Joe the Plumber, Obama’s Socialistic Tax Plan, and Mike Huckabee

First, Joe the plumber. He’s become and overnight political celebrity and here is some video and commentary about the statement that brought him his five minutes of fame:

Also, note the discussion about Obama’s tax plan. The idea that 95% of American’s will get a tax cut sounds good until you consider how many American’s don’t pay taxes. You know those American’s that don’t pay taxes? Yes? You know whose money will be giving them those checks? Yours and mine. Obama wants to take my hard earned money and give it to other people as he sees fit. Sorry, but I think I’m a much better manager of my money than the government and I can support the needy by giving to my local church and to other charities. The government does not need to become a charity. My wife and I work hard for the money we have. We don’t live outside of our means and are nearly debt free (just a small amount on some of my student loans). Why should the government punish my wife and I and many other Americans for being responsible? The only thing that will come out of this is you will have more people not wanting to earn as much because of the higher taxes. Good job, government, tax our productivity even more and then give it to those who aren’t productive. That gives me great motivation to go out and work my tail off. Fair Tax anyone?

Mike Huckabee will have Joe the plumber on his show this Saturday. If you haven’t watched the show yet, be sure and check it out. It’s laid back gives Huckabee a good forum to talk about conservative issues.

Wall Street Bail Out Fails to Pass!

Today was a good day for democracy. When the bail out deal was announced the American people finally had had enough. Americans took to their phones and email accounts and bombarded Congress with calls and letters saying “NO WAY!” I have been listening to the radio and reading the news, doing my best to follow this issue. I know there are economic factors at stake that are beyond my grasp, but I think that the common sense of the every day American won a great victory here.

Most people understand that if you do something stupid, you pay for it. Over the past few weeks the government has been using the tax dollars of Americans to pay for blatant stupidity. There seems to be some sentiment among Americans that even if not passing this bail out leads to some tough times that we will all be better off in the long run. Why? Because people will learn that stupidity and outright greed will not be rewarded.

I expect the government to go back to the drawing board to try and come up with some other type of bail out plan to rescue the economy, but I think they are completely missing what we really need to stabilize the economy. I agree with Mike Huckabee that the best way to fix the economy is to dramatically cut taxes on investing. Imagine if the taxes on investing were completely eliminated, money would pour into the American markets and more people would be encouraged to invest.

Washington only knows how to spend our money. They think that they can spend their way out of this mess, when what America really needs is more incentive to invest. Hopefully, the defeat of this bill will help them to realize that Americans don’t want to see stupidity rewarded.

On a side note: isn’t it funny that the Democrats, who claim to stand for “the little guy”  seem intent to pass this bail out that will cost every single little guy thousands of dollars while rescuing big business?

Mike Huckabee Lambasts Republicans for Their Consideration of Wall Street Bail Out

Mike Huckabee today released a statement about the idiocy going on in both parties as they work with Wall Street to strap the American tax payer with hundreds of billions of dollars in bail out monies. Huckabee shows here that he is not merely Republical talking head by calling this bail out what it is: stupid. He also offers up some ideas to help get us out of this mess without charging the tax payers for the stupidity of Wall Street.

——————————————————————–

Bailing on Our Principles

Today at 12:14pm

by Governor Mike Huckabee

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset – that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government—which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries—just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

Lieberman-Warner “Climate Security Act” A Catastrophe of Incredible Proportions

I just finished reading Michael Chricton’s well researched and written novel State of Fear. The book presents a compelling case against global warming and against the multi-billion dollar lobbying industry that has arisen around it. Global warning is a theory in great flux as more and more reports come out against the idea. Still, popular culture, major celebrities, and countless politicians are using this increasingly questionable theory to raise taxes and propose laws that will negatively change the landscape of America for decades to come.

In appendix I of State of Fear, Chrichton discusses the danger of the politicizing of science. He cites the eugenics movement of the 20’s as a tragic example of this. I highly recommend picking up this book and at least reading the comments Chrichton makes at the end of the book.

Here is what he had to say:

“Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.” -Michael Chricton on eugenics.

Basically, the politicization of science is a bad idea and history proves this.

Now, what effects will Lieberman-Warner have on the overall economy of the United States and her citizens? For that, I turn to research done by The Heritage Foundation. You can find the full text of the following excerpts here.

Economic Costs of Lieberman–Warner

It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by Lieber­man–Warner. No matter how mea­sured, the impacts of the bill on the American economy overall as well as on individuals and households would be substantial and hardly dif­ferent from a massive energy tax.

