Monday, December 31, 2007

The ad that was not to be by Mike Hukabee (AKA the Huckster)

I am not against negative ads, but Huckabee must really believe that evangelicals will follow him around like puppy dogs lapping up every word he says without question.

This is the story about the ad that was not to be that Huckabee decided to show before he didn't decide to show it after he showed it to the press. Got it!! In other words, it was a clever way to run a negative ad against Romney while trying to appear somewhat holier than thou.

The Huckster told a room full of reporters that he was planning to pull a negative ad because it was too harsh, but to prove he had actually made such an ad, he was going to show it to the press only once - the reporters, of course, burst out laughing. Even they weren't fooled.

This is similar to a lawyer saying something in a court room to which he knows will be objected, but once the jury hears it, its out there.

This begs the question Why was the ad made in the first place?

Huckabee's rational, "I only decided an hour ago to pull the ad." - Yeah right!

In that ad, Huckabee says about Mitt, "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he will be dishonest on the job - hmmmm" Who is he fooling?

I guess Huckabee has never heard of Youtube.

Honest Huck does not equal Honest Abe.

Now the real reason: Huckabee is broke. He has no more money to run ads. While the other candidates continue to run ads, Huckabee plays the American public as fools. This negative ad was already shown on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes and O'reilly factor several times. So, instead of having to pay for an ad only in Iowa, he now was able to enjoy a free negative ad that reached a national audience. The o'reilly factor and Hannity and Colmes are the two highest rated news shows.

Update: an non-partisan website that investigates claims of all stripes has discovered that the negative ad that Huckabee said he was going to pull has actually aired three times in Iowa. In part, the piece reads:

According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media intelligence, the ad appeared Dec. 31 on WHBF-TV and KLJB-TV in Davenport and on KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids. The ad ran once on each station. We will update this count as data for later dates becomes available. When we contacted the Huckabee campaign for an explanation, a representative expressed surprise to hear the ad had been on the air. We'll update this with any explanation we receive from the campaign.

Read the entire article here:

Friday, December 21, 2007

The subtext of Hillary's Christmas Presents

Hillary's Christmas presents should be a warning to America. Do we really want to travel down the failed populist policies of Europe and Latin America.

Hillary's presents

Universal Health Care - Socialized Medicine coming to a clinic near you. Of course, we must sacrifice a little for the common good (as Hillary puts it.) We will no longer have the best medicine in the world, but I suppose that is OK right?. To support such a system, your taxes will have to be increased a lot (not just on the wealthy) but on everybody - but not to worry, its for the common good. If you want to see what is waiting for you, go to a clinic that takes MediCal and see what kind of service you get. And, don't forget, she is including illegal aliens in her socialized health care plan too, so your increased taxes will pay for all those illegals streaming across our borders - but not to worry. Look at Canada's and Europe's health care. France has the highest tax rate in the world. So, to sum it up, if you want to get ahead, it will be that much more difficult, because your taxes will be raised to such a point to help the indigent here and south of the border - but its for the common good. ¡Arriba Hillary!

Alternative Energy - I strongly believe in alternative forms of energy, but Hillary's alternative energy means ethanol which has been proven to be expensive and ineffectual. It is also subsidized by the government. It does not mean the cleanest form of energy such as nuclear energy. It also does not include drilling for oil in our own backyard. The goal should not be alternative energy - the goal should be reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil instead of sending petrodollars to people who want to kill us.

Bring Troops Home - This has already begun under Bush. I do believe Hillary would be the most rational in bringing the troops home. She wouldn't be as cut and run as the other Democrats. But, then there would be no difference with respect with Bush. This has become a non-issue. The surge is working. You do not hear stories of car bombs much any more. But, the drive-by media neglects to report it. The drive-by media only reports if there is mass violence. The global warming myth has usurped the war in Iraq because of the drop in violence.

Middle Class Tax Breaks - Huh? I don't think so. She will be raising capital gains (owned by the middle class.), and she will be removing Bush's tax cuts (which affect many middle class households)not to mention reinstating the death tax. If you think the rich are going to pay for this universal health care boondogle, then I have a bridge I can sell you. And, wait til they start taxing you for all this global warming, and its coming. This is another pipe dream.

