That is what the difference is on the local/state combined numbers.
Bigjolly and Owen, here is a link to Tax-Friendly State Rankings in 2006.
Actually, that would be Tax-Burden Rankings. Arkansas ranked 27th in 2006, not 13th.
Bigjolly and Jeremy,
First of all, here’s where I’m getting my information, and yes, it’s from the Tax Foundation:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Secondly, I’m not using the total tax burden rankings; only the state-local ranking, which is what Huckabee has the most control over. Huckabee had no control, of course, over the impact of federal taxation in Arkansas.
Of course, Huckabee didn’t control local taxes, but I’m assuming that local taxes don’t normally undergo a sea change because you’re dealing with thousands of entities (i.e. some municipalities cut, some increase). If this is not the case, I’m open to being convinced otherwise, but if anything Huckabee probably benefits from having the local taxes thrown in.
Owen, would you believe Census Bureau per capita reports? And if you say that Huckabee benefits from local taxes (I don’t think so given their structure but I’ll buy it for now), will you acknowledge that the largest “growth” in taxes was because of pushdowns from the Fed Gov’t mandates and decreased funding? The old good for the goose/gander argument?
If so, we are back to that 23-27 range again. The tax foundation says it gets it’s data from the BEA of the DoC but I’ve yet to find anything that moves them up to 13th, although I’m sure I will, they are a pretty solid group. Again, even by the tax foundations analysis, we’re talking 0.3% above.
Bigjolly,
#1- I’d believe the Census, but that’s only good for comparing 1990 to 2000.
#2- If the biggest driver was the feds, why would Arkansas be disproportionately affected?
They update the Census stuff periodically. Here is one from Jan 2006. Note that their tax system is based not on property owners but on sales taxes, that is the goal here in Texas. There are other tables in that directory, just backspace until you get to the next forward slash.
#2, has to do with population, land mass, density, commercial development and to a very large extent, previous representation on the federal level (earmarks and special projects). For all of his references to growing up in Arkansas, Clinton did very little for the state as a whole and they’ve never enjoyed the benefits of powerful politicians from their state (with a couple of exceptions). Many states are in the same position, not just Arkansas.
The upgraded roads are helping on the commercial side, as well as an increased rail presence. The infrastructure improvements were great for that state. And their overall tax burden is still either average (your numbers) or below (Jeremy’s) the rest of the country.
The real bottom line is that Huckabee is a fiscal conservative, regardless of spin. He may not be a libertarian or a Ron Paul type but he isn’t claiming to be.
The truest test is to compare the issues that he ran on and did he do what he said.
Bigjolly,
No offense, but it still sounds like you’re the one who’s spinning. You have all the major fiscally conservative interest groups (and the National Review) screaming “Huckabee’s not a fiscal conservative!” combined with stats showing that state and local taxes shot up during Huckabee’s tenure along with state spending.
Your response is that Arkansas was disproprotionately affected by actions of the federal government that compelled tax and spending increases, but this is stated without any signigicant evidence. I still don’t see how it distinguishes Arkansas from, say, Texas — which has maintained a very low tax burden throughout the ups and downs of federal whim. In short, I just don’t see why the state and local tax burden in Arkansas should be well above average when it wasn’t before. It sounds like reaching.
Hey, I’m 50 years old and have been conservative all of my life. I have a blog http://larryperrault.blogspot.com ,that largely supports Huckabee, right now. And, I’m a Texan: comparing Huckabee to Bush and Perry is just ridiculous. I never supported Bush and I was a
TX Republican delegate when he was governor. Get around the web. Go to Huckabee’s campaign site. mikehuckabee.com . Get to know the man. What do you think, he just got some sort of kick out of taxing for no good reason? He was governor of a STATE. sTATES HAVE responsibilities. I understand that especially the federal government has made taxes an abomination. But states get their funding through TAXES.
The state NEEDED road renovation. It ain’t a liberal big-government scheme. The State Supreme Court ordered an education upgrade and guess what? Unlike in most places we know, IT WORKED! It worked because Huckabee built accountabilty into the program. What Huckabee implemented was good government. Yes, you may have forgotten, but there CAN BE such a thing.
