Hucka-Boondooggle
Politics Brian Cherry, Associate Editor
January 22, 2008
Print version sponsored by
Precision Payroll of America, LLC

South Carolina is a state that would definitely be put in the "uncool” category by the Clintonized segment of society for whom the show "Pants-off Dance-off” is an artistic triumph on par with "Gone with the Wind” or "Metropolis”.  In other words, it was tailor made for the religious political stylings of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.  Oddly enough though, he didn’t come away with a primary win in this highly Christianized part of the country.

 

After losing to John McCain by three percentage points, he praised the New York Times favorite Republican by saying McCain ran a "decent, civil campaign.”  He also mentioned in his concession speech that he was "grateful” for the kind campaign that the Arizona Senator had run; one that didn’t feature "attack” ads.  In truth, what he really was grateful for was the fact that McCain allowed him to remain in the liberal closet while hiding behind rhetoric and conservative beards, like Chuck Norris. 

 

Of course McCain exposing Huckabee’s "Progressive leanings” would be like Rosie O’Donnell sanctimoniously pulling Tom Cruise out of closet.   It would be any ugly pot/kettle sort of situation.  The truth is that there is a lot about Huckabee that would put him in the running for an endorsement from MoveOn.org.

 

After taking over as Arkansas Governor in 1996 from the disgraced Jim Guy Tucker (who was forced to resign after a conviction for his role in the Clinton Whitewater Scandal), Huckabee immediately started doing the sort of things that would position him as a fiscal conservative.  Seeing as he was just finishing out Tucker’s term, he had only a couple years to convince the people of Arkansas that he was worth electing to a full term. 

 

Upon taking up residence in the Governor’s mansion, he had instituted a new tax almost before deciding on what drapes go best with his bald spot.  The sales tax hike that he signed annoyed anybody who spends their day working instead of figuring out ways to pay for a flat screen television with food stamps.  After failing to convince the people of Arkansas that increased funding to the Department of Parks and Tourism was part of God’s plan, he tried to cover his shrinking rear by sating the citizens with a reduction of their tax burden.  In 1997 he pushed for, and got $80 million in tax cuts for the people of Arkansas.  He also made promises that if he was elected for a full term, he would continue cutting taxes like he was channeling Ronald Reagan. 

 

To his credit, he kept his word for awhile.  In 1999 he cut the state capital gains tax (that pesky little tax that punishes people for buying low and selling high), and instituted a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights that put a 10% cap on how much property tax could increase per year for individuals.  Just like Ronald Reagan predicted though, any liberal who tries to starve their inner Franken by behaving like a conservative will eventually "revert to type.” 

 

In 2001 he supported a tax on things that the people in his state bought online, while in 2002 the former Baptist pastor opposed the repealing of a sales tax on groceries and medicine.  Apparently his Christian form of compassionate conservatism didn’t extend to the sick or those who need to eat.  I wonder how much Jesus charged per miracle.

 

Huckabee also raised taxes on gasoline (for the good of the environment of course), cigarettes (for the good of the smoker of course), and instituted a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients (for the good of the souls of bedbound patients who may be tempted to wallow in moral turpitude by spending that extra money on internet porn or pay per view movies). 

 

In May of 2003 Huckabee went before the Arkansas Legislature to pass yet another tax increase.  During this run for the White House, clips of the speech began to circulate around the internet and showed him actively advocating a raise in taxes.  When asked about this during a Fox News interview, he explained away the video of him calling for a tax hike with the following words:

 

"That [clip] was in the context of a [Arkansas] Supreme Court order that we had to fund education at a higher level. The legislators had come down to the special session and there was all kinds of talk about, well, this tax increase or that revenue possibility is out of the question, dead on arrival...Now we were at the point, with a court order over our heads – we were going to have to improve our schools.”