The impact on the overall econ­omy is reflected in cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses esti­mated at $1.7 trillion (with generous assumptions) to $4.8 trillion (with more realistic assumptions) by 2030. The single-year GDP losses would range from $111 billion to $436 bil­lion, or $949 to $3,726 per house­hold for each of the nation’s 117 million households. (See Chart 2.) Thus, the annual costs of the Climate Security Act would significantly exceed the Department of Homeland Security’s 2007 expenditures of $43 bil­lion and could also exceed the $155 billion spent on highways at all levels of government in 2005.

After-tax incomes decline by $47 billion to $120 billion in 2015, or $402 to $1,026 per household. Declines in consumption average $54 billion to $113 billion over the forecast period, or $462 to $966 per household annually.

My comments- Are you kidding me? This bill amounts to a massive tax increase on the average American of nearly $1000-4000! That is not just increasing taxes on the rich like Democrats enjoy doing so much. This will adversely effect every American living in the country. Not only that, but income decreases and so does spending. How is this bill good? Do these people understand basic economics? Let’s see what other good things our government is going to accomplish with this bill:

America’s Climate Security Act would spark a temporary increase in employment in the first few years as regulated companies invest heavily to comply. After that, however, the bill causes job losses that are expected to exceed 500,000 before 2030 even under the most optimistic assumptions. (See Chart 4.) It should be noted that these are net job losses after the jobs created by the Climate Security Act are taken into account. Particularly hard hit are manufacturing jobs as higher energy costs dampen several energy-intensive sectors. (See Chart 5.)Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while oth­ers will be outsourced to nations like China that are unlikely to place similar, if any, constraints on their emissions.

My comments- Oh good! We will outsource even more of our jobs to pollution powerhouse China just so that some celebrities and politicians can assuage their consciences and say they are preventing an unproven theory from becoming reality. They will do this by moving more manufacturing to China which will in turn equal a net increase in pollution because of China’s less stringent policies. These people are completely short-sighted and insane!

While the Lieberman–Warner bill lowers many household incomes, it raises the cost of living, par­ticularly by raising energy prices. To meet the bill’s targets, consumer energy demand must be driven down, which is achieved through higher prices. The price per gallon of gasoline is expected to increase by at least 29 percent by 2030: about $1.10 more per gallon based on current prices. By 2030, average household electricity costs are also expected to increase by $647 annually, and natural gas is expected to increase by $303. (See Chart 6.)

As noted, Lieberman–Warner operates like an energy tax, and since low-income households spend a larger percentage of income on energy, the tax is very regressive.[12] Some of the proceeds from the Lieberman–Warner bill are directed toward pro­grams to help energy consumers and low-income households in particular, but it is unclear how well these income-redistribution schemes will work. In any event, it is unlikely that they could make much of a dent in the damage caused by the bill.

My comments- Our elected officials, while crying that oil companies are fleecing us at the pump, are attempting to pass legislation that could raise gas prices by 29 percent! In front of the camera they say they are trying to lower gas prices and help the American people, but the fact is they are hurting us (should this bill pass). So, the bill amounts to a regressive tax that, ‘gasp!’ hurts low income families! Naturally, big government will come to the rescue and extend some sort of convoluted hand-out to them. Why don’t they just avoid the problem in the first place and stop trying to pass environmental legislation on an unproven theory?

This bill is Exhibit A of the sheer stupidity our government is capable of and also the influence and power of environmental lobbying groups in Washington. If politicians took the time to have their staff do some independent research they would find that global warming theory is in a state of flux with more and more scientists lining up against it. However, they seem unwilling to do this and continue to bow at the feet of popular media and lobbying groups just so that they can tout their “green credentials” at the next election.

The way our government is going is pushing me to become more and more libertarian (also the more I study about the founding fathers the more I believe that a form of libertarianism was the ideal they were striving for).

There is one sure fire way to fix this mess. Term limits.

Big Government to the Rescue

I read a report today that the government is inching closer in their efforts to approve a bill that would bail out Americans who got into “bad mortgages.”

This really hacks me off. The people who got into these mortgages do not deserve to have my tax dollars bail them out because of their own stupidity and ignorance. The low mortgage rates and thriving real estate market of a few years ago tempted people into financing way more house than they could afford. Plus, they added to the stupidity of buying too much house by financing it with an adjustable rate mortgage.

