The Candidates
Featured Archives
Check out what Mike had to say about taxes back in 1999…
It is a pleasure to be here with you today. I want to welcome all the folks who are joining us by way of the Internet, and we are grateful, of course, to Al Gore for having “created” this very useful way for us to get our message across the country.
Great opening line, but you expect that from Huck…
REFORMING ARKANSAS’ TAX SYSTEM
To better understand the reforms we’ve implemented, you need a basic understanding of Arkansas’ tax system. Picture a three-legged stool. One leg represents income tax, another the Arkansas sales tax, and the third represents property tax. If any of these legs is removed or greatly shortened, the stool would be off-balance. Each area of revenue is equally needed to provide the necessary essential services to the people of my state. Therefore, tax relief and reform have to be carefully crafted to be responsible.
One of the greatest challenges that I faced as governor of a state like Arkansas was that for 162 years the tax burden on Arkansans always went up. It never went down. And when the legislature met, the discussion would be, “Which taxes will we raise and by how much?” But, for the first time in 1997 and again this session, the old paradigm was no longer valid. The big battle was no longer, “Which taxes will we raise and by how much?” but, “Which taxes will we cut and by how much?” To shift the mentality of the legislators, to change the paradigm if you will, was singularly, I think, the most significant thing that has happened in the past two and a half years.
Responsible Tax Cuts–The First Steps
During the 1997 legislative session, my first as governor, we passed a comprehensive income tax relief package, marking the first time in Arkansas’ history that the state had seen a major, broad-based income tax cut. This $90.6 million tax relief measure lessened the tax burden on Arkansans in many ways:
Our state tax code no longer punishes a couple for being married. We need to reward couples for getting married and raising children in a family setting. Too often, our government policies do just the opposite.
Those below the poverty line are exempt from state income tax. We adjusted the tax tables for all taxpayers to incorporate the new standard deduction amounts and a tax credit based on the amount of Social Security taxes paid.
To prevent taxpayers from creeping into higher tax brackets as a result of inflation, we indexed the regular income tax brackets. Indexing is performed each year, beginning in 1999, based on the positive change in the Consumer Price Index. The maximum percentage of change allowable is 3 percent a year.
Arkansas uses the federal credit for child and dependent care to compute the Arkansas child and dependent care credit. In the 1997 session, we increased the available credit by doubling, from 10 percent to 20 percent, the amount of federal credit allowable.
We eliminated the capital gains tax on the sale of homes. If the property was owned and occupied as the taxpayer’s main residence for three of the five years preceding the sale, the gain from the sale is exempt.
We increased the qualifying income level and maximum rebate allowable under Arkansas’ Circuit Breaker Act. The Circuit Breaker Act provides cash rebates to low-income Arkansas taxpayers 62 years of age and older based on the real property taxes on their personal residence.
- We enacted a special working taxpayer credit based on the portion of Social Security tax that is paid to the federal government for retirement benefits. Taxpayers receive a credit equal to 2 percent of the Social Security tax paid. The credit is allowed on the first $40,000 of earned income. Taxpayers who qualify for the special reduced tax rate receive a credit equal to 4 percent of their earned income.
It is of special note that this package of reforms gave $90.6 million in tax relief to Arkansans in a responsible manner. Arkansas law mandates that we have a balanced budget. In both 1997 and 1999, we produced balanced budgets with tax relief in the budgets. In other words, we budgeted for tax relief. By finding savings to pay for new programs, we proved it was possible to propose new and needed programs by reallocating resources while still providing tax relief. This has never before been accomplished in Arkansas.
1999 Tax Reforms
IRA’s. During the 1999 session, our legislature passed bills to adopt the new federal Roth IRA provisions and the educational IRA provisions. It extended the $6,000 per taxpayer exemption for income from employer-sponsored pension plans to include income from individual retirement accounts.
Capital Gains. Legislation was also considered or enacted to reduce the capital gains tax and simplify capital gains tax computation. One of the chief impediments to growth in Arkansas is the income tax on capital gains. It adds about $50 million to the state treasury, but it costs Arkansans far more. The federal capital gains tax, now 20 percent, affects everyone. But Arkansas’ additional 6 percent levy is a high hurdle for businesses to clear, particularly while neighboring Texas and Tennessee do not tax capital gains at all and Mississippi does not tax in-state investments. Despite the fact that economic development is one of the state’s priorities, Arkansas’ capital gains tax both repels outside businesses and actually gives Arkansas’ businesses an incentive to relocate out of state.
I proposed the complete elimination of income tax on capital gains for individual taxpayers. This reform will be phased in beginning in tax year 1999 with an exclusion of 30 percent of capital gains from taxation and a simplification of the capital gains tax computation for taxpayers. I plan to address further reduction of the capital gains tax when the legislature convenes again in 2001.