The man was a pastor for about 12 years. Compassionate conservatism wasn’t just a campaign slogan. It was a duty to God.
Owen, I’m not spinning, I’m stating facts. You used the word disproportionate, not me. Fact is that smaller states tend to have a higher per capita tax burden. And you are spinning when you say this:
Even using the numbers you gave (which include LOCAL taxes), Arkansas is 0.3% above. Sorry, that doesn’t qualify as “well above”.
I post a positive article about a candidate. For some reason, you deemed that as God’s gift to conservatives and decided to go negative against a very good Republican conservative. Beats me why.
All I know is this: I’ve watched every single debate. Put these guys on the platform and Huckabee is head and shoulders above the rest. And it isn’t just me saying it, as I pointed out in the article.
Unfortunately, it looks like this weekend might be the end of the road for him. He’s stated that if he doesn’t do extremely well, he’s pulling out. Too bad, the country would have been well served if he had been able to raise money.
Put him and Fred on the stage together. Easy call.
BigJolly, I would have agreed with you two or three weeks ago that Ames may be the end of the road. But, I see momentum now and think he may do well in Iowa. Did you see that even Gingrich is speaking up about Huckabee?
Newt is also trying to organize Lincoln-Douglass type debates. Mike vs. Fred (or any of the candidates for that matter) would be a beautiful thing.
As for CFG, I think people see them as this great conservative organization that is above personal vendetta and agenda. They, obviously, are not and you can follow the dots to Stephens, a major supporter of the CFG.
No, I didn’t see Gingrich talking about him. I’ll see if I can find it.
I hope you are correct about him staying in the race but it’s a long shot without money. The idiotic Club for Growth is targeting him with $85,000 in negative spending this week. That’s amazing considering he is so far back in the pack. Someone there has a serious grudge against him.
bigjolly,
Slow down on the worrying about Huckabee. He isn’t “back in the pack.” The ABC poll BEFORE Sunday’s debate. Frank Luntz’s focus group of debate attenders showed a DRAMATIC response after listening to Huckabee. Luntz called Huckabee “the clear winner.” Scroll down the page at http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Do_Republicans_secretly_want_socialized_health_0806.html and watch the video of Frank Luntz talking about Mike Huckabee at the ABC debate on Monday.
He’s been constantly traveling throuout Iowa, this month. I predict he’ll be battling with non-announced no show Fred Thompson for 2nd, and may beat him. Fred may decide not to enter the contest, after all. The only thing that will hold Huckabee back is despair that “he doesn’t hae a chance,” among media-marinated voters who are the ones who actually decide.
perrault, you must have missed this: Huckabee Wins Debate
I’m just going by Huckabee’s own words. He said if he doesn’t have a strong showing Saturday, he’s out. Although his polling is better, he’s still lagging far behind, that’s all I can say. I understand your point and I’ve been fighting that fight for all of the “back of the packers”.
And the idiotic Club for Growth’s lies are having an effect. Normally open-minded, solid conservatives are believing them.
Yes, I did miss your earlier post. I was directed to this discussion by a web-feed about Owen’s post
Huckabee spoke the truth about reevaluating his campaign if he didn’t finish well. But, that doesn’t mean that he THINKS he won’t finish well. Just wait and watch, and don’t think news reports are gospel.
I’ve been assembling predictions and tweaking them with new reports about Iowa, for over a week. Tommy Thomson has said he probably can’t go on, if he doesn’t finish 1st or 2nd, and he’s worked the ground in Iowa more than anyone. Given that and the NECESSITY that he finish well, I’ve pushed Thomson up as much as I possibly can.
But, I can’t push him above a distant tie for 4th. He just doesn’t have the charisma. I don’t say that about Huckabee, and neither do you.
If you’re right ad he doesn’t make it, I’ll be dusappointed, but it’s been the most encouragement I’ve had in a campaign, since the reports of the Reagan-Carter landslide in 1980. And, the reason is the Internet, without which his and other lights would have been smothered a long time ago.