Well, the bubble did not last and it exploded into a soapy, scummy mess. Those ARM mortgages adjusted up and all the of the sudden Jack and Jill American can’t afford their house payment because they were idiots. So, with a major election looming, politicians are falling all over themselves to come up with a plan to spend the tax money of responsible Americans to bail out the irresponsible ones so that they can stand on a platform and proclaim that they are savior of stupid people!

You know what! Screw being responsible. I think I am going to stop paying my bills, go out and dig myself into a massive crater of debt, and then sit at home and drink beer and play video games all day. Then when people start coming and asking for their money, well, I’ll just reach out my fat beer stained hand so that the government can take it and gently dust me off, clean me up, and pull me out of the slums and they will do it on your dime! Wow! I can go and do whatever I want and there are no real consequences except my contribution to the obesity epidemic (which, incidentally, if either Hillary or Obama gets elected, they will pay, I mean YOU will pay, for my health care so who cares if I get fat from drinking too much beer and eating a steady diet of chocolate chips and deep-fried cheeto’s).

Unfortunately, people tend to need to make mistakes and suffer the consequences in order to learn not repeat their destructive behaviors. The government, science, and declining moral values are rapidly taking away the consequences so people are becoming less and less apt to change their behaviors.

I would love to see a politician run on a platform of fairness where people who are stupid would suffer the consequences. I have a feeling being stupid would become a much less valuable commodity.

Gas Tax Fever!

I never thought I would say this…Obama is right on this issue. A temporary reprieve from the federal gas tax is pure folly.  The Tax Policy Center states that the average American would save LESS THAN $28 over the course of gas tax holiday.

This is pure political pandering. The news media has us convinced that we are (a.) in a recession, and (b.) the rise in gas prices is catastrophic and will single handedly destroy us all and bring about the end of the world (I am exaggerating. Slightly).

First, we are not in a recession. The economy is still growing, it is not “receding.” It is growing at a slower pace than it has in the past five or six years, but it STILL GROWING!

Second, the rise in gas prices has hit us so hard because we are unwilling to change our lifestyles to make up the difference. Let’s say you buy a 16oz latte every day for $3.59. That figures out to $.22/oz, and $28.16/gal. Hmm, I think it’s time to cut out the latte and brew your own coffee at home.

We are unwilling to cut out the conveniences in our lives to pay for the necessities. We don’t want to give up our movies, video games, cable TV, big cars, and vacations in order to pay for the extra gas. It is time for Americans to grow up and quit whining for the government to come and fix every little thing that comes along and makes us feel uncomfortable.

How did my wife and I deal with rising gas prices? We sold my (paid for) truck and bought (with the cash from the paid for truck) a used, low mileage, sub-compact. Was this fun for me? Nope, I have always driven trucks and I enjoy driving something a little big bigger that has the extra utility a truck offers. However, we decided that spending $30/fill up on the car would be a lot easier on our limited income than the nearly $60/fill up the truck required. By changing just that one aspect of our lifestyle we were able to dramatically cut the amount of money we spend on gas.

Instead of relying on Hillary Clinton or John McCain to come and fix your inability to manage your finances or your unwillingness to cut some un-necessities out of your lifestyle, do it yourself. It’s time to wake up, America, and stop being stupid.

Back in Action

I have mourned the exit of Governor Mike Huckabee from presidential politics for nearly two months now. While I wouldn’t say I have moved on, as I am still following Huckabee closely, waiting for any hints at future run for office; I have decided that it is time to start working towards getting/keeping conservatives in Washington.

I personally have decided to support John McCain for President, unless a worthy third party candidate arises. My decision is based on a few main points: he does not aspire to universal health care, he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent (if the democrats let these expire they will effectively be raising taxes on everyone in America, not just the rich), he believes in a very strong military and will support the military, he is a strong proponent of cutting government spending.

Whether or not he will hold to those views if elected remains to be seen, but right now he is a far better option than either of Democrats. He is far from my first choice for office, but he can do the job better than the current competition.

I have also recently been contacted by the Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe campaign. They asked me if I wanted to blog for him, I agreed. I have had the privilege of meeting and eating lunch with Sen. Inhofe and I believe that the man has his head on straight. He is a good representative of Oklahoma’s conservative values, so I hope that by blogging against liberals and for conservatives, I will be a small help to his campaign.

