Like former President Bill Clinton, Mike Huckabee hails from Hope, Ark. During his tenure as governor of Arkansas (1996-2007), he repeatedly cut taxes, saving Arkansas’ citizens close to $380 million. Leaving office this year, he claims his state enjoyed a surplus of nearly $850 million.
Huckabee’s platform calls for the elimination of all federal income and payroll taxes and the disbanding of the Internal Revenue Service. To replace the loss of revenues, Huckabee advocates a consumption tax on goods and services that includes a monthly “prebate,” designed to offset taxes on necessities. According to Huckabee’s reckoning, his plan will promote capital investment in the U.S. and make domestic goods cheaper and more competitive overseas because their prices will no longer be inflated by the payment of corporate taxes.
Ok, I feel compelled to respond separately (again) to bigjolly’s post regarding GOP presidential candidate and erstwhile governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Huckabee isn’t within earshot of winning the nomination, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that he’s the pure, unadulterated conservative while the major candidates (including Thompson) all possess crippling flaws.
The skinny on Huckabee? He’s a lousy fiscal conservative.
Now, this gets thrown around a great deal, but I’ll start out with the basic facts. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee was responsible for 37% higher sales tax, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes. He opposed a repeal of the sales tax for groceries and medicine, opposed an internet sales tax ban, and criticized the Bush tax cuts for being tilted “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale.” On top of it all, state spending increased by well over 60% during his tenure.
Of course, I’m aware that Huckabee has “responded” to these allegations with letter emphasizing, in part, that he cut taxes 94 times, that when he raised taxes it was the public doing so, not him, and that the budget was beyond his control. However, none of these justifications wash. First of all, Huckabee’s tax cuts were dwarfed by his tax increases. In 1996, when Huckabee first entered office, Arkansas ranked 30th in the nation for its state tax burden. By 2006, it had risen to 13th with an average state tax burden well above the national average.
Secondly, it’s highly, highly deceptive for Huckabee to claim, for instance, that “over 80% of the voters of Arkansas supported a 4-cent tax on diesel fuel to fix the roads.” Sure, if you couple a tax increase that doesn’t apply directly to you (most people use unleaded) to a good cause (fixing roads) and then whip up a poll question based on this scheme, people are going to overwhelmingly support it. However, that’s not good policy.
Thirdly, Huckabee cannot argue that he lacked control of the budget process. As governor, he submitted initial budget proposals and ultimately had to approve the entire budget. He could have compelled spending cuts had he tried to use the full power of his office; he simply failed to do so. He is no more helpless in this process than President Bush is.
In short, Huckabee isn’t much of a fiscal conservative. If anything, he leans left on the issue.
Filed under: conservative
Ok, I feel compelled to respond separately (again) to bigjolly’s post regarding GOP presidential candidate and erstwhile governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Huckabee isn’t within earshot of winning the nomination, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that he’s the pure, unadulterated conservative while the major candidates (including Thompson) all possess crippling flaws.
The skinny on Huckabee? He’s a lousy fiscal conservative.
