Mike Huckabee and his campaign lying about his record [UPDATED]
By Neil Stevens Posted in Archived | Arkansas | Liberal | Mike Huckabee | Socialist | taxes — Comments (182) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mike Huckabee and his campaign are lying about his record in order to attempt to discredit the Club for Growth's revelations about his history of raising taxes in Arkansas.
Chip Saltsman, Mike Huckabee's campaign manager, says this on the candidate's web page:
More than 80% of the voters supported a 4-cent tax on diesel fuel to fix the roads. Similarly, the voters approved a 1/8 cent increase in the sales tax to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. The Governor would have violated his oath of office if he did not go with the will of these voters. He did not raise taxes -- the people did.
The candidate himself said the same thing on Meet the Press:
Did we raise taxes on fuel? Yes, but 80 percent of the people voted on it because it was on the ballot. So it wasn’t that I raised it. I joined with 80 percent of the people in my state to improve what was the worst road system in the country.
The problem is, it's just not true.
In 1999, the year in question, Arkansas had three elections, according to the Secretary of State. Two were special election primaries for the state legislature, wtih Democrats voting in District 33 and Republicans voting in District 14. The third issue on the ballot was indeed statewide, however it wasn't a tax authorization. Rather it was a state highway bond. The one bit of truth is that this bond issue did indeed pass with 79.4% of the vote. Other than that...
Let's see what the Nevada County Picayune said he had to say about the situation back in 1999 (emphasis added):
Huckabee pointed out this is a bond issue and not a tax issue. No new taxes will be created should this measure be approved by the voters....
The only monies to be committed to the bond issue is the $58 million a year already allocated by the federal government to the interstate maintenance fund and the four-cent diesel fuel tax increase to be paid by the trucking industry, along with state matching funds Arkansas is already required to use for matching federal turnback funds....
Under Huckabee's plan, the state could dedicate money from the three-cent gasoline tax increase to work on rural highways in the state.
Funny how in 1999 Huckabee was saying that the ballot measure was not a tax hike. The reason he could say this was that it's true: the taxes had already been passed, with the intent of using them to pay down the bonds if the bonds passed, and to help pay for the road improvements themselves otherwise.
Personally I'm surprised that Huckabee would lie so blatantly about his own record. Maybe it's just me, but I expected the preacher in the race to be the one who would campaign in the most above board manner. But if we can't believe what he says on this, how can we believe anything he says to get elected?
Character counts, and if Huckabee is going to lie to me now, there's no chance I'm going to vote for him in order to let him make himself into a liar on even more issues.
Update: Joe Carter found for us House Bill 1500 from the Arkansas 82nd General Assembly in 1999, the bill that authorized the issuance of the $575 million in highway bonds, and created the ballot measure. Here is a relevant excerpt from page 5:
The bonds shall be general obligations of the State of Arkansas, payable from certain designated revenues and also secured by the full faith and credit of the State of Arkansas, including its general revenues. Pursuant to the Arkansas Highway Financing Act of 1999 (the "Bond Act"), the bonds will be repaid first from: (1) revenues derived from federal highway assistance funding allocated to the State of Arkansas designated as federal highway interstate maintenance funds, and, if needed, that portion of national highway system funds authorized by Commission Minute Order 98-214 adopted September 22, 1998, and (2) revenue derived from the increase in the excise tax levied on distillate special fuels (diesel) pursuant to Section 2 of the "Arkansas Distillate Special Fuel Excise Tax Act of 1999" and the "Motor Fuel Excise Tax Act of 1999" and transferred to the State Highway and Transportation Department Fund pursuant to Arkansas Code 27-70-207(c) in accordance with Section 4(a) of the "Arkansas Distillate Special Fuel Excise Tax Act of 1999" and the "Motor Fuel Excise Tax Act of 1999." To the extent that designated revenues are insufficient to make timely payment of debt service on the bonds, such payment shall be made from the general revenues of the State of Arkansas.
As we can see here, the taxes in question had already been passed, in the acts listed here by name and presumably signed by Governor Huckabee (had he vetoed them, I'm sure we'd have heard about it).
The people did not have the option of rejecting these taxes. They could only choose to endorse the use of those revenues on highway improvement bonds, or not. The claims made by Huckabee and his campaign, that the voters approved these taxes, are still false.
I like how you compare how some politicians might be lying, with the fact that Huckabee has been caught in one. It's like you took the very end of my piece and responded to that, while ignoring the whole meat of it.
Fred Thompson - http://youtube.com/watch?v=AZ3ZJkqlvi8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qRMm_fL6WIk
Rudy - have you looked into the judges that he supported as Mayor?
Mitt - let's say he has really changed. Why would you except his statement and not Hucks? They both are going against what their past indicates.
Do you honestly think that all the candidates are telling the truth about their past or their records or their policies? If you do, you are very much deceived.
I do not argue that Huck is lying. But, I believe that he will be the best person for the Socon cause. That is the MOST important cause.
Conservatives do not believe the ends justify the means. Conservatives value character very highly, particularly social conservatives.
I still can't believe you went there. "Everyone's doing it" hasn't worked for me since I was 14, I hope you don't really think it will work for a GOP Presidential candidate.
I don't support what Huckabee is doing. Lying is an abomination. I am arguing the fact that every politician is doing it, but people want to show only certain peoples lies. It is sickening how people will ignore the transgression of "their guy" to shoot down the opponent. Do I support Huckabee? Yep. I don't support him for any reason but the fact that he is 100% against the murdering of babies.
yearn for the hospitality of the Iraqis and a dial up internet connection nothing ever will... ;)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
So if Bill Clinton had been pro-FMA and HLA, he would be an perfectly adequate candidate to carry the SoCon banner? Sure, he lies to the people, but hey, who doesn't? Sure, he lies to his wife, but hey, who doesn't? So much for character counting for anything.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Even if Thompson had made pro-abortion comments while running for the Senate, he OBVIOUSLY voted against his own comments then. But so far Thompson has NOT intentionally lied about his record.
It's like you took the very end of my piece and responded to that, while ignoring the whole meat of it.
Just like he did to Thompson in that video that he posted! I immediately said to myself; Did he hear anything beyond "I dont remember the form" in that video? Who can remember 3 forms that you filled out in 1994, much less be able to narrow down to one single document; I dont care how old you are. I understand your argument, its easy to say "I forget"; but look at the record. The votes. The endorsements and ratings of prolife organizations and you see solid Conservatism.
I love how on the one hand, Huckabee gets "credit" for a tax increase in the legislature, but the same people criticizing him by claiming he's responsible for a tax increase passed by the legislature that only became active after the voters passed the bond issue, also turn around and claim Huckabee cannot take credit for other things because the legislature passed them and all he did was sign them into law. Read the full account of attacks on Huckabee's record in Arkansas, including the Club For Growth's anti-Huckabee attacks, and this is the typical method used -- blame him using one set of standards, then blame him using another set of standards that contradicts the first set of standards. And of course, omission or blurring of the facts as much if not more than Huckabee is accused of doing is also a typical tactic -- like the fact the bond issue had to be passed by voters, for example, is treated as if it's inconsequential.
And how about the fact that some of the most anti-Huckabee folks are also so pro-Giuliani? Wasn't it Giuliani who stressed the fact that as Governor, one is forced to do whatever makes the people of the state safe, and that hard decisions must be made? And doesn't Giuliani fudge a LOT about his record on taxes, on crime, and on many other issues as well? Romney, too, engages in similar shading of his own record in such areas. So the point is, the critics employing these tactics against Huckabee don't call Giuliani or Romney liars, and don't spend the same amount of time digging for ways to proclaim their records at odds with their rhetoric, now do they?