So, the battle for the votes of those living on Main Street America continues. The question is, will Americans support big government liberals and Republicans who spend like “John Edwards in a beauty salon?” (Mike Huckabee) Or will we elect people with true conservative values (which does not necessarily mean they are Republican)?

Huckabee Responds to Pastore

This is too important to not post in its entirety. Mike Huckabee has been under fire of late because of a lack of a foreign policy plan and foreign policy experience, immigration,  federalism, and taxes. In his response to an open letter by Frank Pastore of Townhall.com, he answers those questions in a way that should give him some traction going into the South Carolina primary this weekend.

Here is a link to the article.

Full text follows:

Governor Huckabee Responds to Frank Pastore’s “Dear Huck” Letter
By Mike Huckabee
Thursday, January 17, 2008

On January 14, Frank Pastore wrote an open letter Mike Huckabee Titled: “Dear Huck: You’ve Won Our Hearts, Now Win Our Minds Too.” Below are Pastore’s Original Questions with the Response from the Huckabee campaign.

Frank Pastore: 1. You’re accused of advancing “liberal economic policies” because you raised taxes in Arkansas. If elected, what do you want to increase social spending on and why? Most conservatives don’t define “limited government” in terms of “no government.” We want government to help those who truly need it. We want to help the single mom down the street that’s struggling. Unlike Democrats, we don’t measure the success of social programs by how much we spend on them, but by whether the people we claim to be helping actually get helped.

We want “limited government” in opposition to “unlimited government.” We believe we’re already spending too much on too many programs, and we’d rather spend more wisely what we’re already spending than simply default to spending more. We don’t want “bigger government,” we want “smarter government.” We understand a “let’s cut spending” message can’t win a general election, but a “responsible spending” message can. How do you suggest we do this?

Governor Mike Huckabee: First, I am a fiscal conservative. I have signed Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform “no tax” pledge. When I was Governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes 94 times, including the largest broad-based tax cut in the history of my state. I doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, eliminated the marriage penalty, indexed tax brackets to prevent bracket creep, reduced the capital gains tax for both businesses and individuals, and eliminated the capital gains tax on the sale of a home. I reduced welfare rolls by almost 50 percent.

When I left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when I began almost 11 years earlier: the tax rate was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest. Having inherited a $200 million budget shortfall from my Democrat predecessor, I left office with an $844 million surplus, letting my successor follow my lead to get the sales tax on food eliminated.

I share your goal of wanting to help those who truly need it. I will undertake a top-to-bottom review of all programs to eliminate waste and duplication. Right now there are many different programs dealing with things like hunger and job training. I will consolidate and streamline to get the most out of every tax dollar. I will reduce the federal work force by not replacing many of the baby boomers who will be retiring.

I will fight against pork and fight for a line-item veto that passes constitutional muster. I will also look for ways to accomplish our goals through block grants to the states. Governors at the state level are the ones who know their people and their needs better than the federal government and, since they have to balance their budgets, know how to get the most out of a dollar. We also need to measure performance and demand better accountability. We have to stop throwing money at problems without following up to ensure that they are actually achieving solutions. I will insist that programs and the people running them justify their existence. I will never just assume that because a program was funded last year, it should be funded next year.

While we have great needs, the federal government also has great resources provided by the sweat of the brows of all our taxpayers. They are entitled to a solid return on their investment. I will never forget where the money comes from and will demand of Congress and all my executive departments that we be the best stewards that we can possibly be of those hard-earned funds.

Pastore: 2. Your “Fair Tax” proposal is interesting, but you must know it has zero chance of getting through Congress in the coming decade, even if you should win reelection. We appreciate you raising the issue, and we’re all frustrated with the Tax Code, and we all hate the IRS. But, Congressional Democrats won’t ever let us eliminate an entire federal department like the IRS or the Department of Education. It will take decades to make a serious run at something like that. So, what are some more modest improvements you suggest for improving our existing tax system over the next four years?

Huckabee: First, I strongly disagree with the premise that the FairTax can’t be passed. It will be a challenge, but undertaking those challenges is what leadership is about. The FairTax already has a tremendous amount of support and enthusiasm around the country and in Congress. People agree that our tax system is broken and needs radical, fundamental change. As president, I would be a Communicator in Chief who would do a great job explaining the FairTax to the American people and getting them to light up the congressional switchboard until Washington gets the message. It’s our long-term solution, it can be done, and we will do it.

