Where A Big Government Belongs

Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, has received some bad reviews from some of the conservative watchdog groups. Of those who are considered "real" contenders for the nomination, I would say that at this point I like Huckabee the best, although I am not at this point in time completely convinced he is as much of a conservative as he claims to be.

The watchdog groups point to some of the events that unfolded in Arkansas under his tenure, such as increases in taxes, to say that he is not conservative. Although the act of "raising", or collecting, taxes is not anti-conservative, since a certain amount of revenue is needed for the operation of government, the amounts raised and methods of raising are definitely debatable.

Huckabee raised sales taxes, or at least the state did while he was governor, which is the preferred method of raising taxes to conservative. Huckabee also claims to be a proponent of the Fairtax, which is a plus. But watchdog groups making a blanket assumption that the growth of state government under the tenure of a governor disqualifies him as conservative is fallable at best. As a matter of fact, constitutionally, this is where a conservative would prefer the growth of government.

The U.S. is unique in that its citizens have the ability to move for hundreds, even thousands, of miles freely. No other nation in the world boasts this freedom. Consequently, different regions have different needs and philosophies. The degree of government within each state is unique to that state, provided that it does not counter the few powers delegated to the Federal government, such as interstate commerce. If a state, such as Arkansas, wishes to raise taxes to whatever level, this is their constitutional right.

State government is also more accountable to its citizenry, since the state represents a region of the body and not the whole. So if government is growing in size anywhere, it should be at the state level. State citizens can then debate what they need. If the citizens of the state do not like the operation of the state, they have the freedom and choice to move to another state more suitable.

This is the principle upon which many issues should be decided rather than decided in the supreme court of the land, or even in the federal legislature. An issue, such as murder or abortion, should be state mandated. If Massachusetts wants to legalize abortion or murder, then the state has the power to do so. But this does not mean that a state such as New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada should be held to laws that go against the wishes or morality of their citizenry.

While I may not agree with the views of liberals, I do agree that if they can win at the ballot box with their viewpoints within their state, they do have the right to legislate those viewpoints within their state, but not at the federal level.

And so Mike Huckabee may have been subject and even party to some anti-conservative governmental moves while governor of Arkansas. But his words and acts will dictate whether or not he is truly conservative, not the acts of legislatures or courts within the state during his tenure.

The Bermuda Triangle Analogy

Several years ago, Waynedawg and I attended a townhall meeting hosted by Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia, who happens to be our representative in the U.S. House. At this point in time, the Medicare prescription drug plan was being debated.

Rep. Deal began to describe the Republican version of the prescription drug plan. When he fielded questions, several attendees called Rep. Deal to question on conservative principles as to how he could support anything that would grow our government larger.

To paraphrase the Congressman, he said, "This is going to eventually pass, whether we do it or whether Democrats do it if and when they regain power. If we do it, we can get what we want out of it."

As I reflect on this, what is still oblivious to our beltway republicans but so evident to their base is that this is exactly the kind of thinking and action that caused many a conservative to just sit at home on election day 2006. And the same will happen in 2008, when the Hildabeast becomes our first female president since the last time she occupied the Whitehouse.

And thus we now have an immigration bill that is being co-sponsored by both democrats and republicans that will most likely pass the senate, which basically gives amnesty to illegal immigrants. Both Georgia senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaakson are in favor of the bill.

Immigration is the one issue that could turn the party around and offer it another chance for power if republicans would take it a go with it.

But for some reason, republicans keep making the wrong moves. What is it about Washington D.C. that causes people to lose their minds and become bleeding heart liberals to one degree or another?

And so the lerch of the republican party leftward continues. Hopefully by 2012, enough conservatives will have realized that the republican party is nothing more than dishonest democrats.

Washington D.C. is the bermuda triangle of conservative politicians. It seems that their political compasses point North when in fact they are traveling South. The transmissions to their base ceases, and the instruments that got them to where they are begin to fail. And thus they are swallowed by the black hole that is D.C., never to be heard from again.

What I Said, Only Better

Here is a post I found with better and more in depth analysis on Rep. Paul that what I offered in my last post.

Is He Really Getting A Fair Shake?

The big news from the Republican presidential debate this week was the supposed whipping Rep. Ron Paul took from Rudolph Guiliani. I did not see the debate, nor have I viewed the clip on line, a clip which is now widely available. But I know a little about Ron Paul. And since he is being smacked around by all of the Bush-loving neocon pundits, my antennae have detected a bit of "discredit the right wing kook, move center" conspiracy.

Ron Paul is possibly the most libertarian member of Congress currently serving. He is the only one who agrees to give ear to those who legitimately call in to question the legality of some government programs, including the constitutionality of the income tax.