Universal Pre-K - These are the formative years of children where the children should be spending bonding time with their parents. Universal Pre-K is just another way for the government to have your kids that much earlier - a dangerous precedent. And, more socialism.

For the coming year, I have a new financial plan. I never gauge my investments on which party is in the White House. This time will be different. If I think Hillary is going to win, I am going to be dumping stocks for safer investments. I am not the only one. Hillary, a European Socialist, will cause the economy to go into a recession.

Europe is trying to extricate itself from the Socialist Policies of the past. It is a difficult process if it is possible at all. The United States will find itself in the same position. It will take years for us to unravel the mess Hillary will cause for all of us.

So, Merry Christmas to all - from now until never you will be paying for Christmas presents not for your family but for people you don't even know here and south of the border.

Monday, December 17, 2007

I am legend

I have always liked Will Smith. It is no different here. This was definitely a good movie. It reminded me of "The Omega Man" with Charleton Heston.

But and here is the But - I am glad civilization was wiped out from a man-made virus. I think I would have walked out if I had found out civilization was wiped out by Global Warming.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Mike Huckabee - The veil lifted part two

"Then I'll get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again." The Who

I was writing an entry on what was wrong with the GOP and my post turned into a post about Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, so I thought it was befitting to issue a warning about a man skilled in the public debate arena but deficient in what it takes to be president of the free world. (Note: I have included several links. If you right click on these links (links are in red) and click open in new window, you can read more material on Huckabee without leaving my post. Spread the word about Huckabee.)

I have recently posted on Huckabee’s penchant for raising taxes in his own state of Arkansas but that is just the tip of the iceberg. When you roll back the veil even further, we get even a more frightening picture of this man. Huckabee would take us into the direction of the failed polices of Jimmy Carter. Huckabee represents the Howard Dean of the GOP. I just hope he crashes and burns in the same way Dean did.

If the GOP nominates Mike Huckabee, it would be a grave mistake. Besides being unelectable in a general election, I am forced to ask the question - can we afford to elect someone who is pro-life but lacks the qualifications for anything else? The New Hampshire affiliate of the National Teacher Association, (NEA) recently came out in support of Huckabee. This in itself should be a red flag to all conservatives. The NEA, a far-left organization, is very territorial and does not support anyone who would upset the NEA’s agenda. The NEA has never in its history supported a GOP candidate, and for good reason. The NEA supports Huckabee because he supports much of the NEA’s agenda such as its opposition on school choice. Huckabee is not only bad for America, but he would set the conservative movement back thirty years.

Huckabee is toeing the liberal line in more ways than one. Just this week, he publicly stated Bush's foreign policy was arrogant and he denounced the administration for its "go-it-alone-attitude arrogant bunker mentality.” Do we want our presidential candidate decrying the arrogance of the Bush administration? We all know that Bush has made mistakes, but how is this supposed to garner him the party’s nomination? He has come out and said America needs to change its “tone.” Huckabee talks about the same “Kumbaya” diplomacy of the Democrats. He believes we can talk rationally with terrorist governments. Huckabee recently stated to the Des Moines Register, "You treat others the way you'd like to be treated; to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries." I am sure Ahmadinejad will be glad to hear that, this type of diplomacy only serves to give Iran and other terrorist groups time to plot the demise of the West. It seems that Huckabee wants to snuggle up with Hugo Chavez with the likes of Cindy Sheehan. Huckabee sounds more like Hillary Clinton when Hillary refers to Bush’s foreign policy as “Cowboy diplomacy.” Huckabee says we need to change our tone with the rest of the world while he feigns ignorance on the new governments of Sarkozy’s France, Markel’s Germany, and Harper’s Canada. All three of these governments have come out in support of the USA.

When applying for a job, a prospective employee is always taught not to lie or exaggerate on a resumé. Huckabee did just that. In his response on why he is the best one for the war on terror, Huckabee said:

"I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well."