As a pathway to the FairTax, there are several steps we can take. I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and fix the alternative minimum tax once and for all. I would expand upon the Bush marginal rate reductions, capital gains rate reductions, and dividend rate reductions. I would reduce the marginal corporate tax rate.

I would eliminate the death tax.

I would make all tuition deductible, because I believe that education is an investment in human capital and should be treated at least as favorably as a business is treated when making a capital equipment purchase. Our best means of remaining competitive in the ever-expanding global marketplace is a well-educated American workforce. Education not only improves our national well-being, but is also the path to personal upward mobility.

I would provide a maximum 15.3 percent tax credit for tuition expenditures, tied to employment income and carried forward indefinitely. This replicates the effects of the FairTax by allowing workers to offset their payroll taxes with their tuition costs. The 15.3 percent cap equals the payroll taxes the family paid for the year.

We also need to consider increasing the IRA deduction limit. We should consider increasing small business and manufacturers expensing allowances. I would also investigate providing tax credits for healthcare. So there are short-term steps we can take on the path to the FairTax.

Pastore: 3. You’re accused of opposing vouchers, yet you have the endorsement of the National Education Association for your work in Arkansas, and you have the overwhelming support of home schoolers. This is an odd mix. What is your position on school choice, vouchers, charter schools, etc.?

I have the support of home schoolers because I was an ardent champion of their cause when I was governor. I appointed the first home school parent anywhere in the country to our State Board of Education.

My overriding concern is that every child in America has the opportunity to get a first-rate education—I am much less concerned with the means than with the end. I support school choice, vouchers and charter schools because different options work better in different settings. For example, vouchers may not work well in a rural area where there are no better alternatives within a reasonable distance for children to travel, but they may be the answer in an urban environment. If local districts wish to do it, if states wish to do it, I think that’s fine. It goes to the basic concept that education is a state’s decision.

I also think that we ought to have tax credits for a family whose decision is to put their children in an alternative environment. That’s one way to empower families.

I am extremely proud of my record in improving public schools in Arkansas. Everyone is used to seeing Arkansas near the very bottom of national education rankings. Yet we just soared to eighth in overall quality in the Quality Counts 2008 study produced by Education Week. My sowing hard-fought reforms in areas such as reading and math fundamentals, art and music in our schools, more demanding curricula and Advanced Placement classes, higher teacher pay and school accountability is reaping huge rewards for our children and their future.

Pastore: 4. You’re accused of being weak on national security and your statement that we have “an arrogant foreign policy” is troubling. We need to hear more clearly why you think that is. Why do you want to close Guantanamo? Do you really want to give “enemy combatants” full access to our court system? This too, is troubling. In spite of this, it sounds like you “get” the global war against radical Islam. Please convince us you’ve got what it takes to go toe to toe with Osama, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung-il, Putin, Chavez and China.

Huckabee: My perspective on foreign policy has been shaped by my experiences as a governor. I’ve traveled to approximately 40 countries in my lifetime and met with many of the world’s leaders. As governor, I’ve traveled extensively not only in trade agreements and cultural exchanges, but I’ve chaired the U.S. chapter of the World League for Freedom and Democracy and worked with elected officials from other countries. I’ve been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel (nine times), Egypt, all over Europe, Russia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. I think Ronald Reagan was a great example of a person who came to office with the same kind of skepticism and criticism. He hadn’t had foreign political experience, but he had judgment, he had clear principles that guided him. He understood that the U.S. should be the most powerful nation on earth, but had to use that power circumspectly.

I do not believe that we have an arrogant foreign policy. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld behaved arrogantly in not listening to the military about how many troops we needed to invade Iraq initially and then in refusing for years to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy. It is the counterinsurgency strategy finally adopted under General Petraeus and Secretary Gates that has been so successful this past year in Iraq.

When I said I wanted to close Guantanamo, I wasn’t staking out new ground, I was stating my agreement with President Bush and Secretary Gates on that issue. Since then, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come forward to say he favors closing the base.

It’s not that I want to give “enemy combatants” access to our court system: the Supreme Court has already held that the prisoners’ rights are not dependent on whether they are at Guantanamo or on the U. S. mainland because Guantanamo is equivalent to U. S. soil. Whatever rights these foreign prisoners have—and we’ll know that better when the Boumediene case, which is pending before the Supreme Court, is decided – our government can’t deprive them of those rights by keeping them at Guantanamo. In Rasul, the Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo prisoners had a statutory right to habeas corpus; Boumediene will tell us if they have a constitutional right.