Judging from Rep. Paul's voting record, he is a true conservative who favors states rights, as is indicated in a vote to limit the Federal government's powers by the 10th amendment. I would also take a leap of faith and say that Rep. Paul's seemingly un-conservative votes on some issues is not a reflection of his personal opinions, but is a reflection on his opinion that the Federal government has not particular role in the issue.

But Ron Paul is considered a kook by the main stream Republicans. Most neocons are ready to vote for Guiliani, who is indistinguishable from Hillary on social issues. But they label Ron Paul, who is more consistent in his stand for conservative ideals than any other sitting congressman, on the "fringe" of the right wing.

What Rep. Paul said was this: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

Guiliani then took the obvious politically expedient route and implied that Paul was on the lunatic fringe. But in substance, the most important phrase in the statement has t0 do with the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and our lack of understanding. If anyone can deny that applying western solutions to a region who is extremely opposed to the west is going to work out to anything but the defeat of one idea or other, then I would call them a lunatic.

But Guiliani played the popularity card, and people who disagree with the war in Iraq are not really popular with the Republican base. And in a debate of principles, I would have to side with Ron Paul.

I believe, as I have said before, that if our policy was to truly rebuild the country from the ground up, which would include the elimination of all anti-western leaders who show the slightest tendency toward violence, then perhaps the new mission in Iraq would be feasible. However, if we have not learned by now that the Middle Eastern mindset is truly foreign to those of us who are acclimated to the western culture, and that imposing our views in a diplomatic way only fuels their belief that we are weak infidels, then we never will learn.

Unfortunately, we did not limit our mission to deposing Saddam. We gave our soldiers a task that we are not willing to have the stomach to follow through.

Is now the time to withdraw troops? Do we give a timetable? Absolutely no to both. But when it is inevitable that given the constraints that we impose on ourselves that we will not succeed, the best policy is to give minimal required training and assistance to those who understand the dynamics of the politics and get out.

The Responsibility of the Rich

"It is the responsibility of those who have much to help those who do not."

This was a comment made to me by a co-worker after our conversation about the unbiased nature of major new organizations, including Fox News, turned to the Fairness Doctrine, and then to economics. And this is a comment that I wholeheartedly endorse. In fact, most Americans regardless of political stripe would agree with this statement. The disagreement comes about when the discussion turns to how this should be accomplished.

My co-worker is, I found out, a staunch opponent of Reaganomics. His belief is that the boom of the 90's was a result of a combination of tax increases from the late 80's implemented by George Bush and Bill Clinton's economic policy. His belief is that those who are wealthy are so because they have the discipline to keep the money that they make rather than spending all of the money that they make.

On the flip side, he also believes that if poorer people are given money, that they will in turn pump it back into the economy through spending. His example was that if a child is continually given candy, they will not save the candy but continue to eat it as fast as they can get it.

All of his beliefs are somewhat true. However, these are not substantial arguments to support that Reaganomics is bad and tax increases are good for the economy.

Wealthier people do develop a discipline to save money rather than spend it on consumer goods. However, consumer goods is only one side of the economic equation. Wealthy people do not come about wealth by sticking their money under a mattress, but rather, they invest it to make more money. Those investments in business ventures generate jobs for people, like myself, who either do not have the guts, resourcefulness, or intelligence to take the risks of capital ventures.

And let us not confuse wealthy people with high income earners. Income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains are passive or unearned income. It is possible to earn high income and not be wealthy. Several NFL football players earning millions of dollars a year have filed for bankruptcy protection during their playing career.

If I give my child candy with nothing but the expectation that I will give him more later, he will surely consume the candy quickly without another thought. But if my child earns his candy, he will be more careful how he invests the consumption of the candy. And if he finds that he can earn more candy than will be given to him otherwise, he will find ways to earn the candy.

The argument that taxing high income earners to redistribute to the poor is good for the economy is also, in a sense, putting the cart before the horse. For when investors have no capital to invest in production, or the cost of investing in production is not worth the return, then production is either ceased or moved to a more profitable location. The tax structure of the U.S., along with socialist economic and labor policy, are the very reasons why manufacturing is moving offshore.

And the evidence of this can be seen all over Europe. Outside of some cars and wine, when have you bought something that was manufactured in Europe.

Not to dismiss service industries, but manufacturing and production of goods fueled by capital investment are the backbone of economic growth.

And in terms of charity to the poor, study after study has shown that states that have lower taxes give much more to charity. States with more socialist viewpoints and higher taxes give less. And the evidence of the decline in the economic health of those states, such as Michigan and Maine, is overwhelming.

History also shows that the most prominent philantropists were capitalists.

So, while it is the responsibility of those who have to help those who have not, the onus is on the individual to do so. Government policy confiscating money from high earners under this guise has staggering detrimental consequences.