I believe we are in a religious war, but does one need a theology degree to understand that? Political correctness has driven us to see Islam as a religion of peace. In any event, that is not the crux of the issue. Huckabee said he had a theology degree and “woops!” Guess what? He doesn’t. Apparently, his religious studies amount to one year. Huckabee is not running for president of the religious right, he is running for president for all Americans. Most of America would not even understand what he meant by saying a theology degree makes him more qualified to understand the war on terror. His ignorance on what it takes to run for president does not stop there.

When I was in High School, I would frequently get into trouble with my other siblings, and on occasion before I would receive my well-deserved punishment, I would ask my father with lachrymose eyes, “Why am I getting in trouble?” and my dad would respond, “Because you don’t know when to keep your mouth shut.” I am finding this same trait in Huckabee. He just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut. In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Huckabee says to journalist Holley Bailey, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to start evaluating other religions.” But it didn’t seem to bother Huckabee when he asked the New York Times, “Don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers?” If this isn’t evaluating Mormonism, not sure what is. For a political candidate, this question would only be asked by a neophyte in the political game. Even if this were a part of Mormon doctrine, the public discourse would be taken down a theological pathway that most Americans could care less about or that most Americans would not understand. There was such a backlash from this statement that Huckabee had only one recourse, he had to apologize. This only begs the question – Is Huckabee really qualified to be president? And then there are the flip-flops,,,

I am all for a candidate changing his mind. Reagan changed his mind on abortion. Timing, however, is everything. If it appears that a candidate is changing his mind for political expediency instead of his true convictions then I have a problem. Maxwell Smart, agent 86 of “Get Smart” fame when foiled by a plot by the evil organization "Kaos" would say, “It’s the old switcharoo trick. That‘s the second time I fell for it this month.” The switcharoo trick is better known in today’s vernacular as the flip-flop. Well, how many times are we going to fall for “The old switcharoo trick?” before we realize this guy’s rhetoric is too good to be true.

Switcharoo #1 – Cuba.

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he came out against the trade embargo against Cuba. He said it was bad for business. As presidential candidate, he has changed his mind. Now that he has seen his poll numbers surge, and wanting to maintain his momentum, he has come out in favor of the trade embargo since he needs to garner the Cuban vote. The Associate Press quoted Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee when he criticized Huckabee for "changing his stance on Cuba on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election,"

Switcharoo #2 – immigration.

Again in his home state of Arkansas, two Years ago, Huckabee voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Huckabee was always viewed as soft on immigration. He was in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. Now when polls indicate that 70% of Americans want control of our borders and illegal immigration stopped, Huckabee has come out hard on immigration releasing a nine point hard-line plan on immigration. This should give you pause irrespective of whether you or for or against illegal immigration.

Switcharoo #3 – abortion.

Huckabee has always been pro-life. But, if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would return to the states. That is what the current debate is about. The legality of abortion resided with the states before Roe v. Wade, and that is where it would return. The ideal would be to completely outlaw it, but in order to do that you would need to pass a constitutional amendment, and as a practical matter, that will never happen, (At least not in the current political environment.) If I am wrong, someone can point that out to me. When Huckabee was talking to John Hawkins a conservative essayist, Huckabee stated that the legality of abortion should not be settled at the national level, it should be left up to the states. This is an exact quote which was on Huckabee’s website until recently. Why? You ask. Huckabee now says that such a deep moral issue should not be left up to the states. He now claims that he always believed in a federal ban on abortions.

As the saying going, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Apparently, Kerry does not have a lock on the flip-flop.

Rich Lowry, a conservative journalist, states the problem with regards to Huckabee this way:

Huckabee has been running his campaign out of his back pocket, and has done it extremely well. There's a reason, though, that serious candidates surround themselves with policy experts. It's necessary to running a campaign based on more than sound bites. Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep. Do Republicans really want to enter what is already a tough political year with a candidate apparently allergic to preparation, and who has shown no predilection for organizing or fundraising, when he can do cable TV appearances instead?

