Posted on 11/14/2007 7:23:28 PM PST by RebekahT
The Arkansas Supreme court mandated a lot of addition expenditures for education system to get us off the crap list at the Department of Ed in DC. It had to do with the way we handled revenue sharing to school districts. It was deemed inappropriate by the court. This additional cost was not totally covered by the legislature in the form of offset cuts after much inside baseball, so Huckabee asked for the tax increase to balance the budget as required by our Constitution.
He was trying to do two things with this move. One thing was to force the legislature to enact some more trimming from their allocations, and the other was that if they refused, to embarrass them by the tax increase they forced on the public.
Somehow, with Arkansas politics being the blood sport that it is, Max Brantly, a widely read republican hating liberal managed through his constant media bashing to turn the tables and make the tax increase look like it was all Huckabees idea.
Huckabee's statement about the increase being tied to the Arkansas court decision is fundamentally correct, but had the legislator, (100% controlled by democrats) enacted the cuts needed to compensate for the additional outlays, the tax increase would never have been necessary.
I'm not trying to support Huckabee or any of his more liberal social ideas. I am simply trying to give you the context behind this tax increase to show the readers of this thread why it happened.
First of all, the Arkansas Journal, a conservative blog, broke this story, not the Arkansas Times or Max Brantley.
Second of all, the tax that Huckabee was seen “begging” for in the video had absolutely nothing to do with Lakeview. As a matter of fact, the special session called to address the Supreme Court mandate took place later in 2003. This tax increase was for “general revenue” and generated a very large surplus the following year.
The point is that Huckabee is trying to run for president as a tax-cutter when, in fact, he raised taxes multiple times in Arkansas and greatly increased spending. Huckabee’s campaign is trying to muddy the waters by bringing up Lakeview and that’s how he got caught telling a fib to Fox News yesterday.
Even if the tax increase was being shoved down his throat (which it wasn’t, as the Arkansas Journal documented), his actions were not in line with someone who is being forced to raise taxes. Have you seen the 2003 video? He looks elated to raise taxes. “You’ll have nothing but my profound thanks” ?!?!? Probably because he was thinking of all of his nanny-state programs he would be able to fund with the increased revenue.
Who says I am a supporter? Read my posts and point that out. I don't really "like" Romney or particularly trust him. I have said I think he is an excellent speaker and perhaps the only one of the lot who even knows how to communicate. I also like him on many issues. But he is a slick politician and that part turns me off. So its a mixed bag with Romney.
But there is a huge difference between being a governor of Arkansas vs Massachusetts which was my sole point. What I find sad in forums like this (and not singling you out) is how people tend to jump to conclusions from simple posts. A person could post something that distinguishes Candidate A from B and suddenly they are a Candidate A supporter. I find things good and bad in all of these candidates. I like some things about McCain but he's been a traitor on many things and has ticked me off too many times. So if I say something nice about how McCain has been good on the WoT am I a McCain supporter? I like some things about Thompson but I'm begining to think he's a Bob Dole 2. Have absolutely no use for Giuliani at all. I like Hunter but he is going nowhere. So I have no candidate right now.
~”If that isn’t amnesty, then what is amnesty.”~
Amnesty (n): the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
http://m-w.com/dictionary/amnesty
Romney has never, to my knowledge, advocated pardoning people of violation of immigration law.
~”I thought that it meant that you were here contrary to law, you say that you want citizenship, and then the politician provides support.”~
Uh, no. That’s not what amnesty means. Read carefully, now:
“My view is, those who are here contrary to the law should seek to establish legal residence. And if they do so, I would be delighted to provide support.”
What Romney -said- (in contrast to how you’re twisting his words to suit your purpose) is that -if- an illegal immigrant takes action to establish his or her legal residence, then Romney would support that action. I think any good conservative would do the same.
Perhaps. But is Masschusetts a more liberal state than Arkansas? Yes or No?
~”Your opinion, my opinion pass the barf bag, actions speaks louder than words.”~
Fine, fair enough.
What actions?
The only think you’ve got is that he hired a lawn care company that employed illegals. The other day, there’s a good chance that I handed my clothing over to an illegal at the dry cleaners. That doesn’t make me pro-amnesty. You have not one iota of public policy or statement to support your claim that Mitt Romney is pro-amnesty. Not one.
Either eat your words or make me eat mine. Back up your accusation, or stop making it.
I am missing the difference, they come forward and they stay, with Romney’s support.
I call that amnesty.
The video is here, motor mouth. If you don’t like little old liberal mitts pro amnesty stance that’s your problem.
~”I am missing the difference, they come forward and they stay, with Romney’s support.”~
You’re missing the difference because you’re determined to do so.