Nothing like 80% of the people deciding what 10% (or so) should pay. Why just a Diesel tax? If you want to fix the roads, raise taxes on hamburgers at McDonalds. Or at least a gas tax. Hitting only truckers in their pockets is not fair. Almost as bad as the Cigarette taxes now.
It would be hilarious if truckers got sick of all this crap and went on strike. Okay it wouldn't be hilarious because we would have nothing-but it would get the word out. Why is it trucks have to have less emissions than cars? I know my cars muffler doesn't have it's own computer!
(note: I've been in not a few States' revenue agencies [including Arkansas], and seen a LOT of taxes).
Why a Diesel tax? Because truckers use diesel (and so do a few folks that drive Mercedes sedans or big Ford pickups, but not 100 gallons at a time). Most truckers are out-of-state, so they can't vote on the issue. Trucks beat up roads far more than cars.
It would be interesting if truckers decided to fill up before entering Arkansas, and drive through that State. But the neighbors are pretty much as bad. And the Hunt brothers are based in Little Rock.
I'm still waiting for four non-smokers to ante up $150/year each for the rest of their lives so I can stop lighting up 50 or more feet from the public buildings for which I paid.
If your car's muffler doesn't have a computer ... the sensor is in your catalytic converter ... and you do have several computers in your car.
If you've ever seen a rig driving out cold from the yard, you might re-evaluate your opinion that trucks have less emissions than cars. Maybe why recent regulations reduce sulfur content and particulate (ie, black smoke) emissions ... and why diesel engine manufacturers like Caterpillar have had to spend millions on developing cleaner engines.
ANYway ... this is all a trumped-up criticism because Huckabee has been gaining ground. Let the voters decide.
Don't expect comments from the Hucksters that are any more intelligent than #1.
I find it interesting that all the other candidates are willing to address their "problems" and the Huckster just practices absolute denial.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Please, the other candidates are willing to address their "problems" but Huckabee isn't?? The other candidates dodge, weave, and lie about their own records and attack and distort everyone else's, period. And Huckabee has sat down and discussed his record with reporters before (look at National Review, for example), so he is not dodging it at all.
And Huckabee supporters aren't capable of intelligent comments? I guess I won't comment about how much thought it takes to just claim the "other side" is all stupid, despite the fact that many of us do indeed engage in thoughtful debate about these matters.
that the gas and diesel taxes were on the ballot is false and that Huckabee's been lying about it since day one. He passed the taxes through the legislature and tied them to repayment of the bond issue that was on the ballot.
It's a simple, straightforward issue. Club for Growth has been right about Huckabee all along and Huckabee is a flat out liar on this issue with his insisting that the taxes were actually on the ballot and approved by voters.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Good work digging up the actual facts behind this, since the Huckabots seem to have no interest in them.
Another interesting point here is that this was an off year election. That's a classic method used to sneak tax or spending increases past the voters when turnout is low. Just about every school district uses this. You can bet this bond measure wouldn't have passed with almost 80% if it were done in 2000.
Did you stumble upon the actual text of the ballot measure?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Arkansas Legislature's webpage only has bills for this year, though I had hoped to dig back to 1999.
They list the people who supported it as: "FOR issuance of State of Arkansas Federal Highway Grant Anticipation and Tax Revenue Bonds"
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
From the Arkansas Highway Financing Act of 1999:
FOR issuance of State of Arkansas Federal Highway Grant Anticipation and Tax Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $575,000,000 and the pledge of the full faith and credit of the State of Arkansas to further secure such
bonds ....................................................................[ ]
AGAINST issuance of State of Arkansas Federal Highway Grant Anticipation and Tax Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $575,000,000 and the pledge of the full faith and credit of the State of Arkansas to further secure such
bonds ....................................................................[ ]
Funny, I guess I can't find any mention of a gas tax hike in there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And backing up what Neil said in the diary, here's a passage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (paper of record in Arkansas):
THE BIG NEWS on Wednesday's front page was the passage of the $ 575-million bond issue to fix the state's highways. The moral of the story: Offer the voters of Arkansas a clear plan to meet a clear need, and they'll support it. Well, some of them. The voters were shamefully few, but enough to send a message: Give us better roads now.
It helped that this bond issue did not require a new tax. (The Ledge had already taken care of that little detail, raising the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.)
-bold=mine
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes, 1999
Arkansas roads were in terrible condition…
“The study of 1997 Federal Highway Administration statistics submitted by all 50 states showed that Arkansas at the highest percentage of rural interstate miles in poor condition, 29.6 percent.” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 04/12/99)
Huckabee supported a plan to expedite much needed repairs to Arkansas highways. The Senate approved a gasoline tax hike by a 33-2 vote; the House approved this by a 82-17 vote. These taxes financed bonds for highway improvements, which Arkansas voters approved by a 4-1 margin. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/17/99; 3/27/99)
“Arkansas voters approved by a 4-1 margin Tuesday a plan to issue $ 575 million in bonds to repair 372 miles of interstate highways. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/16/99)
The people of Arkansas spoke loud and clear, through their legislators and through the bond referendum, to improve the highways of the Natural State.
http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/2007/11/truthing-about-taxes-and-huckabee...
It seems that the taxes were used to finance the bonds. So by voting for the bonds, the voters were also backing Huckabee's tax increase and his overall plan to fix the roads. The general sentiment is right: the public overwhelmingly approved the actions that Huckabee took to improve the roads (and this included taxes and bonds). All these were closely intertwined to provide a solution to the roads.
I am sure that mainstream voters will accept this explanation, but if CfG wants to press the issue, more power to them.
I dug it up and posted it for you. Tell me where it talks about "Huckabee's tax increase" (wait... I thought the point was it WASN'T Huckabee's tax increase).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Tax increase was part of package approved by voters.
"With the support of the Arkansas State Highway Commission and the Governor, the Arkansas General Assembly in 1999 passed a comprehensive funding package which put the question of issuing GARVEE bonds to a vote of the people. The package also included a phase-in of a three cent gasoline tax increase and a four cent diesel fuel tax increase over two years."
It's the SoS that actually puts the questions on the ballot, and knows what the voters saw.
The SoS says it was a bond issue, not a tax hike. Multiple news outlets cite Huckabee himself and others saying the ballot measure specifically was not a tax hike.
Add in CfG saying the same thing I see, and I think the weight of the evidence is against Huckabee's telling the truth here.
package approved by the voters, and it was, also, the reccomendation of a citizens council appointed by the governor.
"The Council recommended that the funding gap be met by the issuance of bonds secured by future transportation funding (i.e., GARVEE bonds) and that the match be funded by a combination of existing state funds and a phased increase in the tax on truck diesel fuel."
to indicate the increased taxes were part of the bond issue on the ballot, only that the bond would be paid for in part by the tax increase.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
the voters knew that their was a tax increase involved.
"On June 15, Arkansas voters will be asked to approve a landmark program to spend up to $785 million rehabilitating the state's substandard interstate highway system, but don't expect much opposition to the plan.