In an interview with Huckabee, newsweek makes the following observation:

Over the years, Huckabee made plenty of enemies, not all of them Democrats. Small-government Republicans in Arkansas, who fought the governor, over immigration, education spending and taxes, have long complained that he is really a closet welfare-liberal. he has all but declared war on big-business Republicans, believing that tax cuts and unfettered free markets have made the rich richer at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This shows a complete ignorance of how the economy works.

Californians feel the same unease with Arnold Schwarznegger (alias Schwarzenkennedy) about their governor. The number of Republicans who would consider Schwarznkennedy a Republican, you can fit inside a small room.

Our little Christian pastor seems to have also entangled himself with the Arkansas ethics committee. The Arkansas ethics committe has sanctioned or fined him five times for improperly taking cash, expensive clothing and other gifts from friends and contributors among other charges.

It should be obvious to all conservatives that when the veil is finally lifted from Mike Huckabee, the real man behind the rhetoric is revealed. Huckabee is a liberal in sheep’s clothing. He is a rhino, (Republican in name only) of the worst degree. I just hope conservatives in their quest to find a candidate who is socially conservative will understand who this man really is. He is not who they are looking for. Mike Huckabee is a liberal, tax-and-spend fledling who will change his views according to which way the wind blows. His qualifications for being the conservative Commander in Chief we need are nil. Be forewarned!

Note: Huckabee's nine-point immigration plan was lifted from the pages of National Review. He does attribute it, but what does that say about a candidate who can't even come up with his own plan. I wonder if he has even read it.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Green Hypocrites

This is from

Here are green hypocrisy’s top 10 poster children for 2007.

1. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lifestyle. While the former veep and nouveau-$100 millionaire jets around the world squawking about the “planet having a fever” and demanding that we all lower our standard of living, his own personal electricity use is 20 times the national average, including an indoor pool costing $500/month to heat.

While Gore deflected criticism of his inconvenient electric bill during March congressional testimony by saying he purchased “green” electricity, the truth is, he didn’t start doing so until 2007.

2. Google’s Sky Pig. A photo-op of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin plugging-in a hybrid car was part of the search engine giant’s June announcement promising carbon neutrality by 2008. But how this PR-fluff squares with the so-called “Google party jet” — Page and Brin’s gargantuan personal Boeing 767, which burns about 1,550 gallons/hour — is any one’s guess.

3. RFK Jr. Tilts at Windmills. Outspoken global warming activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently railed against coal-produced electricity because “climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival.”

Meanwhile, Kennedy vigorously campaigns against a proposed Cape Cod wind farm that would generate CO2-free electricity because it would “impoverish the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.” Unmentioned in Kennedy’s tirades, however, is the windmill’s unfortunate proximity to his family’s famed Hyannis Port compound.

4. The U.N.’s ‘Bali High’. Early December will witness 10,000 climateers descending upon the paradisiacal island resort of Bali for the 13th annual U.N. global warming meeting. The reason for much jet and limo travel — and other prodigious greenhouse gas generating activity associated with such a mega-conference — is relatively modest: setting the agenda and timeframe for a post-Kyoto treaty. Sure seems like something that could have been handled in a less carbon-intensive way — either by Internet and video conferencing or, if meeting is necessary, somewhere in North America or Europe where most key attendees are based.

5. Nancy Nukes Nukes. Supposedly concerned that “global warming and energy independence…have profound implications for our nation’s economic competitiveness, national security, environmental quality and public health,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to take the congressional lead on those issues.

So who did Speaker Pelosi pick to chair the committee? None other than long-time nuclear power opponent Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who appeared with anti-nuke celebrities Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne at an October Capitol Hill press conference to denounce legislation promoting the development of ultra-green nuclear power.

6. Every home a Superfund site? “Mercury is highly toxic to everyone, but particularly to children and developing fetuses,” says the activist group Environmental Defense, a long-time campaigner against mercury from power plant emissions and in automobile convenience lighting.

So it came as quite a surprise when the group began advocating that consumers bring the “highly toxic” mercury into their homes in the form of compact fluorescent light bulbs in order to reduce power plant CO2 emissions. CFLs are so hazardous, according to public health officials however, that special safety precautions must be taken for disposal or if the bulbs break.