Property Tax. Going into the 1999 legislative session, we knew we had to do something to eliminate the inequities in Arkansas’ property tax system. We also understood that much of the frustration over property taxes was a direct result of problems with appraisals and the assessment system, rather than with property taxes in general. Taxpayers are rightly distressed by the inequities that result when property values are not kept up-to-date for many years and suddenly, large increases in assessments are made. To older retired citizens on fixed incomes, these increases can be devastating.
To address these concerns, we proposed in the 1999 legislative session a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights designed to bring fairness to all Arkansas property owners. It establishes a uniform notice and due process procedure, guaranteeing citizens they will be treated fairly in the assessment of property taxes. It provides a fairer, more user-friendly process for taxpayers to appeal the valuation of their property, including easier access to the appeals process and a consistent written standard for the property owner to prevail. It also gives property owners the opportunity to better understand how their local taxes are used by specifying what portion of their total tax bill goes to each unit of local government. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights is a step toward eliminating inequitable assessments and an empowerment of taxpayers in the increasingly complex world of property taxation.
OTHER REFORMS
We went into the 1999 legislative session with five major goals: tax reform, which you just heard about; juvenile justice reform; a highway program; education reform; and electricity deregulation. I would like to tell you briefly about some of these areas and just where we’ve made significant progress in Arkansas.
Juvenile Justice Reform. Many of you may remember that it was just over a year ago when our state was rocked with a horrible tragedy on the campus of Westside Middle School with the shooting of fifteen persons, five of whom were killed–one teacher and four students. Our laws inadequately addressed that kind of circumstance so we changed them. The New York Times recently wrote a piece about the process we went through and the changes we made, which included blended sentencing laws.
Education Reform. We eliminated a lot of the unnecessary bureaucracy and senseless mandates on local school districts. One example was the mandate forcing local districts to have summer programs, even if the districts didn’t have any students who qualified for them. Through our Start Smart Initiative, we are placing more emphasis on the K through four years and creating higher standards for those students. Students can no longer be promoted past the fourth grade unless they meet the standards in mathematics, reading, and also in character education.
Character-based education has become a very important component of our education structure in Arkansas, and school districts have options on how they implement it. They can either choose a set curriculum–there are probably twenty different programs, samples of which we have in the Department of Education–or they can do it on their own. What we encourage them to do is to put basic virtues like responsibility, punctuality, honor, and honesty into every part of their curriculum. It’s not religion-based, but rather focuses on character traits and values. The idea is if you’re teaching history, you talk about the impact of, let’s say, honesty: “How did honesty help Abraham Lincoln? What did it do for his credibility?” Children need to understand there are consequences for living out virtues, and we’ve already seen some pretty convincing results: discipline problems are going down and the learning atmosphere has improved dramatically. My point, however, is not that character-based education simply means maintaining discipline and order. Rather, it means building into kids certain character attributes that are desirable for them; that will make a big difference in their getting scholarships and decent jobs; that will help them succeed in life.
We successfully challenged the teachers unions, which historically have been very powerful in Arkansas, and won on virtually every issue. In addition to making it possible, through the Fair Dismissal Act, to get rid of teachers who are not doing the job and who are violating their contract, we also passed a bill that will provide financial incentives up to $2,000 a year of additional money for teachers who show extraordinary excellence in teaching. It’s not enough to penalize people who do not do well. We must reward people who do exceptionally well and create a sense of expectancy for those who succeed because they’ll be rewarded.
Electricity Deregulation. As all of you know, electricity deregulation is a very complicated issue. A number of states have taken it on, and I would challenge anyone to take a look at our deregulation bill. Time will tell, but I believe it is one of the best bills in the country. It properly addresses the balance between ensuring real fairness for the consumer, creating a competitive environment for large industrial customers, and giving the utilities a reason to want to compete.
Welfare Reform. Welfare reform is working in our state. 44 percent of the people on welfare a year and a half ago are now off the welfare rolls and are in jobs and working. And the good news is that–even though the liberals said that if we did that, we would have huge unemployment lines, people would be out in the streets, they would be starving, and the food banks would just be overwhelmed–here are the facts: 44 percent of welfare recipients later, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the history of Arkansas right now, and last year we had the largest number of new job start-ups in the history of our state.
CONCLUSION
These are some of the things we’ve done, and they are proof positive that cutting taxes, making government performance-driven and accountable to the people, and bringing some sense of real fairness to government’s overall approach is making life better for all our citizens.
Thank you for listening to another governor from Hope, Arkansas–one, by the way, whose ideas on reforming government are very different from those of our last governor from Hope.
The Honorable Mike Huckabee, a Republican, is the Governor of Arkansas. This lecture is based on remarks given at The Heritage Foundation on April 14, 1999, and on testimony before the House Committee on Government reform on the same day.