For starters, most Arkansans are aware of the seriousness of the problem. What's more; the state's trucking lobby, which will partially pay for improvements through an increase in the tax on diesel fuel, has heartily endorsed the ballot issue, having dodged the bullet of more expensive highway remedies like toll roads or additional weight-distances taxes."
source: Arkansas Business Author: John Haman Date: May 3, 1999
Your quote there says that the trucking lobby will PAY for the improvements, but the voters will be asked to approve the SPENDING.
Your quote in fact proves my point. The tax half was taken care of in advance – the truckers already "having dodged the bullet" of other, worse taxes by supporting the fuel taxes – and then they went to the people to spend it.
Which authorized the ballot question, and the gas and diesel tax hikes, and probably dozens of other things.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That would explain how he tricked the DoT. The legislature passed the taxes and the bonds together, but the voters only saw the bond part.
So... somehow... by the mystical power of alchemical transmutation, combined with the commutative property of legislative ballot issues, the voter approval of the bonds links up in Huckabee's campaign website back to the tax increase.
It's a neat trick, but it's still dishonest on its face.
states that the bond would be funded in part by the tax increase a week before the election took place. It also states that the tax increase was up for vote.
"At issue is voter approval of a $575 million bond issue to finance new construction and rehabilitation of the Interstates and a proposal to increase the state's gasoline and diesel taxes."
The truth will always come out. CfG misrepresented Huckabee in their latest ad by not giving the full picture. Doesn't surprise me, since CfG has been proven to be biased and outdated, and financed by a Huck opponent, Stephens Jr.
"It helped that this bond issue did not require a new tax" is so hard for you to grasp?
-Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/18/99
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
predates yours by 4 days and also shows that the knowlege of the tax increase being part of the bond issue was out before the election took place.
They weren't voting for a tax increase, they were voting for a bond paid for by a tax increase that had already passed.
Thus the Democrat-Gazette saying that there wasn't a new tax involved. Huckabee had already signed it. So he's lying. If was so popular or easily explained, why is he pulling this revisionist history act?
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
They weren't voting for a tax increase, they were voting for a bond paid for by a tax increase that had already passed.
If everything I have read about this issue is correct, then it is clear that the gas tax technically was on the ballot, in terms of how it was to be used, and not whether it should be raised. So Huckabee saying that "We raised the gas tax, and then we put it on the ballot, and 80% of the people voted to fix the roads" is technically true.
However, I would advise Huckabee to avoid claiming that the tax increase itself was on the ballot in order to avoid any misrepresentation. It would be better to claim that "80% of the voters validated my plan to fix the roads" and to leave it at that. But the general sentiment is still true. People in Arkansas overwhelming approved of Huckabee's actions to fix the roads.
If he would claim support for the heightened *spending*, then there would be no problem.
But not only is he claiming voter support for the *tax hike,* he's attempting to use that lie to discredit a respected group in the Club for Growth.
That's not appropriate.
Even a huckabot should be able to break it down.
In 1999 the legislature passed and the governor signed a "comprehensive funding package." That "comprehensive funding package" included many provisions.
One provision was for an increase in the gas tax.
Another provision was for the increase in the diesel tax.
Another provision was to add a question to the ballot about the issuance of bonds.
Other than the fact they were authorized in the same transportation bill, they have nothing to do with each other. The gas and diesel tax were in signed into law the moment the governor signed the bill. The voters could have voted no on the bond measure and it wouldn't have done anything to the gas and diesel tax.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
chefs, can make a great presentation with substance as meager as that of a shadow of a pigeon who starved to death. (The last phrase is Lincoln's, if memory serves, but it's late, so maybe not!)
I don't see how you can make a claim it is anything other than a lie without resorting to Clintonian analysis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike "Tax 'em 'til they bleed" Huckabee will not be the next POTUS, you can be sure of that!
So the tax was passed through the Arkansas legislature, signed by Governor Huckabee, and then the people approved the use of those funds for the improvement of Arkansas roads.
I'm torn; on one hand, I have no qualms about stating that he did the right thing at the time, but on the other hand, I am sincerely bothered that he and his campaign have so misrepresented the issue.
Darn.
I guess I just have one question: if the funds were already there, what was the argument for the 20.6% of voters who voted against the bonds? There was nothing out there to the effect that the taxes would be repealed or cut back if this bond issue did not pass, correct?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Why is it always the "Innovative Financing" methods that trip people up so badly? Why couldn't someone (like Mike Huckabee) come right out and say that Arkansas was raising taxes to fix the roads using this newfangled thing called a GARVEE bond?
Boy, that would have saved a whole lot of grief.
so many Republicans view ANY tax hike to be very bad.
Our political landscape is shaped by our expectations. We don't want the politicians to be honest. We have made it very clear that we don't.
And of course lying is oh so terrible, eventhough most people EXPECT politicians to lie. Apparently lying isn't bad. Gettint caught is bad.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Taxes are a Republican issue, much more so than for Democrats, who tend to care more about things like protection for transgendered individuals in the workplace. It's great to see Neil pointing out this argle-bargle that Huckabee tried to pull, particularly because if he had been straight with the people of Arkansas from the beginning he wouldn't have needed to dissemble about how he was "obligated" to abide by their wishes. He went from bad to worse on one of the most important issues Republicans need to think much more about.
Secondly, there's nothing about GARVEE bonds that couldn't be summarized in a couple of well-crafted sentences and would have been 100% truthful if Huckabee had wanted to take the time. People like Blackhedd here on RedState have proven beyond any doubt that even complex financial topics can be explained cogently if someone is willing to try.
Instead, Huckabee looks like someone who first tried to insult the intelligence of his state's citizens and then tried to insult the intelligence of everyone else in the country because he got away with it the first time.
That if anyone is up for some light reading that is begging to be distilled and explained better to the citizens of the state they're trying to foist it on, they can begin at the Federal Highway Administration, here.
This is one of those argot-laden pages that because of the opacity of its prose allows our politicians to get their heads way out in front of their skis and make unintelligible, meaningless or outright false statements while they pick everyone's pockets to keep the game rolling along. It's crying out for a simple explanation applied to this case.
Now it may be true that the fundamental language of government debt financing isn't something that sells pulp fiction novels or romance serials, but on the other hand there's not much there that cannot be distilled and presented accurately to voters if a politician with a hired staff and presumably a team of experts wanted to attempt it. It's just not that tough, and one would think any Republican governor would have made the effort to do so, instead of falling back on ridiculous platitudes like: "The people made me do it."
It is just a dynamic of today's politics. Even if you have the Ds with you on an issue, especially one such as a tax increase, the minute you actually enact it, they run against you for having done it. Consequently, you always hedge your position and use weasel words to describe your action. Ain't fittin', ain't right, but it's the way it is.
In Vino Veritas
attitude when you mention Rudy to them!
...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani
It is incredibly difficult to get a straight answer out of the Huckbots on this issue. They will dissemble forever if you let them.
I was fooled on this very issue a few weeks ago. One of them (I think it was "radicalconservative", but I could be wrong) posted a long message saying Huckabee didn't put up the taxes, the voters did. This is, of course, the equivalent of saying Bush 41 didn't put up taxes, Congress did. Bush asked Congress to put up taxes, and Congress obliged. But I had to ask three or four times before I could get the 'bot to confirm that Huckster had campaigned for the tax increase. To read his comment you would have imagined the whole question of the tax increase had caught Huckabee by surprise and he was just left to implement a tax increase that had been forced upon him by the voters.
Now it turns out the whole 'the voters did it' meme was a total fabrication in the first place.