7. Doesn’t everyone own a NASA scientist? In March 2007, NASA’s climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen criticized “special interests” campaigning against climate regulation.

“By larding the campaign coffers of numerous politicians, the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in subverting the democratic principle…Until the public indicates sufficient interest, and puts pressure on political systems, special interests will continue to rule.”

Though Hansen poses as a humble civil servant, it recently came to light that his alarmist efforts have been bankrolled by leftist billionaire and sugar-daddy George Soros. Doesn’t Soros qualify as a “special interest,” Dr. Hansen?

8. Like a Virgin’s Carbon Footprint. London’s Daily Mail reported (“What planet are they on?, July 7) on the climate consciousness of Madonna and other Live Earth performers.

“[T]he pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world… Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tons… the average Briton produces just 10 tons… [her] Confessions tour last year produced 440 tons of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues.”

That’s one small footprint for the average Brit, but one giant footprint for celebrity-kind.

9. The NBC Poppycock. NBC-Universal kicked-off of its “Green is Universal” initiative by dimming the studio lights — but not two giant video screens and advertisements — during a break in the Nov. 4 Cowboys-Eagles game.

Candle-lit host Bob Costas then cut to video of Today show personalities Matt Lauer, Al Roker and Ann Curry reporting about climate change from the Arctic, Amazon and Antarctic, respectively. None gave even a nod to the energy-hogging effort required to send them and crews to do such pointless broadcasts from exotic locales.

10. California’s Hypocritenator. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in June 2005 that, “California will be a leader in the fight against global warming…the time for action is now.”

But just two years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that state efforts had been derailed by the governor’s mismanagement and deceit. Schwarzenegger even fired the state’s chief regulator for refusing to limit the number of greenhouse gas regulations. Columnist Debra Saunders noted that, “Schwarzenegger boasts that he is a world leader in the fight against global warming — but his advocacy shouldn't keep him from flying in private jets or driving a Hummer.”

The one thing these honorees all have in common is that their real-life actions belie their carefully crafted green public images. If they don’t take their commitment seriously, why should you?

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007

Huckabee the Democrat

The more you find out about who Mike Huckabee really is, the less palatable he becomes.

Click here to read Mike Huckabee's foreign policy in powerlineblog

The author makes an analogy to Carter's foreign police to put it politely. After reading the above post, it would be hard to disagree.

and you can view an interview between Kudlow and Huckabee here.

Mike Huckabee interview

As Kudlow said to Michael Medved

Regarding Governor Huckabee, Governor Huckabee is a very interesting guy who is not running as the kind of traditional, free-trade, cut taxes, limit government, supply side conservative. He is not

Never fear Bush is here - a subprime rescue

Populism: A political philosophy that supports the rights and power of the people, usually in opposition to the privileged elite.

Populism may sound good on the face of it, but it is the main reason (populism and corruption) Latin America has continuously found itself in a quandary with regards to economic policy. Populism is anathema to capitalism. Populism is an irrational response of the have-nots to perceived injustices by the haves.

It is usually the Democrats who try and institute populist policies, but in the latest move to freeze subprime mortgage rates, I see Bush moving more and more toward populist policies. The Democrats no longer have a lock on populism. We are becoming more and more like a one party system – The Republicans are becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats. This is worrisome to say the least.

Hillary Clinton said Bush’s response to the Subprime mortgages was good but late in coming. Obama and Kerry said he didn’t go far enough.

I personally know individuals caught up in this subprime mess, and I do feel for them, and my earnest prayers are that they can find a way out without ruining their credit. But, individual cases are anecdotal. The employee affected by a layoff goes through a depression, not a recession as the saying goes.

Since interest rates are the prices banks charge consumers, and it is how they make their money, freezing rates are no different than the wage and price controls enacted by Nixon in the early 70s. Price controls in any form do not work in a capitalist or free-market system. President Bush should have learned his history lesson by Nixon’s wage and price controls. These controls popular at the time proved to be injurious to the US economy.

