Huckabee's Critics (There Are A Lot of Them!)

TaxHikeMike ^ | December 5, 2007 | Club for Growth

[StopTheNAU]

The editorial board at the Wall Street Journal writes ($):

Some say Mr. Huckabee is the tribune of the "religious left," and that strikes us as about right. He exhibits protectionist instincts, distancing himself from Nafta and saying he would insist on penalties and barriers to countries that don't support his conception of "fair trade." He delivers populist sermons against income inequality, but in favor of farm subsidies and an expanded government role in health care. He regularly knocks Wall Street, and he borrows from the Democratic playbook with digs at "the rich."

Paul Chesser, writing for The American Spectator, states:

The criticisms of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee as a spendthrift tax-raiser when governing the state of Arkansas have been met with a few "yes, buts" that have not been very persuasive.

Former Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton (R) says:

"[Huckabee] says he’s pro-family. If you’re raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that’s not pro-family."

Arkansas State Senator John Paul Capps, a Democrat, says:

"[Huckabee] outshines (other Republican hopefuls) with his glibness and ability to speak...He's quick with answers and leaves a good impression. In the past, he blamed Democrats for raising taxes...We voted for them, but he proposed them."

[americanophile]

An American Rowan Williams running for president is the last thing on God’s earth that we need.

[theBuckwheat]

My concern is that Huckabee just cannot bring himself to acknowledge the simple truth of socialism.

Morally, as defined by God’s Ten Commandments, socialism is based on breaking three of the Ten: lies, coveting and theft. Any Christian knows it is wrong to steal from your neighbor. It is still theft if you get government to do the stealing for you. But this is based on coveting and lies to falsely justify the entire scheme.

Economically, socialism cannot make people more prosperous than a free market can, for socialism substitutes the judgment of a panel of experts for the judgment of all the buyers and sellers in a particular marketplace. Further, as F.A. Hayek pointed out in his book, the Road to Serfdom, the more government intrudes on the peaceful and mutually agreeable private transactions, the more it must resort to imposing its will to mitigate the inevitable market distortions.

I would hope that Huckabee, being familiar with the Bible, might consider all its economic and moral wisdom. If, for example, he would review the parable of the workers in the vineyard, in Matthew 20, he would see many free market principles championed by Jesus to illustrate moral principles.

The most penetrating question Our Lord asks in that parable is found in verse 15: “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” Sadly, in the Socialist State that our (used to be free) country increasingly runs, the answer is far more often NO You are NOT.

[tubebender]

Welcome to FR...

[BfloGuy]

It is still theft if you get government to do the stealing for you.

Well said. You've just cut the legs out from under the so-called religious left which bases its entire religion on that very tenet (or as Limbaugh would say, "tenant"). Huckabee would be a disaster for the GOP.

[oldtimer]

You are right. When the leftist media got through with Huckabee, even Osama Obama would romp into the White House, and the she satan would carry 45 States.

Huckabee is a house of grass, and has no business even getting close to the nomination.

The communist/rats would chew him to pieces.

[theBuckwheat]

I have had Christians complain that I am “too harsh” with my unvarnished observation. They say we must share our blessings with others and we just choose to use government to do it for us.

My reply is to note the wordplay at work. Keep in mind that when a person says one thing but means something else with the intent on getting the listener to agree, it is a form of false witness to the meaning of the situation.

When a person says: we must share our blessings with others, what do they mean?

Who do they mean by “we”?

What do they mean by “share”?

Who exactly are “others”?

Of course “we” means people, most often other than the speaker, who have so much money they don’t “need” it and thus must have it taken from them.

“Share” is a wonderfully useful and elastic word when used in the context of justifying socialist wealth transfer. “Share” means that some third party committee will decide what property of yours is no longer yours and must be given to someone else. “Share” in this context is made possible by the credible threat of the use of armed agents who have the power to seize any an all of your assets and to call the SWAT team to effect arrest if you refuse.

“others” are people who this same third party committee are worthy to receive the “fair share” of your “blessings”.

This all takes place in a legal framework that seizes title to your income the instant the tax liability is incurred, even if you have not yet received the pay. The sharing is now a tax payment obligation, due an payable immediately.

It also defines the transfer not as a gift, but as an entitlement, paid out of general revenue at the pleasure of the legislature.

The bottom line on this phrase is to destroy the property right of the giver, to destroy the human connection between the giver and the needy recipient and to destroy the recipient’s connection with the personal cost of the gift. It has further enabled the politician to impose themselves between these parties and to gain power from both; from the taxpayer in the form of assurances of ending “waste, fraud and abuse”; from the recipients in the form of “fighting” for “higher benefits” and “full funding” of “vital needs”.

This is a vile, corrupt system. We are such fools for ever allowing it in the first place and for not yelling and complaining loudly anytime a candidate seems to be trying to sell the same old snake oil.