Huckabee told the voters at the time that voting for the bond issue was not voting for a tax increase. Now he claims that it was.
Why should we take seriously someone who just wants to play "Hah, fooled ya!" with the voters?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
sympathy for Huckabee here. The roads, in a word, sucked. He needed money to fix them. He got it. While he was at it, he should have funded "Bill Clinton Slept Here" signs to help out-of-state tourists on The Pilgrimage. But one can't have everything.
I think the whole tax thing is detracting attention from the study of Huckabee's extremely modest credentials to be the next Commander-In-Chief in wartime.
I have no comment on Arkansas's roads then or since. I have a strong commitment to the idea that higher taxes are not the best way to solve problems. If Huckabee thinks higher taxes are the best way to solve problems, he should say so.
The whole I didn't do it, it was the voters, is a pretty poor excuse, and it turns out to be untrue.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I have a strong commitment to the idea that higher taxes are not the best way to solve problems.
Never?
So because he raised taxes to build roads and bridges, you think he is a pro-tax kinda guy and thus undesirable as a candidate?
And this is why Republican candidates must tapdance around their resumes because so many Republican voters are like you and view ANY tax hike for ANY reason to be bad.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
So because he raised taxes to build roads and bridges, you think he is a pro-tax kinda guy and thus undesirable as a candidate?
Yep, that's what I think. It doesn't matter what he says the money was for. There was plenty of money already in the Arkansas treasury. It was just that it was already being spent on other stuff. Even if the extra expenditure was wholly worthwhile extra taxes can only be defended if all the other expenditure was also valid.
Are you saying the state of Arkansas wasn't wasting any money on needless bureaucracy at the time?
And this is why Republican candidates must tapdance around their resumes because so many Republican voters are like you and view ANY tax hike for ANY reason to be bad.
Not at all. If Arkansas had a low tax burden before he came to office (it didn't) and if the state was already super-efficient (it wasn't) and if the extra expenditure could not have been financed in another way (it could have been) then higher taxes might have been worth considering.
Do recall, this is a guy who came into an office not long after Bill Clinton left it. And he thought that the problem was that taxes were too low when Clinton was governor.
Yep, that's what I need to know about Huckabee.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Huckabee has more executive experience as the head of government (or anything else) than anyone else running on either side... 11 yrs as governor (and some more as lt. governor). More than Romney, more than Guiliani, Thompson has never run anything but sat for a stint in the Senate voting... as governor for all those years, Huckabee has stated that he visited approximately 40 countries and repeatedly needed to deal directly with other countries and multinational corporations, visited Middle East repeatedly.
His D.C. speech and question answering to the Center for Strategic and International Studies was very well-received in September of this year if you are interested on where he is in detail on foreign policy issues, with transcript here
www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1388/
Reagan proved that foreign policy experience is not as important as being a Great Communicator with important leadership experience and conservative conviction as being crucial to being a great foreign policy President in winning Wars, cold wars or wars on terrorism in this media age.
...so get cracking.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moved here about three months ago. My impression is that taxes are unusually high(I have also lived in MI, AZ, and NC). Sales tax is 9 1/2%, which seems steep. Income taxes are steeply progressive once you get past $30,000. Sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, even though it seems like everybody smokes here.
My overall impression is that this state seems to lean a little towards socialist in that there are plenty of citizens here who seem to expect the government to take care of them. Not surprised at all that Clinton was successful here. From what I can tell, Huckabee was no tax cutter.
Please check the facts,
AR and TN are tied somewhere around the 4th LIGHTEST overall tax burden of all the fifty states in 2004. Thats the latest info I have and it is when Huckabee was governor.
I guess its a bad thing that he is not more concervative like others such as Romney. After "all" the taxes Huck raised so drasticly, AR was at about half the burden of Mass per capita.
Can't compare Fred Thompson because he has never ran anything.
Jim Tomasik
Romney took over from a Republican and brought taxes down. Huckabee took over from a Democrat and put taxes up.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
is susceptible to troubles on taxes. Changing polical dynamics, economics, and demographics have dramatically changed Southern government finances. For a century after the CW, the South mostly didn't spend money on "improvements" like roads and bridges and schools and such. It's tax schemes were developed to protect landowners and to rely heavily on user fees and sales taxes, which Southern politicians were quite open in defending as the only tax they could be sure Blacks would pay.
The Civil Rights Movement, industrialization, urbanization, and Yankee migration have changed the old system, so any Southern governor trying to finance a modern state is going to have to change its tax schemes and in many instances increase taxes.
In Vino Veritas
And I am sure you are right.
I am just as sure that I don't like governors who put up taxes.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
taxes are at best a necessary evil. While people of good faith may well disagree on what government should do, all would agree that there are some things that government must do, and those things must be paid for. What would you propose as an alternative to some sort of tax?
At one time in The South, the Grand Jury, which in olden days had a lot of governmental power, would direct that each landowner abutting a road be responsible for maintaining that road and from time to time direct that all the landowners on the road contribute labor and materiel to maintaining any bridges and fords on the road. They could, but rarely did, put you in jail or fine you for not living up to the obligation. In pristine terms, I suppose it has a certain attraction, but it sure made for a system of lousy roads and bridges in The South.
In Vino Veritas
all would agree that there are some things that government must do, and those things must be paid for.
Not quite all, but the wider point is accepted. I am one of those who thinks as you do, that some things need to be done by the government and therefore need to be paid for.
What would you propose as an alternative to some sort of tax?
I do not make such a proposition. I have not argued that there should be no taxes. I have argued against tax increases. (And also, though not with you since you have not defended this, against lying about tax increases).
As a general rule, I would like to see those government services which cannot be privatised financed by user fees, if possible. If this is not possible (as I conclude it is not with national defence) then taxes are essential. Where user fees are difficult or expensive to collect (as they have been with roads, though this is increasingly no longer the case) something which approximates a user fee is best. The irony of this case is that I think fuel taxes are a pretty good way - all things considered - of financing roads.
If Huckabee had put these taxes up while putting others down in a fiscally neutral way, I would have applauded him.
What I reject completely is the assumption that extra expenditure on roads (where such is necessary) can only be met by extra expenditure overall. That case can only be made if you are convinced not just that every dollar spent on roads in the Huckabee administration was essential but that every dollar spent on every programme was essential.
The Huckbots have not even begun to make that case. They have swallowed the NY Times line that government expenditure can only go up. Once a dollar has been spent on a programme once, it must be recommitted to that programme in perpetuity. No programme can ever be cut or made more efficient, therefore when any new need arises taxes must go up.
I do not share these premises.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Indeed, Bush (as President) took over directly from the same man that Huck (indirectly) succeeded as governor.
Big difference:
Bush thought the mess was that taxes were too high.
Huck thought the mess was that taxes were to low.
I'm with Bush.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Mike Huckabee is not Ronald Reagn however this is the same arguement they made against him. Tax and spend liberal. It seems to come with the territory. I am more interested in what he will do in the future. You should ask him.
Do you really, really, promise not to kill anyone again? Well, that's fine then.
Different argument with Reagan. He put taxes _down_ overall. And I don't remember anyone calling him a tax and spend liberal.
Nor did he spin a fabulous yarn about the tax rises he did have to bring in. Instead, he worked to reverse them. He admitted the tax rises; refused to blame others; didn't claim they were popular and so okay; he just reversed them and ran on a programme of tax cuts.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
The knock on Ronald Reagan coming out of California is that he was a tax and spend liberal. And using your standards, he was.