What they were running into was the problem of central planning in a market economy – the market will always undermine any attempt at control. One week the problem was textiles. Because of the political power of the farmers, the administration could not put price caps from the price of greige goods – unbleached, undyed woven cloth that is the first stage in textile production (greige is pronounced “gray”). So they couldn’t raise prices – and companies abandoning that part of the business. All of a sudden, the fabric finishers and clothing manufacturers were complaining that there weren’t enough greige goods…Rumsfeld asked, “Do we raise the price?” Situations like this came up week after week.

Source: The Age of Turbulence, Adventures in a New World by Alan Greenspan

In a centrally planned economy such as China or the former Soviet Union, price fixing is commonplace, but it runs counter to capitalism. In essence, Nixon’s price controls had unforeseen circumstances that just kept popping up. His policies eventually helped pave the way toward long gas lines, double digit inflation, and a stock market decline of 40%.

The only difference between what Bush is doing now and what Nixon did then is the size of the freeze. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Bush’s plan applies to only 2.9 million homes.

But what will the effects of Bush’s subprime plan be? First Bush’s plan is only a band aid to the problem. It freezes rates for five years. Sub prime borrowers, by definition, do not know how to manage their money. If they did, they never would have taken out the loan in the first place. Irresponsible behavior begets irresponsible behavior. Five years from now, these borrowers will be in the same predicament they were in as they are today, (of course, by then Hillary will probably be president, and she will put through a bailout via your taxes and mine.) Houses will continue to remain artificially high, and borrowers will not learn from their mistakes. As in Nixon’s wage and price controls, there will be yet unforeseen adverse consequences to the economy. This is always the impact when government tries to control prices in a free-market economy.

Bush’s proposal will only delay the downturn and prolong the misery. In March 2000, the “irrational exuberance” of the dot-com bubble came to a head, and came crashing down. Pundits expected real estate to follow six months to a year later, because history told us real estate values fall following stock market crashes. It never happened. This is because banks became lax in giving credit, and borrowers were looking for a new place to make money. The effect was a housing boom that lasted for years. The longer a boom lasts (artificially), the harder will be its fall be it stocks or be it real estate.

A couple years ago, my nephew wanted to buy a house, I told him to wait because houses were going to have a precipitous decline. I was right. But he waited like many others who are trying to prudently invest their money instead of borrowing money they can’t pay back. Bush is rewarding those who made brainless decisions, and he is punishing those who waited to buy by keeping houses artificially high.

What should happen? Financial institutions that cannot afford to absorb the losses should go out of business. The remaining banks will emerge stronger and healthier. Borrowers who cannot afford to pay the loans back should be forced to go into foreclosure. The stock market will decline, and houses will become affordable to those previously left out of the market. If Bush let the markets work, we would avoid a recession, and the doom and gloom of the economy would be ephemeral.

Bush’s plan is more about political expediency and building his legacy than doing what is best for the US economy.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The man behind the rhetoric - Mike Huckabee

I often hear conservatives tout for a Huckabee presidency because they say he is socially conservative, but it takes more than that to be president. Behind Huckabee’s great oratory skills lies a liberal agenda that will impede economic growth.

A good orator doesn’t necessarily mean a good president. Reagan was a good orator, and he was a good president, but Hitler was a good orator, and we know what he became.

Dr Phil states, “Past Behavior is indicative of future behavior” and Huckabee’s past behavior is not a pretty picture.”

The following is from Club for Growth.

Huckabee on Taxes

While Governor Huckabee deserves credit for his modest tax cuts at the beginning of his tenure, several Arkansas papers have documented the fallacy of Huckabee’s “94 tax cuts” line. Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure

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
1. He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.
2. He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.
3. He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001.
4. He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.
5. He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.
6. In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law.

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, garnering a lifetime grade of D from the
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,” even though
objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax
burden to higher income taxpayers

Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa
conservatives. On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on “Meet the Press” and then at the National Review Conservative Summit. The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.

Spending – Huckabee is trying to outspend Bush

Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from
1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation. The number of state government
workers rose 20% during his tenure, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by
almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform.40 The massive increase in
government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of
already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a
multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of
Arkansas’ children.

