Posted on 10/02/2010 4:28:42 AM PDT by grassboots.org
If there is one axiom conservatives and liberals can agree on, it is this: It is difficult to undo social programs. Take Social Security. In 1982, Social Security became known as the “third rail” of politics, a taboo to be addressed by politicians only at the risk of becoming a social outcast or worse yet, a political corpse. One can hardly blame the citizenry for resisting politicians who try to take away some benefit they have come to depend on, even if the electorate agrees any benefit was suspect from the very beginning and the economic soundness was tenuous at best. In other words, you don’t go against old people and their retirement.
However, George W Bush touched the “third rail” of Social Security twice and survived both times. In 2001, ongoing discussion about 9/11 and terrorism minimized the impact of President Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security Report released in December of that year. And In 2005, President Bush was never able to sell the idea to the American people. They simply paid little attention to him. But it seems he paid no price.
In some ways, things have gotten worse politically. Today, even at the height of the Tea Party movement little consideration is given to revamp or replace Social Security. Now, even a failure to embrace new social programs is considered unrealistic or foolish. What is the “third rail” in this political cycle? Perhaps it is the generally accepted idea that insurance companies should have to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Who could be against that? The prevailing view is that only heartless Barbarians and Neanderthals wanting to take us back to the stone ages could oppose it. Even Mitt Romney included this requirement MassCare,
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
I don’t trust Huckabee as far as I can throw him. Actually I don’t even trust him as far as I could throw him when he was morbidly obese.
I would support any effort to get rid of government entitlements. It was wrong to tell people that government would take care of their retirement, their health care, their housing, their food. All of that should go. It's basically charity paid for by current tax revenue, and the government should not be in the charity business.
I would support a transition that would gradually phase out SS over the next 20 years. People under 45 would have to plan to mostly support themselves another way in retirement.
In the meantime, I stand with the post in not entangling ourselves in more entitlements
You and me both.
We three agree.
“Governor Huckabee has common sense on economic issues and his principles allow him to face even potential voters with hard truths. “
Really! Then why does he support illegal immigration and open borders if he has so much common sense on economic issues? If we taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bill for their massive cost, we could buy all the insurance we’d ever need.
My other thought, in terms of phase outs, is that the federal budget needs to be cut 10% a year, every year, for 5 years. If we get into a hot war -- if Congress formally declares war against another nation -- then I would accept an increase in spending, but other than that, I would like us to be on a path to a budget which is 50% of what we have now.
If you can find one ounce of proof he supports open borders I would love to see it.
Where do you stand on the issue? Details, please.
I am with you all the way, ClearCase Guy
Let’s NOT give Hope another chance.
LLS
I will as long as we blame Bush.
Google is your friend. An example:
Now that he has become a front-runner, Mike Huckabee is feeling the heat from other Republican candidates who are scrutinizing his record as governor of Arkansas for evidence of "liberal" or "Democratic" inclinations. One leading rival, Fred Thompson, has accused Huckabee of having "championed" an effort to permit illegal immigrants to benefit from in-state tuition rates at state universities. Huckabee has denied the charge, claiming that his support was limited to a much more restrictive scholarship program.
Huckabee's denials fly in the face of the record.
The Facts
During his annual "State of the State address" to the Arkansas state legislature in January 2005, Huckabee proposed making "any student graduating from a high school in Arkansas" eligible for state financial aid. He said it was "terribly unjust" to deny such aid solely on the basis of the student's immigration status, "a status that he had no decision in and no control over."
"Huckabee plan would aid illegal immigrants," the state's leading newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, reported the following day.
The wording of the governor's proposal was a little vague. A Democratic representative named Joyce Elliott, had already proposed legislation granting in-state tuition status to undocumented immigrants who had attended Arkansas secondary schools for at least three years. During talks with the governor's staff, Elliott agreed to include a scholarship provision in her bill, which became known as House Bill 1525. She says that both parts of the bill were fully supported by Huckabee. As a condition for qualifying for in-state tuition, the students had to have high school diplomas and file affidavits stating that they "intended" to legalize their immigration status.
"I never had the slightest indication that he wanted any changes," Elliott told me, when I called her in Little Rock. "He clearly supported the entire bill, and I never heard anything different from them."
Huckabee defended the bill in conversations with reporters, and expressed disappointment when the measure failed to pass the Arkansas Senate by just two votes. "I don't understand the opposition to it, I just honestly don't," Huckabee said, according to an April 14, 2005 Associated Press report. "It hurts me on a personal as well as a policy level to think that we are still debating issues that I kind of hoped we had put aside in the 1960s."
Asked about the measure during the November 28 CNN/YouTube debate, Huckabee said that his proposal applied to students who had been in Arkansas schools from the time they were "five or six years old," were "A-plus" students, "drug and alcohol-free", and in the process of "applying for citizenship." He implied that his support was limited to these students, a point reiterated by his spokeswoman Kirsten Fedewa.
"He did not support in-state tuition," Fedewa said in an e-mail. "He supported scholarships for students who qualified."
The Pinocchio Test
The distinction that Huckabee is attempting to draw is an artificial one. His original State of the State address talked about making all Arkansas high school graduates eligible for state "financial aid," not just A-plus students applying for citizenship. It is true that Huckabee was particularly interested in the scholarship part of the bill. But it is untrue to claim that he "did not support in-state tuition" for illegal immigrants. Three Pinocchios.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/pinocchios_for_huckabee_on_ill.html
It’s too bad you Huckabee-haters aren’t willing to shoot straight. Supporting in-state tuition rates for children ofr illegals is not the same thing as “open borders” and you know it.
No one accuses Rick Perry of Texas of supporting open borders but he implemented the same plan for tuition years before Huckabee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.