And please, can you actually back up your statement?
By my standards - the standards of any reasonable person - a tax and spend liberal is someone like Huckabee who puts taxes up overall. Reagan put them down overall.
Do you see the difference here? Up! Down! Not the same. Different.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
David, drugs are bad. Please do not make comments while you are using.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I don't have the link with me (though if you want me to get it, I will...I'll just have to learn how to paste the link in the post), but...
It's my understanding taxes grew more under Romney than under Huckabee...as a percentage of per capita household income.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Do the breakdown not of State/Local but State AND Local separated from each other.
Because what I can tell you, having lived in Massachusetts lo these last 8-years, is that state level taxes were essentially flat (or declined very slightly) under Romney while local taxes (real estate, personal property, etc.) climbed rather substantially.
Want to take a guess how much of a say the Governor of the Commonwealth has on local tax rates?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
That may account for the contradictory figures re Romney's period of office.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
...if I didn't already know the answer.
I may not be a lawyer, but even a dope like me knows that one.
Just saying...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This is one I just googled. It pretty much said the same thing. I have more links on my home PC.
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxprof.type...
Jim Tomasik
I live in Illinois and our tax burden is no where near "light" but our sales tax rate ranged from about 6.5% to about 8.5% depending on where you live (maybe higher in Chicago). There are State, county and municipality portions of the sales tax so the rate does vary a bit, but we still aren't up to AR levels.
Our income tax rate is 3% of Federal AGI with a few federal deductions added back in.
Some of our other taxes, like property taxes are a bit high, but I can't give you a standard "rate" since it varies by location and the assessed valuation (not markey value). But my taxes last year were about 2% of market value of my home (oh for the days when I lived in Colorado with a 1% cap).
We've already talked about gas taxes and sin taxes being high in AR.
So WHICH taxes is AR low on?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm with Fred!
The state sales tax is 6%. But the law allows for local authorities to tax sales, also. It is collected by the state and then redistributed to the local government. So the additional 3% is not a state tax but a local one.
The income tax starts at 1%(first $4,000 of income) but rises rapidly to 7%($30,000 of income). Everything above $30,000 is taxed at 7%. My property taxes are higher than both NC and AZ for a similarily valued home so not sure how AR can be considered a low tax state.
They are only one spot behind California in overall (state/county/local) tax burden.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...about a month ago when I was working on a certain question in my mind.
Please look close, you should find several errors. It had one comment somewhere in there about Tennesee's current income tax. We have no income tax.
One more point, Huckabee is not the Governor in 2007.
Jim Tomasik
Arkansas has a very low per capita income, so I would hope the per capita tax collections would also be low. If you got something that bases those rankings on % of income, lets have it. That would be the meaningful set of figures.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"AR and TN are tied somewhere around the 4th LIGHTEST overall tax burden of all the fifty states in 2004. Thats the latest info I have and it is when Huckabee was governor."
Link please.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
If there is better info out there please let me know. I do not want to be stating something inacurate. I beleive this comes from the Census folks.
Jim Tomasik
***The problem is, it's just not true.***
Before claiming something isn't true, you might want to check the actual text of the legislation. Here is Act 1027 of 1999:
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/acts/1999/htm/act1027.htm
And here is the relevant portion:
"The General Assembly has further determined that the bonds should be payable from certain designated revenues, including federal highway assistance funding and the proceeds of an increase in the excise tax on diesel fuel and that the repayment of such bonds should also be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state."
and here:
"...the excise tax on distillate special fuels, in addition to the taxes levied pursuant to Arkansas Code Sections 26-56-201, 26-56-502 and 26-56-601, will increase by two cents (2¢) per gallon on the effective date of the Act, and the additional tax levied by Section 2 of the Act shall increase to four cents (4¢) per gallon on the first anniversary of such date."
The legislature passed taxes to fund the bonds, but the taxes weren't on the ballot. The taxes were a done deal. If the voters had rejected the bond measure, the taxes would still be there, no?
Zuiko found the actual text of the ballot the voters were faced with for us to read. No taxes.
See also the contemporary media coverage which cites Huckabee's own claims that the ballot measure was not related to taxes.
Read section 7. The Assembly declares an emergency and says that the bill becomes effective "on the date of its approval by the Governor."
I think we need a lawyer. What happens when a bill has two separate effective dates listed, one in section 3 that triggers on a ballot measure, and one on section 7 that cites a state Constitutional emergency clause to get it effective immediately?
Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall become effective on the date of its approval by the Governor. If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, it shall become effective on the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill. If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, it shall become effective on the date the last house overrides the veto.
It seems like they are talking about the effective date of the bill in Section 7, and the effective date of the tax hike on section 3. So if this is true, then the tax hike would be made effective only after voters approved the related bond.
This exonerates Huckabee if my interpretation is correct.
If you're right, then this saves him on the diesel tax. But there's still the matter of the gas tax.
While it may be true that the voters approved the measure, it is *not* something that happened without Huckabee's consent. It was *not* imposed on him. He actively sought, and got, voter consent for higher taxes.
As President, all he would need would be the consent of Congress.
Here's a trivia question for you: when was the last time a president asked for a tax rise and congress turned him down?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
There's also the matter of him lying when he was telling the people of AR that the ballot measure wasn't for a tax hike.
And then there's the fact that the ballot measure doesn't mention a tax hike at all. If tax hikes are so popular in AR, why is any mention of a hike hidden from the ballot text?
This pig doesn't get to look any better no matter how much lipstick is smeared on it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
To have lied to the voters on a matter such as this seems to me to be unforgiveable.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
the legislature and signed into law by Huckabee BEFORE the ballot initiative on the bond issue.
The fuel taxes were already law by the time the ballot initiative rolled around. Huckabee is lying about the fuel taxes being part of the ballot initiative, they were already law and the initiative simply designated them to pay back the bond.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The problem here is not that everyone lies. It is a problem with the length the author goes to to find evidence for it. No one can under go such advent searching for positions and things they say and don't say, even in writing. I know, as a public figure someone can always play, the "I gotcha" card. And I am a pastor, and I never intend to be dishonest. I am surprised that redstate.com would spend so much time trying to attack one of their own. It really is disgusting.
I quoted two separate instances of the man telling this story of 80% of Arkansas voters supporting the tax hike, and it's known he's also used that line in debates.
This wasn't a simple memory error, or a slip of the tongue. This is a line that he's working into his routine, that he's deliberately using over and over again.
I put effort into exposing it because he puts effort into telling it.
You obviously must be promoting someone else. Mike Huckabee had to defend himself from the Club of Growth Smear. He put forth what he believed was truthful. So who do you support? Do you want me to track down everything they have said in their defence of their record. This is shameless. My opinion for sure, but I think it is accurate.
The Huckster takes a simple issue that is really easy to check and lies about it. He lies about it because he knows that his fiscal record will bury him in a national campaign. All Club for Growth did was some simple, basic research and discovered that Rev. Huckabee is lying about the fuel tax issue.
I support Franz. Have a good time tracking down stuff on him.
And your opinion is as dispicable as your candidate. He didn't "put forth waht he believed was truthful", he was Governor, he signed the legislation increasing the fuel taxes, he campaigned for the bond issue that was on the ballot and I'm confident he strongarmed the trucking lobby into accepting a 4 cent fuel tax increase v something that would be more onorus to them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I can and will support any of the top five republican canidates. I really would prefer not to smear any of them. The goal, I would think, is to produce a team (President/VP) that will win next November. Let your canidate win on His own merits. You don't need to do stuff like this. Sorry it is shameful. And yes the club for growth spent thousands of dollars smearing this man. They must fear him.