Some thoughts on Mitt’s speech from Gail Collins…
The peak of my sympathy for Mitt Romney came when he was being battered on one side by Christian fundamentalists who think his faith is a cult and on the other by fellow Mormons, who were irate when he fudged the fact that they believe Jesus will return to earth and build a new Jerusalem in Jackson County, Mo.
This week, Mitt made his much-anticipated religion speech, and stood up for his rights not to be discriminated against for his beliefs, and not to have to explain the part about Jackson County. Good for him on both counts.
… Except that you have to wonder why he felt compelled to dip into dogma just long enough to assure voters that he believes “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”
Romney’s message, which boiled down to let’s-all-be-religious-together, was certainly different from the John Kennedy version, which argued that a candidate’s religion is irrelevant. But then Kennedy was speaking to the country, while Romney had his attention fixed on the approximately 35,000 Iowa religious conservatives who will tip the balance in the first-in-the-nation Republican caucus.
Can I pause here briefly to point out that in New York there are approximately 35,000 people living on some blocks? If my block got to decide the first presidential caucus, I guarantee you we would be as serious about our special role as the folks in Iowa are. And right now Mitt Romney would be evoking the large number of founding fathers who were agnostics.
But I digress. Iowans are not the only people who are looking for a Republican to root for. We were all waiting to see if Mitt might be the much-yearned-for Inclusive One. So it was disheartening to discover that the Romney big tent does not seem to have any space for nonbelievers. However, the assurances about his commitment to separation of church and state were all very – reassuring.
… Except that Romney has a history of changing his mind on what seemed to be deep-seated convictions, without any warning whatsoever.
Which is his right. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
… Except that these conversions always seem to happen at the most politically convenient moment imaginable.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Huck is the frontrunner. Enough said.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Romney made a speech aimed at reassuring people of faith that they could support him. Is he supposed to do that by diminishing the importance of faith itself? The line people seem to have a problem with was when he said that “freedom requires religion”. I think there is historical evidence that suggests that that is true. Look at the athiest nations of the world, past and present. Nazi Germany, the USSR, the PRC, etc. All opposed the influence of religion, establishing government as the highest power. I don’t think Romney meant that a person had to be religious to be free, but that society on a whole needs to accept the concept of a power higher than ourselves, and recognize that freedom comes from said power.
As for taxes, ok, so Mike lowered taxes, good. BUT, he also raised them back up – by a bigger number than he lowered them. Mike Huckabee = net tax increase.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Really, Rett, don’t you get tired of pulling out any anti-Romney posts you can find and quoting them? I’ve opined that you should spend more time actually talking up your candidate rather than pulling down others. You finally do that and then you stumble. Tsk, tsk.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
#2, The tax burden in Arkansas was increaased less than the tax burden in Massachusetts. You cannot argue with that.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Leslie Magri:
“I know that you forgive these prisoners, but why do you trust them? People confined in a cage are going to tell you (the preacher) exactly what you want to hear. I guess you trust them all so much that you’ll release them with the stroke of a pen and then forget about them (although I’m sure you pray for them). However, the future victims of some of those released pray fervently for themselves. Martyrdom is not gained through the stroke of a pen.”
How many of Hucksters Clemencies were “born again�
December 8th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“#2, The tax burden in Arkansas was increaased less than the tax burden in Massachusetts. You cannot argue with that.”
I would need to see the stats, and verify that you are not including fees in that “tax burden” in Mass, but it is possible, considering the 80% DEM. legislature didn’t pass the tax cuts Romney wanted.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
The tax burden in Arkansas was increaased less than the tax burden in Massachusetts. You cannot argue with that.
BS, the tax per person adjusted for inflation went down under Romney.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
All the hyper-ventilating around here proclaiming Huckabee as a socialist, or fiscal liberal, or to the left of Clinton is just the sort of nonsense one can expect from those trying to pump another candidate. Some here are desperate to take Huckabee down whatever way they can, whether honestly or not.
The truth is, Huckabee raised some taxes and cut some taxes. He left Arkansas with a big budget surplus. He is committed to holding down spending at the federal level and scrapping the IRS.
How that makes one a liberal is beyond me. Anyone who can say that Huck is to the left fiscally of a women who has promised to raise taxes and proposed hundreds of billions in new spending (annually) is beyond me.
Huckabee supports:
1. Balanced budgets.
2. Scrapping the IRS.
3. Not raising taxes.
4. Market based reforms for health care.
5. Personal accounts to save Social Security.
What part of that economic program is “liberal,” “socialist,” or “to the left of Clinton”?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I believe I heard Dick Morris say the other day that if you take economic growth into account, Mitt had a bigger net increase in tax burden the Mike had in Arkansas.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Off topic…Does anyone know if the Univision debate tomorrow in Miami is going to be broadcast on any of the cable networks or CSPAN? I think it starts at 7pm eastern.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
#3, There is always some hitjob anti-Huck piece up. A couple about Romney and your offended.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“I believe I heard Dick Morris say the other day that if you take economic growth into account, Mitt had a bigger net increase in tax burden the Mike had in Arkansas.”