Huckabee is the only Republican presidential candidate to refuse to endorse
President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded and expensive SCHIP program

Free Trade – Protectionist policies have always proved detrimental to a free market.

As Governor Huckabee fleshes out his thoughts on trade, his seemingly positive
record has taken a sharp turn for the worse. While he has not articulated a full-fledged trade policy, he has adopted protectionist rhetoric and suggested his opposition to the recent trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, (the largest free trade agreement since NAFTA that would eliminate over 90% of tariffs currently plaguing U.S. exports to South Korea).Instead of talking about the well-documented economic benefits of free trade, Huckabee
has taken to talking about “fair trade,” while focusing on what he believes to be the
negative consequences of free trade. Make no mistake about it: These are not the words of a free trader.


Governor Huckabee’s support for the 2003 Republican initiated
Medicare prescription drug plan, a huge unfunded liability shouldered by
taxpayers across America.


1. Raised the minimum wage in April 2006 from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour and
encouraged Congress to take the same initiative on a national level, a proposal that President Bush and most congressional GOP members oppose
2.Sought to take revenue from his tax hike proposal to be used on economic
development projects in 2002
3 Threatened to investigate price-gouging after 9/11 if gasoline prices went up too high
4 Ordered regulatory agencies in Arkansas to investigate price-gouging in the nursing home industry
5 Signed a bill into law that would prevent companies from raising their prices a
mere 10% ahead of a natural disaster; services like roof repair and tree removal
were targeted

School Choice

Huckabee’s education proposals put greater emphasis on
government intervention in the education system instead of calling for greater choice and competition. According to the Sioux City Journal, “Huckabee said he would make arts and music education tested curriculum and provide federal funds to do so.”

Governor Huckabee’s record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending,and government regulation.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

This is Mark From Newark!!!

I am not sure what the exact test is for determining if you are a political junkie but I think I have come close as you can get to determining if you are one.

I often leave my radio on all night so if I wake up during the night I have something to listen to. So Sunday night I happened to wake up to Ray Taliaferro on KGO radio at 1:30 in the morning.

Ray, a far-left host (who says there are no liberal stations on the radio?) was talking about the economy. Now, let it be known, 99% of what Ray says I disagree with. But, he actually said something with which I agreed.

He talked about the devaluation of the dollar, and how Bush is spending us into oblivion. He is right. But he also blamed the problems with the economy on the subprime debacle, and Iraq.

So, I called at 1:30 in the morning. I had to wait a half an hour before I was able to get on the radio. Ray introduced me as "Mark from Newark." I told Ray I did not believe Bush was a conservative, and he was spending us into oblivion, but it had nothing to do with Iraq.

As usual, liberals understand little about economics or how the world works.

Wars are measured in terms of the Gross Domestic Product, (GDP). In terms of GDP, Iraq is a drop in the bucket. Iraq is only 2% of GDP compared with the Gulf War (3% of GDP), the Vietnam war (13% of GDP), and World War 2 (130% of GDP). The problem is Bush doesn't use his veto power.

I also stated the subprime debacle is just a phase that is a part of capitalism. If individuals want to take out too much credit, then it shouldn't be my responsiblity to bail them out, and in the same vein, if financial institutions want to lend to individuals who can't afford to pay the loan back, then why should we bail out those companies.

Ray, a proponent of Hillary's health care plan, asked my opinion on her health care plan, and I said I thought it would compound the problem. We need to bring competition into the health care system.

Europe has socialized health care, and it is killing them. Once a country finds itself in a huge social net, that social net becomes a crutch, and workers become complacent and expect it.

Ray, of course, disagreed with me but he let me say my piece. He did not hang up on me like most liberal hosts would do.

Of course, the interesting part was what followed. I created a firestorm For the entire hour afteward, the calls went like this, "That Mark from Newark doesn't know what he is talking about....." It was entertaining to say the least.

The following day, my daughter 17 years old told my wife, "Dad, was up last night yelling at someone on the phone for a long time."

I didn't sleep much that night.

Maybe I need to join PA - Politics Anonymous for political addicts - Does such a thing exist? or as my liberal friend Julie would say, "Get a life!!!"
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member