I have actually been spending less and less time here. I thought we had a good chance of becoming a leading voice for the Party. Now, I think the tenor of this site is LESS than the average Republican Joe. I think the average Republican is MORE postive and MORE proactive than many who come here. If I hade to put a one word label on the tenor of this site over the last several months, it would be" "Whiners".
Molon Labe!
There will be plenty of time to unite behind the nominee after we have one.
However hard we are on the candidates, the Democrats will be harder. Anything we find, the Democrats will also find. There's no use in sheltering our candidates from this kind of thing, because they can either figure out how to survive it now, or they can try to figure that out when they get nailed with it in October.
I'd much rather they figure it out now. If they can't whether the storm, I would like to know that now rather than find out after the convention.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sorry, but it is trashing a person to call them a liar. Probably, would fit most any of us. It is definitly a smear job. This is not what the primaries are all about in my opinion. We can be civil in our discourse, and talk about the merits of the people we like.
That is important information to have. I'd rather it gets reported now than 11 months from now. And the "but everybody else is doing it!" defense hasn't worked since I was 7. I don't think it even worked then.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you call a liar a liar, that is not a smear. Nor is it an example of "bias" other than a bias against dishonesty.
This is a man who is consistently lying about his record as a tax-hiker. Both of these - his tax-hiking and his lying - are powerful points against him.
Plainly, you can judge for yourself how you wish to prioritise the man's economic record and personal integrity in choosing a candidate. If neither matter to you, then perhaps Huckabee is your man.
But it is not right for you to complain at others bringing this up, as though everyone ought to agree that raising taxes and lying about raising taxes are irrelevant points.
Nor is it right for you to accuse either the OP or the Club for Growth of "smearing" Huckabee when all they are doing is telling the truth about him. Now, calling the Club for Growth the Club for Greed, that is a smear.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
But CfG's actions have been a little fishy. They attacked Huck when Huck was < 2% in the polls. Their first white paper was about Huck. And now we know who financed the Iowa ads: an Arkansas personal rival of Huckabee named Stephens Jr. Follow the money:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004079.html
They have also been silent on the faults of the other candidates. They never mentioned that Fred was unwilling to sign the "no tax" pledge. They hit Huck hard on the nursing bed tax in their Iowa ads, but they never mentioned that Romney supported a nursing bed tax too.
Other groups, like the prominent Americans for Tax Reform, are willing to give Huck the benefit of the doubt, since they know that Reagan had a mixed economic record as governor too:
They are biased. Biased against tax-hikers. It is in their charter.
The whole nonsense about this being something personal is a dangerous and deeply dishonest meme that needs to be countered.
Stephens is an entrepreneur and GOP activist who opposed Huckabee's policies because Huckabee's polices involved raising taxes. Good for him.
To imply that that this is somehow disreputable is to fall into the lefty trap of declaring that all conservatives are bad people. It dismisses even from consideration the idea that anyone can have a principled opposition to tax rises, therefore anyone who fought Huckabee on this issue is, of necessity, pursuing a personal grudge.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Yeah, I have my favorites within the party, but I try not to trash any of them. One may one day be my President, and I will honor them as such. Even a democrate, though I pray daily that will not happen. LOL
In the particular case of the subject of this blog, Huckabee lied about something that required virtually no research. He didn't "misspeak" and he wasn't confused about the issue, he drove the legislation raising the taxes through the AR legislature and he put the bond issue on the AR ballot and campaigned for it. He apparently felt the need to duck the tax issue (for good reason) and lied about it. And got caught.
If you think the folks here are hard on him, just stop for a second and imagine that this hadn't been caught here. The Clinton Machine would have this cued up in seconds and would bury him in minutes.
Aside from the fact that this particular incident is just stupid on the part of the Huckster, it will be interesting to see how he works through this. The guy is a second rate governor who's never been exposed to the real heat in the big leagues.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If you think the folks here are hard on him, just stop for a second and imagine that this hadn't been caught here. The Clinton Machine would have this cued up in seconds and would bury him in minutes.
Heh. I hope CfG puts up this fuel tax as an ad. We'll just rope-a-dope to victory. Any mainstream voter would accept Huck's explanation of the situation.
I am saying as a whole, we as a group, on certain subjects, are becomming a bunch of bores.
1) Rudy takes the lead = a bunch of self important angry people tell us how they will NEVER vote for him, even against Chavez.
2) Huck gets a little traction = Rudy hates takes a respite as it is not time to destroy Huck.
3) McCain gets a positive mention on the front page = some more come out to say how horrible McCAin is and they will drink Champagne the day he loses, even in the general election.
4) what about Romney? yeah, he has taken hits too.
I am not saying we should not do our due diligence, but I am saying positive people can elect a non perfect candidate. We as a group seem not only divided, but angry and boring. People do not want to get off a hard day at work to come to a site that trashes their own kind over every little thing. As the people that run this site, politics is one thing, due diligence another, but if people stop showing up because the place has become too negative, then there could easily be a decision to make. Look what they did to the Paulbots.
Of course I am not in a position of power, but what I do for a living is try to get out ahead of the actual change. I think there could be a point where people say, "is this what we created"? I could be wrong. I argue too but hopefully in a constructive way. But the endless tirades of "I will NEVER vote for _______ candidate even if my life depends on it"!!!, are getting tired, very, very tired.
Molon Labe!
And since he'll walk away with the nomination all of the rest of this stuff is just academic.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
and this is actually news. I grant a lot of the negative stuff can get tedious, but I -want- to know when a candidate is fudging, and when an accusation is proven false. The party has a decision to make, and pretending all the candidates are faultless wouldn't help anyone. There is a general election to win.
As for the "self-important angry people" posting against a particular candidate - well, you might have noticed a thread telling people to get out of the party, and another one calling for the resignation of some contributors. This works both ways. If people continue to bring up the subject, it's going to be discussed.
When debate stops but the discussion doesn't, i.e. one or both sides continuing to pound their talking points while not making worthwhile responses, then it's time to consider slowing things down.
wwere referring to moi, see relevant portion of
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/nov/11/shall_i_hire_the_best...
here
"I know you guys will do the right thing. But if any of you can't, and have a paid position at Redstate. Feel free to resign and hire me."
I did not call on anyone to resign, now did I?
"Feel free" to apologize to Mike DeVine. Notice how GC didn't call on you to apologize.
The nuances of the Emglish language...LIVE IT!
Whitfox, don't mess with a good trial lawyer. Esp a pro-life reformed one that now does cprp work but that can still make foxes curl up in the fetal position with 5 questions or less.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
why a suggestion to resign if "you can't" "do the right thing" isn't a call to resign. But I'm happy to withdraw the characterization when your words make the point so well.
That point being this was a provocative thread, certain to raise the issue of Rudy's limited appeal to pro-lifers. It was a fine blog, but I'm saying it's silly to complain about negative comments in threads that practically beg for them.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Huckabee was voted one of the top governors in the nation by many outside, disinterested parties and publications. This is smear, plan and simple. And yes a hit job can be done on anyone. If you have a person to promote, do it.
Mike Huckabee was voted one of the top governors in the nation by many outside, disinterested parties and publications.