I have what it takes to go toe-to-toe with our enemies because I understand the seriousness of the threats we face. I want to expand and strengthen our military by increasing defense spending from less than 4 percent of our GDP to the 6 percent it was under President Reagan. I know that President Clinton’s “peace dividend” has become our “war deficit.” I want to add the 92,000 to our Army and Marines that President Bush has proposed, but I want to accomplish that sooner. I know that we need to upgrade our intelligence to get information about armed groups who are ideologically opposed to us all over the world—micro groups can cause macro damage in this age of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

With respect to the war on terror, I understand the radical theology and ideology their ruthlessness is based on; I understand that they really want to establish an Islamic caliphate and destroy our civilization. I am concerned about Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan, which it is using not only to attack Afghanistan and plot against us, but also to undermine the Pakistani government. I know that we must win in Iraq, not only for the security of the Iraqis, but for the security of the entire region and our own security. I recognize Iran’s ambitions to spread westward and establish a “Shiite crescent” by causing the Sunni governments in its path to fall like dominoes, and I understand that we must have a strong, unified Iraq to serve as a bulwark against such Iranian expansionism. I am concerned about Iran’s links to Hamas and Hezbollah and its nuclear ambitions. After decades of containment, President Reagan adopted a new strategy in the Cold War—we win, they lose. My strategy in the war on terror—we win, they lose.

I recognize that China isn’t just an economic threat, but a military one as well. I know that they have been investing heavily in their military, especially their navy, which they see as a key instrument for projecting their power. Last year their military spending increased 18 percent. That means that in 17 of the past 18 years, they have had double-digit increases in military spending.

I will be very cautious in my dealings with North Korea. We recently found traces of highly-enriched uranium on aluminum tubes that they handed over to us, when they claim they’ve never had a program to enrich uranium. This comes on the heels of the Israeli raid on a Syrian nuclear facility involving material from North Korea. Recently they missed the important deadline of December 31st to disable their nuclear facilities; disclose their nuclear programs, facilities, and materials; disclose how much plutonium they have extracted; disclose their uranium enrichment program (the existence of which they deny); and disclose their transfer of nuclear materials and technology to other countries (which they also deny). Given the potential North Korean/terrorist nexus, it is essential that we are tough on North Korea as part of our war on terror.

In Russia, President Putin is spending his oil revenues updating his Soviet-era military. They have a new missile defense shield around Moscow, have been investing heavily in their Pacific Fleet, and have been developing new missiles, including a new ICBM that they have successfully tested.

We must remember that when the Soviet Union fell, we still had Russia. This is a country which has always had both imperialist ambitions and an inferiority complex relative to the west. Czarist history is a case study in schizophrenia, centuries of struggle between Westernizers and Slavophiles. We will continue to experience this push-pull, continue to have good days and bad with Russia, but overall it will be better than the Cold War. The bottom line is that Putin doesn’t want another terrorist attack like the school siege in Beslan any more than we want another 9/11. But he despises the loss of face from the fall of the Soviet Union and will do everything he can to reassert Russia’s strength and power—militarily, economically, diplomatically. I see him for what he is—a staunch nationalist in a country that has no tradition of democracy, just autocracy. The vacation from history is over. We must get back to work and continue to project our power as consistently and forcefully as Russia will hers.

Pastore: 5. Your position on illegal immigration is confusing. On the one hand, you’ve got the strongest immigration platform of all the candidates and you want to pardon border agents Ramos and Compean as your first presidential act. We all love this. But, on the other hand, you gave children of illegals in-state tuition breaks in Arkansas. Please explain this apparent inconsistency.

Huckabee: There isn’t an inconsistency—it’s a matter of which desk you sit behind. As governor, I had no control over immigration, which is a federal issue. I had no control over our borders or who came into my state. So I tried to improve something I did have control over–turning my state’s tax-takers into taxpayers. I proposed giving children who had gone through our schools and done very well academically, who were alcohol and drug-free, and who were applying for citizenship, the opportunity to compete for a very select academically-based scholarship along with their peers. I didn’t believe then, and I don’t believe now, that innocent children should be punished for the sins of their parents. There was no limit on the number of scholarships—everyone who qualified got one, so they wouldn’t have been taking scholarships away from another Arkansas resident. My plan was not adopted; no child ever received one of these scholarships. And contrary to distortions promoted by my political opponents, no children of illegals ever got in-state tuition breaks.