The difference is, Romney wants illegals to bring themselves in line with the law. You are interpreting that as him saying that he wants to forgive them for breaking the law.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Romney. I support him because he’s the best of those who have a shot at winning; I am dissatisfied with several other things about him.
But it’s not productive to make up accusations to throw at him from whole cloth. Irregardless of his other faults, he is not pro-amnesty by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he ever been in his public life.
You can claim he has by taking a quote or two out of context; but if that’s all you’ve got in your attempts to refute him, then your position is tenuous indeed.
“The other day, there’s a good chance that I handed my clothing over to an illegal at the dry cleaners. “
Why do you guys always make those silly comparisons, the most common one is “do you check the citizenship of the pizza deliverer.
Hiring a shady little company that uses illegal workers and where nobody pays taxes and using them for a decade at your home.
Knowing individual illegals and tax evaders for up to eight years and finding even more work for them at other people’s homes is the real deal.
That type of long term relationship isn’t the same as being suspicious about the two helpers that the plumber brought to dig a trench for one afternoon.
Great, thanks for the concession. You can’t back up your claim that Romney is pro-amnesty without resorting to taking an 11-second clip out of context - all in the face of his many repeated and clear declarations of an opposite position.
Put up or shut up. Back up your claim with something besides a clip that says the opposite of what you’re claiming it says.
Is that really all you’ve got?
Where are the speeches? The policy statements? The legislation he signed?
WHERE is your EVIDENCE that Romney is pro-amnesty?
Or is this tenuous link the best you can come up with?
That post wasn’t even about amnesty, it was about Romney’s long term use of illegals at his private home and him spreading around the good deal that he found.
I just wanted to clarify it a little.
Fair enough
Also, I am not accusing Brantley of stirring this pot now. he's done with it. The pot is now in Republican hands. Brantley was the one who took him on originally and coined the term "The Huckster".
Huckabee spent a entire year explaining how this went down in dozen of televised interviews, to no avail because the facts continue to be twisted.
Frankly, I would not vote for a preacher to be a dog catcher, but the facts are the facts.
I don't like to see them screwed with.
Yes, there was a surplus, but it followed many consecutive months of growth in the tax base and was not forcasted at the time.
I did not want that tax increase. I wanted them to scrub the budget of the hundreds of special projects done with State money and Federal matching funds that were, are still scattered all over the state. This place sucks on taxes. Absolutely sucks!
I'm not defending the sob. Just pointing out that the teacher pay raise combined with the education dollar outlays largely increased by construction costs and repairs to schools in a totally screwed up system that Huchabee try hard but failed to fix, was the culprit behind that tax increase, and the Dem's were quite successful in blaming Huckabee for it.
It was always the fault of the legislature, and still is. It will always be.
The damn funny thing is that I never can vote them out, because I am a registered repub and can't vote in the primary because there is nobody to vote for.
Just one more reason this place sucks....but I'm not switching so I can vote against the dummies..
Frankly, from the looks of the RNC these days, It does not matter anyway. They are all at the pig trough.
If you republicans want to go after Huckabee, stop using the democrat commie talking points that were used and discarded by the likes of Brantley over three years ago.
Use the fact that he demanded the in State tuition be granted to illegals, and welcomed them with open arms, and now pretends to be a border hawk. He is not. Use any of the dozens of BS lines he is using, but leave him be on a tax increase he was forced to make by the Demo-rats who control this State. He did not go on a spending spree. There is no evidence of that.
What he did do, is fail to deal with his rat controllers, and he set himself up to be blamed for all of it
The Governors office is Constitutionally weak in this State. It is at the mercy of the legislature. They make damn sure it stays that way, but nobody in the dumb as rocks voter base knows about this little secret.
The average IQ in this State is slightly more than a houseplant, yet they think they have it going on, as they say........Kinda like Nascar race where the guy a lap down thinks he is in first place. This is in reality at the bottom of the poorest States in the country.....ever....! The problem in poor States is that most of the employment comes from government and they don't tolerate a government that is frugal with the taxpayers money. They won't tolerate it at all.
As far as I am concerned, you can keep this place just the way it is, because it's easy living, but don't mess with the facts. Huckabee did not do that tax surcharge for his own personal reasons. He did it because he thought it was his duty to balance the state budget, and since his veto's failed, he had no choice. The fact that a surplus was generated later, only tells you that it was not a big increase because the growth came after the surcharge.
This is much ado about nothing, and why people on this board are concerned about Huckabee ever ascending to the presidency is totally beyond comprehension. This is based on Arkansas inside baseball (always ridiculous) and Huckabee is not a threat to anyone. In fact, I would guess he will likely endorse Romney when his cash dries up. Maybe Rudy. McCain will endose Thompson or vice versa in a few short weeks, and we will be paring down the list.
This entire episode will be totally forgotten.
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.