Might want to check her out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Probably not a popular thing to say on this site, but it is true. Now, I can't think of any off-hand. But I am sure she does, she has to. I think. Ok, so maybe I am wrong about this.
I do here she raised a decent kid, who knows. I don't think she is evil, just a pretentious, new money (unearned), lefty lib who will do ANYTHING to get power.
Molon Labe!
On this particular issue, their update is as follows:
While Huckabee repeatedly claims that 80% of Arkansas voters approved the gas and diesel fuel tax increases that he backed,[24] the frequency of his repetition of this claim does not make it true. In fact, the claim is false. The Arkansas Legislature passed two bills in March of 1999 to pay for transportation projects, a gas and fuel tax hike, not subject to voter approval, and a bond issue that was contingent on voter approval.[25] Huckabee signed the gas and diesel fuel tax increases into law on April 1, 1999; the tax hikes began taking effect that day.[26] Voters approved the bond issue, but this referendum did not include the gas and fuel tax increases[27] and did not take place until June 15, 1999.[28] Importantly, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette made this clear when it wrote, "the tax increases [signed by Huckabee] will stay whether voters approve the bond issue or not."[29]
The full update is here...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/anteater/2007/oct/30/huckabees_fiscal_reco...
I called CfG out for having outdated info.
Anymore than simple truthfulness is Mike Huckabee's friend.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If the tax hikes took effect that day, as CfG says, then my interpretation of the diesel law Section 7 is right after all.
...from that pdf that there was a trigger. I don't have access to the articles -- but your interpretation might be right; we'll see how it pans out.
In any case, Huck can simply use the line without any problems:
"We raised the gas taxes, and we put it on the ballot, and 80% of the voters agreed with my plan to fix the roads."
The spirit of what he is saying is absolutely correct (the people overwhelmingly approved of his plans); the details may be conflated.
My point is who cares??? They are attacking him because they support someone else. Guess who??? It is a lousy way to promote Republicans.
You people are in denial, you should be in a 12 step group.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If you're going to reply to somebody, Click the Reply To This link below the comment you're replying to. Otherwise your comments are out of place and begin to disrupt the conversation.
Thank you.
Those who are attacking others' canidates must not have much faith in their own. It is a simple as that!!!!
If you want me to lay off Huckabee on this issue (and for the record I support no one yet) then you and Anteater had better get out of the KoolAid and point this stuff out. Bottom line, your guy is dirty on this. Do something about it other than whine about C4G.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Hard to imagine you are not working for another candidate. Never met anyone so "against" someone who was just sincerely trying to help me out with my choice. You do need to lay off it and find someone to believe in. This stuff just makes people more entrenched. And it makes you look like a political hack.
I'm not trying to help you do anything other than find the "Reply To This" link and on that count it looks like we're successful.
I'm not working for anybody and I if you've never met "anyone so 'against' someone" then you lead a sheltered life.
I have no intention of laying off anybody. I also don't throw around specious charges or conspiracy theories. Take a look at the Huckster. The guy lies about stuff that is really, really simple to check and if he'd bothered to tell the truth I suspect he'd pretty much get a pass on the issue at hand. That, David, is a sign of a real problem. Think of the last Governor of Arkansas who ran for national office - he did the same stuff. And Huckabee's no better.
We have some excellent candidates this time around, I like Fred, I like Rudy, I can live with Mitt, I don't like McCain at all but I'll vote for him in the general. Huckabee is a seriously dishonest guy at his core and he has no business in this race. He should run for Senate where corruption and lying is overlooked.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
As far as I'm concerned (and I mean no disrespect to Neil here), this is a rather silly fight to pick. You can say that Huckabee is a liar if you like, but if that's the case every other candidate in the GOP field is just as much a liar.
What is going on here is a rather common type of factual fudging. Governor Huckabee is guilty of conflating two separate pieces of legislation, both of which were integral parts in the Governor's plan to reform Arkansas's badly deficient roads. The first of these bills, the (rather modest) gasoline tax increase, was voted on by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor himself. The second, the bond issue, was voted into law by the voters of Arkansas. The Governor has not denied that he supported the tax increase (far from it, he has bragged about it), but has claimed a popular mandate to do so from the electorate of Arkansas. In one sense this is technically incorrect in that the people did not actually vote on the tax increase. But in a larger sense it is true because the vote on the bond issue did reveal a strong sentiment on the part of the people of Arkansas for comprehensive road repair in the late 1990's.
As a former resident of the Ozarks (on the Missouri side of the border) I have something of an insider's perspective on this issue. First, let me assure you that the Governor is not lying when he says that Arkansas's roads were badly in need of a major reform program. After years of neglect by previous administrations (cough, you know who, cough) the situation had reached almost crisis proportions. Right now Arkansas's roads are still in poor condition by comparison with the rest of the country, but they are no longer the pavement death-trap that they used to be. As one who has driven in just about every corner of the state I can assure you that there has been major improvement during Huckabee's time in office.
Furthermore, the cost of these repairs has not been excessive. In Arkansas gas taxes are still pretty reasonable. Arkansas ranks 25th in the nation in gas taxes, putting it right in the middle of the pack. [1] Moreover, overall price per gallon of gasoline in Arkansas trends at about 6 to 12 cents below the national average. [2] I know that as conservatives we're reflexively against all tax increases (and that's a good thing), but all things considered Arkansas got a good return on Huckabee's gas taxes.
[1] http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/14.html
[2] http://www.arkansasgasprices.com/
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
if it were the only way the state could fund the roads. Such core infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, IMO. Gas taxes are a reasonable way to pay for them.
However, that doesn't pardon his campaign and particularly Huckabee from making the statements in the original posts. I'm not interested in the "Everybody does it" excuse. If we're going to attack HRC for saying what people want to hear, we don't want be vulnerable to the same charge, with hypocrisy added.
There's also the question, from the fiscal-con point of view, of why Huckabee didn't use this opportunity to reduce other state spending. Maybe that was impractical, but Huckabee's losing his opportunity to make such arguments with this distortion. If he's rightly proud of what he's done for Arkansas, let him defend his actual record. If he now believes it was partly a mistake, let him say so. Either is a heck of lot more impressive than getting caught in a lie.
I'm not interested in the "Everybody does it" excuse.
It would be really easy to point out the "lies" of the other Republican candidates, but self-control is a virtue.
Did he lie about supporting the gasoline tax increase? No. Did he lie about his reason for the tax increase? No. The only thing he may have "lied" about is whether or not the people voted on the tax increase. IMO, that's not the same thing as a candidate lying about whether or not he supported tax increases at all (cough, Romney, cough, cough).
Listen, right now I'm not planning on voting for Huckabee in the primaries, but if any of the anti-Huckabee folks around here (for the most part they seem to be for Giuliani or Romney) want to sell me on their candidates they're going to have to do better than dragging up non-issues like this.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Gas taxes on the whole (particularly in urban areas) cannot raise enough to pay for road improvements. So instead, why have people in "Podunk, State" pay in gas taxes for the overly high price of road improvements in "Urban Decay, State."
If you can show me an example of every other leading candidate misrepresenting his record this badly, this often, and attack a pretty well respected right-wing advocacy group (never forget Toomey! and he *leads* them now!), then I'll buy the "everyone does it" argument.
But It seems to me most Rs are just *changing* their positions as needed, not just making up stories about their records.