Pastore: 6. You have said that you want a national ban on smoking. This offends even the vast majority of non-smoking conservatives because it violates the principle of federalism. How serious are you about this?

Huckabee: This has been misinterpreted because I strongly support the principle of federalism. At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, I said that if Congress presented me with legislation banning smoking in public places, I would sign it. That is because I would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. But since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since I have also said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, I believe that this issue is best addressed at the state and local levels.

Pastore: 7. We understand the need to talk about the environment and global warming for electoral purposes. How serious are you about governmental involvement in this, too?

Huckabee: I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment because God has entrusted us to take care of this world that He created for us. We don’t own the earth, it is on loan to us. In that light, I believe that we must take care of our air and water and forests and wildlife to keep both ourselves and the overall system healthy. We must pass the earth on to the next generation in at least as good a shape as it was handed to us. Anything less diligent and conscientious would be poor stewardship and an abdication of a God-given responsibility.

I believe that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions. A cap and trade system has worked well for acid rain caused by the emission of sulphur dioxide, and I believe it can also work well for the emission of carbon dioxide. At the same time, I don’t want to impose too great a burden on our businesses, which is why I believe that some of the allowances for emissions must be given to our businesses rather than auctioning off 100 percent of them, as some environmentalists are demanding.

Mike Huckabee governed Arkansas from 1996-2007 and is running for the presidential nomination of the Republican party.

The Folks on The Fair Tax

I found an interesting page on the Wall Street Journal website that gives the responses of some every day Americans to critics of the Fair Tax.

Collecting taxes at the retail level is already in place and much more easily monitored by the states. Compare that to our current system and think how it would reduce enforcement. In addition, with point of sale collection you don’t have to be a citizen nor declare how you got the money. If you spend it, we collect at the time. How simple is that?

Joe Alsenz
Grove, Okla.

Complicated rebate system? “The monthly prebate check is calculated by multiplying the annual poverty level spending published each year by the Department of Health and Human Services times the FairTax rate and dividing by twelve.”

Don Venardos
Thousand Oaks, Calif.

The Fair Tax is one of Huckabee’s more radical proposals, but I believe it has a lot going for it. The problem is that not enough people know enough about it. I think that as more people find out about, it will become a much bigger issue. The debate among Republicans over taxes will become very interesting if the Fair Tax rises in popularity because on one side you will have people advocating tax cuts and on the other side you will have people advocating the complete elimination of our current tax system. Even if the Fair Tax is never enacted, the debate would do this country and our tax system good. At the least, we might see some major reform in our current tax system and that would certainly be a positive thing.

Response to criticisms

I keep reading negative comments on various articles, but never take the time (like I know I should) to register for the sites to post rebuttals. If I ever did, here’s what I write:

I don’t like taxes, either, but if people would only realize that state government is different from federal government. You can’t borrow money to make up for budget shortfalls at the state level, like you can at the federal level. Arkansas faced a huge budget shortfall during 2001-2002 recession, a Supreme Court mandate, worked to fix their roads (one of the worst states in the nation), faced a Medicare crisis. The list goes on and on. Gov. Huckabee has said numerous times that the state had slimmed the budget as much as possible, and still had a shortfall.

Gov. Huckabee has also said at the federal level, he WOULD NOT raise taxes, and he’s signed the no new taxes pledge. What he has instead said is that the federal government has a spending problem, and needs some policy changes to correct this trend, not new taxes.

Finally, to say that a vote for Huckabee is a way to get Hillary elected, I hate to break it to you all, but Huckabee is the one candidate the Democrats and the Left fear. He has bipartisan appeal. Maybe not to fiscal conservatives, who live and die by privatizing every single service, but to a lot of independents and conservative Democrats who share the social conservative values of Huckabee and his economic populism positions.

America faces serious problems, overseas, but more importantly, here in our own yards. I want a President who is going to work to resolve those problems in any way he can, not just the politically expedient ones that a consultant says will get him reelected.

Finally, step outside the ideology blinders for a moment, both left and right, and take a look at what Mike Huckabee is actually saying. Americans have griped for decades that the political world is acrimonious. He keeps being given ample opportunity to attack his opponents, and almost everytime, he chooses not to. And the couple times he has, he does it in a very civil manner. Every election cycle, Americans say that want a civil politician. Here’s your chance — and Iowa’s first one the list that gets to decide!