 

While it is true that in 2002 the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the disproportionate funding between the schools in the less affluent parts of the state and their counterparts around Arkansas violated the equal protection clause of the states Constitution, and that the schools in poor areas must be better funded, Mike seems to have a little honesty problem when trying to explain this tax.  In his rush to quickly pass the buck to the guys in the tasteless black robes, he forgot what he actually said when asking the State Legislature to raise taxes again.  Here is the some of the text from that same May 2003 speech before the Arkansas Legislature that he is now trying to position as a "the courts made me do it” situation:

 

"But the issue that brings us back to this Capitol on this day cannot wait any longer. The urgency of passing budgets for various state agencies is critical, but just as critical is passing a revenue stream that will fund these budgets and provide an adequate level of service, particularly in the areas of Medicaid, as well as the Department of Corrections.  The business of education, we’ve decided to let that wait until the fall.”

 

It is apparent from Huck’s own words that this bump to the tax rate, as presented to the Legislature, had nothing to do with the schools.  This is evidenced by the statement "The business of education, we’ve decided to let that wait until the fall.”  Of course if he is as slick as a former Arkansas Governor he will say that it all depends on what the definition of "that” is, and will chalk the whole thing up to a pronoun misunderstanding.

 

It’s always tough catching a pastor in an apparent lie, but whether he was misrepresenting the tax to Fox News, or fibbing to his own legislature, the fact is that the taxes went up and court order was eventually satisfied.  Since this tax was instituted, the graduation and dropout rates have changed very little, and the education quality of the Arkansas public school system gets mixed reviews at best.  Of course from the day the new taxes took hold up to 2004, the teachers salaries went up by over $8000.00.  No wonder the NEA loves this guy. 

 

In 2003 he aggressively fought a congressional measure to ban internet taxes, and in 2004 he supported yet another 17% tax hike.  This attitude toward taxes is rather odd for the loving, compassionate type who has a Jesus fish proudly displayed on their bumper, especially considering the fact that during the entire time Mike was the Governor bankruptcies were well above the national average.  As of June of 2007, Arkansas was one of the top states for personal bankruptcy with a rate of about 39 out of every 1000 people filing for chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy. 

Is this really the climate that a good, God fearing Governor should be raising taxes in?  Well if Jesus can turn water into wine, maybe the Huckster can get blood from a stone.

 

Adding to the burden of an already overtaxed electorate, Mike increased the states spending by a hefty 65.3% according to the Club for Growth.  Add to this the fact that he is now saying he wants to limit free speech by making it mandatory that candidates approve anything that is said about them in an ad, and an approach to the border that probably includes putting Wal-Mart greeters at our nations boundaries instead of a fence, and you have a Republican who is qualified to be the DNC chairman.

 

Mike has always had a ready excuse for his actions.  In the case of his most contentious tax hike, he claims the courts made him do it.  Any other time he has sidestepped his record by accusing his opponents of going negative, and claiming his compassion as a Christian has motivated his actions.  Last time I read the bible, Jesus may have said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's” but I don’t remember the bit where he makes suggestions about how the Roman government can shake an extra denarius or two out of the people.

 

I have no idea what Huckabee’s relationship with God is.  When Paul was called from government service to the task of evangelizing the Roman world, he didn’t do it by running for the Roman Senate (which he could have as a citizen of Rome), he did it by leaving the service of the Emperor and the Senate and focusing on the spreading the good news of salvation.  Mike seems to be taking the backwards approach to this example; denying his calling as pastor in favor of lobbyists, Sunday News shows, and a thumb’s up from the New York Times editorial staff.  If he was truly doing what he thought was God’s work, would he really need to distort his record, lie, and blame others for his actions?  If what he does is actually in line with what God wants him to do, he would embrace the things he did as Governor, and openly be the fiscal liberal he is at heart.  Of course, what should we expect? We are not exactly dealing with someone who could hang with Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, or even Thomas.  Mike seems to be more from the Elmer Gantry mold.

Brian Cherry is an Associate Editor for The New Media Journal. He was born, raised and lives in the state of MI and from his home in the far north pursues the two passions that have driven him since his high school days, writing and the study of Scandinavian history...

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review