Look, he could have done precisely the same thing Giuliani has done with respect to guns: "I believe Arkansas had a special circumstnace, having had roads run into the ground by corrupt Democrats, and yes, I voted for tax increases to pay for road improvement bonds. I stand by that, even though I know that this situation is unique to Arkansas, and wouldn't be appropriate in other situations, including at the national level."
No, he had to make up a story, and that to me shows a kind of desperation I find unseemly.
that you are not working for another candidate. I will repeat, I have never seen anyone work so hard to defeat someone else without motive. I just you are just a crusader for justice. That would make you a rare bird these days. This is silly, and it is and has been adressed. Get a candidate and tell us why he is good for America. One could make a case that Romney is lying when he says he is now pro-life, by what he has said on the record. I am not saying that, but one could easily. No, everyone is not 'doing it', but they are all human.
You will find there are people here who feel quite strongly about issues such as taxes and integrity.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
political hacks on sites like this one. Why are you not going after Romney's record with such intensity. Curious that is all?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
mbecker908 is one of the most respected, ornery, no-bs posters on this site. If he was shilling for someone, by God he would say so, and probably call you an idiot for asking. Calling him a political hack is laughable at best.
This is a fight you don't want to have, with someone we all respect a great deal.
He posted the same thing twice in this thread and when I went to respond I appear to have picked the wrong place. Oh well.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm with Fred!
I am not as ornery as our friend Mr 908. But then, I don't have Franz as my keeper.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You Brits are just more civilized than we colonists and we have to accept that and get over it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I find it curious that Romney the fiscal conservative refused to openly endorse Bush's tax cuts when governor of Massachusetts, openly earning the praise of Barney Frank:
"I was very pleased," Frank said afterward. "Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity."
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/07/romney-lying-about-his-tax-record/
Huckabee's tax rises. Which puts him well ahead of your guy.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
...was an important issue. At least Huck was openly supportive of it.
To think, Romney earned the open praise of Barney Frank for refusing to stand for tax cuts!
And then he claimed that he actually supported the tax cuts, when he didn't.
(What's ironic is that Romney was also open to the idea of a federal increase in gas taxes).
did not require the support of the governor of Massachusetts to go through. I agree this is a bad, but very minor, point on Romney's record.
Now, back to the point of the thread.
Arkansas got some tax _rises_ which would not have happened if Huckabee had not campaigned so enthusiastically for them.
Now he is saying they weren't his fault.
They were his fault, until he owns up he can't ask for forgiveness.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
They were his fault, until he owns up he can't ask for forgiveness.
The people in Arkansas sure didn't need to forgive him. They re-elected him over and over again, and gave him high approval ratings. They overwhelmingly approved of his plan to fix the roads.
Most mainstream voters would be totally content with Huck's explanation. But the proof is in the actual poll. So let's wait for Iowa.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
When he told them before the vote that it was not to endorse the tax increases or when he told them afterwards that it was?
If being able to win an election by comfortable margins is the standard there are plenty of others who are qualfied - more so than Huckster, actually. If supporting conservative policies is the standard, well, I think you know, Huckster is not worth considering.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
And I, for one, can tell you that I was quite 1) shocked and 2) pissed at my Governor for making that statement in 2003. And Romney is certainly vulnerable to this - no doubt about it.
But here's the problem, Anteater. You're dumping this turd in a thread about Huckabee's tax record. So, rather than defending your guy, your saying, essentially - but look, look over here, really!!!
Which is annoying.
And doesn't help you convince me that you're doing anything other than playing misdirection because, tarnished though Romney's record might be, it's actually pretty solid compared to your guy's.
So here's a suggestion (which carries no weight, of course, as I do not possess the requisite juice to make it a threat) - write diary number n+1 as to why Mitt Romney is really a tax-hiking, tax-and-spend, raise-taxes-the-first-chance-he-gets liberal and make your case why Romney should be, again, for the umpteenth time, scrutinized the way Huck's record is for the, well, first time in this race. Be my guest. Have at it.
Or, start doing a better job of explaining-away the fact that I cannot distinguish Huck's rhetoric on economics, CEO pay, forced behavior-modification, AGW and the like from, say, Silky Pony's.
Or continue to misdirect and whine whenever somoene writes something "mean" about Huck - if you think it helps his cause.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
o, rather than defending your guy, your saying, essentially - but look, look over here, really!!!
Like I haven't "defended my guy". The discussion turned to Romney and so we started talking about Romney. I've put out several comments defending Huck on this issue on this diary and the other diary:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/joe_carter/2007/nov/13/did_huckabee_lie_ab...
But if it requires a new diary on Romney, then maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. I might throw in Fred as a bonus ;)
To the point that I can write them for you. They amount to:
1) Clintonian parsing (the gas-tax vote, for example)
2) "You're lying"
3) Romney is worse
So please, if you think you can improve on Crank's 5-part series entiteld The Trouble with Mitt Romney, be my guest. My guess is that you're going to fall well short, but at least that will be time you're not spamming Huck-threads with misdirection.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The problem with ripping Romney is, there are still three other serious candidates in the race besides Mike and Mitt. And while they all have their weaknesses, none of them has the kind of problems with tax-and-spend/nanny-state/big-government issues that Huck does.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Because I think it's well written and research - but I ended up pressing "Send" instead of "Preview". Oops.
My bad - wasn't intentional.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
My motive is one that's been plastered all over this site. I don't work for anyone but myself, but in my personal view, the party would be best served by nominating Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.
*Would* I work for Fred Thompson if asked? Probably, if the job offered would be in line with what I can offer.
So yeah, I want to see Mike Huckabee's campaign go down, but you don't have to work for someone else's campaign to want that.
If you want attacks on Romney, look to other posters on this site. That's the neat thing about RS: It's a community, not just one guy.
I've had the feeling for over a month that he's going to the nominee's pick.
He's cheerful and non-offensive, just the kind of fellow who usually gets picked.
Hey, even cheerier than Cheney.
That's a real possibility if Giuliani is the nominee. It's the perfect odd-couple paring, kind of like Kennedy/Johnson in '60 or Reagan/Bush in '80, bringing the two wings of the party together.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
... but I like him because he's a hard core conservative who takes no prisoners. I would not hold him up as a standard of cheerfulness. That's kind of like saying that someone is more cheerful than a proctologist or an undertaker.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Just because all of our friends tell us to jump off a bridge does not mean we should, and just because all politicians are believed to lie does not mean they should.
Huckabee deliberately lying to the nation is a problem, and should not be ignored. Voters (and I know from personal experience as a student reporter covering the New Hampshire primary (www.campusvoices.org for articles and videos on all the candidates) want honest politicians and cite it as one of the most important qualities of the candidate they will elect.
To me, that's not crazy, I want to know what you are going to do in office, and if I have evidence Mike Huckabee is already lying to me, I sure as hell am not going to vote for such a wild card.
Show me one candidate that can not be caught in a lie. It's politics. To me, it's a matter of what area they are lying in. Could Huckabee be lying when he says that he will not raise taxes? He definitely could be. Could Guiliani be lying when he says that he will only appoint strict constuctionist? He could be. Could Romney be lying when he says that his views on marriage and abortion have change? Yep. Could Thompson be lying on why he lobbied for an abortionist group? Again, yes.
I would rather roll the dice with someone who says they will not raise the taxes knowing they might, than with someone who says that they are against the murdering of innocent babies and they might not be. Me paying more money or babies being murdered. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. I don't trust any top-tier candidate but Huckabee on social issues.