Examining Mike Huckabee's Fiscal Record: It's Very Un-Republican
| Wed Nov. 21, 2007 11:11 AM PST
Mike Huckabee is the Republican in the presidential race who spends the most time talking about middle Americans—their health care needs, their lack of job security, the crumminess of the schools that educate their children, etc. His attention to these seemingly left-of-center issues—and the lengths to which he went to act on them as governor of Arkansas—has gotten him branded as an irresponsible tax-and-spender by some parts of the GOP establishment. Bob Novak, for example, called him a member of the "Christian left."
So with the help of the magnificent FactCheck.org, let's take a look at Huckabee's financial record.
Huckabee claims to have cut taxes "almost 94 times" while Governor. (An odd construction, but whatever.) He adds that he saved "the people of Arkansas almost $380 million." That's true. Huckabee cut taxes 90 times from 1997 to 2005, reducing state revenues by $378 million.
But Huckabee also presided over 21 tax increases, none of which he mentions on the stump. And those tax increases totaled much more than $378 million. According to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, the "net tax increase under Huckabee's tenure was an estimated $505.1 million," adjusted for inflation.
Spending did go up under the Huckabee regime—the state budget was $10.4 billion in his first year as Governor (again, adjusted for inflation), while it was $15.6 billion in 2006. So he is, technically, a tax-and-spender. But Huckabee balanced the Arkansas state budget every year he was governor (balancing the budget is a requirement under Arkansas state law) and in the end, Huckabee had a positive effect on the state ledger: He faced a $200 million deficit in 2002, but ended his term with a $844.5 million surplus. That's a billion dollar turnaround, taxing-and-spending be damned.
A bit more, after the jump.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
The DNC is joining the GOP chorus and slamming Huckabee for being a tax-and-spend politician. I think that's just lame. Democrats support the sort of fiscal responsibility that Huckabee was able to demonstrate: he spent on the right things (mostly), taxed when necessary, cut taxes when possible, and managed the budget in a way that left the state's finances better off. I know the Democrats aren't going to praise a Republican, but at least they can withhold their fire on a pol with such a respectable record.
Especially here: "As Governor, Huckabee implemented an increase on everything from cigarettes, to gasoline and even on driver's licenses," a DNC spokesperson said. Democrats support taxes on cigarettes and gasoline! Can it, DNC!
Oh, and PS — Huck's not free from mistakes. Not at all.
Update: Huckabee is calling for the president to be investigated for his role in the Plame case, in light of Scott McClellan's revelations.
Comments
Submitted by lane filler (not verified) on Wed Nov. 21, 2007 1:04 PM PST.
Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14
This article points out a little noted fact about Huckabee. Namely, that he is a man who is more concerned with doing the right thing than he is with "sticking to the party line". This characteristic, along with his general likability and believability will, I think take him far with a broad array of voters should he make it to the general election.
This was a helpful article I like it much better than the following thought I read today:
"Anyone who actually thinks Romney has the best chance of winning against Hillary does not understand the negative power of the Mormon label, especially among evangelicals. If they don't turn out, the Republicans lose. It's that simple. The Bush strategy of appealing only to the evangelical base won two elections. Republicans should keep that in mind."
Posted by Paul November 21, 07 07:33 PM
I have never liked the thought that Mike Huckabee is not winning because he has a solid ticket, but that he is a tool that evangelicals are using to fight a very qualified and prepared candidate...Mitt Romney
Submitted by Ian from Ann Arbor (not verified) on Wed Nov. 21, 2007 11:28 PM PST.
Increasingly, Mike Huckabee is looking like leadership ( http://snipurl.com/leaderlook ). Huckabee's ardent support ( http://snipurl.com/fthuckabeeonirs) for the FairTax sets him apart from all other viable presidential candidates.
The FairTax Act of 2007 (HR 25 / S 1025) ( http://snipurl.com/irsgone ) represents a prospective power shift of massive proportions in America. It lays out a practical ideal of voluntary tax payment, based on a substantial level of taxpayer choice that the plan affords. Since FairTax untaxes basic necessities (up to socially-accepted levels of poverty-level spending), what is taxed is marginal, and/or desired or preferred, on a broader base of retail products and services. This is to say that the taxpayer may, under the FairTax, choose to purchase used products and avoid paying the tax. And, to the extent desired, the taxpayer may choose to self-perform certain services rather than pay for them. This will stimulate do-it-yourself education, improve citizens' self-reliance; indeed the FairTax represents the possibility of ushering in a new "can-do citizen psychology" that would accrue to greater demands for government accountability - truly, a cultural sea change.
Government is the "necessary glue" that enables the social fabric to cohere. It does this by effecting "rules" that ostensibly provide members with equitable access to wealth and resources. It also must provide ostensibly equitable enforcement of those rules in order to mitigate threats to the social fabric. It is unrealistic to believe that the structures of a national government can be supported on donations, thus the need for taxes. Naysayers love to characterize anything purporting to be a "fair tax" as an oxymoron - but it is not true. The idea of fairness has to do with equitable sharing in the cost by all members who depend upon the social fabric for food, shelter, clothing and post-necessity economic enterprise. And, because of the shift of power from politicians and special interests under an enacted FairTax, the elected will find it more difficult to both enlarge government, and implement any dual system of taxation. FairTax strategist, Dennis Calabrese, discusses how the FairTax repeals the income tax ( http://snipurl.com/repealsinctax ), how it does away with the IRS ( http://snipurl.com/doesawaywithirs ), and how it addresses other aspects ( http://snipurl.com/ftvideofaqs ) of frequent concern to skeptics.
The FairTax has a much greater opportunity for success to operate as a "self-regulating" mechanism because of increased visibility. One finds that the current system, ostensibly regulated by the Internal Revenue Code, is in fact poorly regulated because of continually increasing complexity (the effect of "tax favors" from politicians, through lobbyists, to favored corporations and other special interests) stemming from the desire by those holding government position to steer public behavior using tax code "carrots." We have seen how 100 years of this type of behavior has eroded the Nation's currency and the purchasing power of working family incomes. "Visionist," Tom Frey believes the current tax system will soon simply collapse ( http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse ); and economist Laurence Kotlikoff heralds that - short of enactment of FairTax (or an otherwise unlikely change in spending habits) - the U.S. will shortly facing an irrevocable economic breakdown ( http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress ). (Kotlikoff believes that passage of the FairTax can stave off the economic ruin we're facing, but would be surprised to see it happen.)
Frey and Kotlikoff may be right on both counts, and we may not be able to successfully evoke change; but shall we not try?
Mike Huckabee believes we should. ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode )
Are light and ultra-light
Submitted by Old Smoker (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:01 AM PDT.
Are light and ultra-light cigarettes safer: perceptions of college students...
The reported study investigates college students' perceptions of light compared to regular and ultra-light compared to light cigarettes, and whether perceptions vary by smoking status (nonsmoker, former smoker, social smoker, or regular smoker) and gender. A survey of 172 college students found that all four smoking status groups perceived light cigarettes to be milder and have a lighter taste, but to be no safer or healthier than regular cigarettes. This also held true when comparing ultra-light to light cigarettes. Although there were no differences by smoking status for health-related and tar/nicotine perceptions, there were several differences between nonsmokers and the smoker groups on non-health-related perceptions. The study concludes that the wide-spread assumption that lights and ultra-lights are perceived as safer is not supported by this research, regardless of smoking status. Therefore, bans on the use of the term "light" in marketing communications and devising anti-smoking messages to educate this group about the dangers of lights and ultra-lights are likely to be ineffective.
cont. highbeam.com