Eh…come again?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Dick Morris is campaigning for Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
If you want your taxes raised by 47%-Vote Huckabee.
That should be their slogan.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
No, he’s not.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Of course slick Dick will say that – he’s in the bag for Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ben,
You’re using Dick Morris???? You’ve got to be kidding. He’s a Huckster advisor, errrrr, friend, for goodness sake.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Michael, I challenge you to go back over the last 3 weeks and count up the number of negative Romney posts by Rett. Then come back and call it a couple.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Act (#2) The problem with Gail’s comment is that she has supposed Iowan Evangelicals to be Mitt’s audience for his speech. This cannot be far from truth. We saw from his speech that it is for the Americans who may have concerns with how his religion may influence his decisions as President. So, do not worry about Gail’s comment. She is wrong only because she had the audience wrong.
And Rett, this is the kind of respond Huckabee should have given when Club for Growth showed why Huckabee was not in favor of tax cutting. But instead, Huckabee attacked at this well-respected conservative thinking tank, by calling it Club of Greed and all other incorrect claims. You should be on his staff (or are you already?)
December 8th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I challenge you to go count up the negative Huck posts.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
And, Michael, I’m not talking about comments. I’m talking about front page posts by Rett. Since he was given front page status, he is the single least positive and most negative front page poster on this site.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mike Huckabee 1 every 5 days!
http://nyformitt.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabees-judgment.html
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
no. I’m not using Dick Morris as the ultimate authority, I’m just paraphrasing what I believe he said (I’ll look into the numbers myself). Anyway guys, I think Dick Morris is a little more authoritative then myself, you, or a lot of the “political elites” out there.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Between taxing, spending, and releasing felons, how did Huckabee find time to do anything else?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“no. I’m not using Dick Morris as the ultimate authority, I’m just paraphrasing what I believe he said (I’ll look into the numbers myself). Anyway guys, I think Dick Morris is a little more authoritative then myself, you, or a lot of the “political elites†out there.”
Come back with numbers, and then we’ll talk.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
According to the Tax Foundation, the average Arkansan paid 11.3% of his income in state and local taxes in 2006.
According to the Tax Foundation, the average Massachusettsite paid 10.6% of his income in state and local taxes in 2006.
Is 0.7% what makes the difference between some “big spending, big taxing, to the left of Clinton socialist” and the “savior of mankind”?
So what do we say about the guy whose tax burden is 0.7% less than the “big spending socialist?”
December 8th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
State-Local Tax Burdens, Calendar Year 2005
11 Arkansas 10.50%
12 Connecticut 10.50%
13 West Virginia 10.50%
14 New Jersey 10.40%
15 Kansas 10.40%
16 Louisiana 10.40%
17 Maryland 10.30%
18 Indiana 10.30%
19 Kentucky 10.30%
20 California 10.30%
21 Arizona 10.20%
22 Michigan 10.10%
23 Wyoming 10.10%
24 Washington 10.00%
25 Iowa 10.00%
26 Mississippi 10.00%
27 Idaho 10.00%
28 North Carolina 10.00%
29 New Mexico 9.90%
30 Illinois 9.80%
31 Georgia 9.80%
32 Massachusetts 9.80%
December 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
….keeping in mind BTW, that the state with 0.7% higher tax burden has a significantly higher land to person ratio (meaning more costly infrastructure like roads), and a lower income earning population, meaning more services like Medicaid.
Anybody who can draw that kind of distinction between the two is either a complete shill, or has totally lost touch with reality.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
[...] Original post by race42008.com [...]
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Ben – #27 (A strong pro-Huck guy) and #28 both contradict your statement from Dick Morris in #9. We will accept your apology at any time.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Bjalder,
We can use 2005 or 2006. The difference is 0.7%. Why the hysterics? Particularly when accounting for Arkansas greater land to person ratio, and higher social service needs (as mandated by the federal government).
Is 0.7% the difference between the devil and the second coming? Maybe instead we should take a look at what the candidates have proposed for their prospective job?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Not only were Massachusetts taxes LOWER than Arkansas, but Romney fought hard for even lower taxes. Huck fought for additional taxes. Sure he brought down the Income tax, but he added so much in other taxes, such as sales tax, that the overall raise in taxes was 47%.
Also, Massachusetts has arguable the best school system in America, where as Arkansas has a horrible one. What is Huck spending this money on, because we know it’s not being spent on Education or Incarceration?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Posting about Jackson County and the Second coming of Christ wont help your guy. Try to focus on making excuses for pardons and taxes, that would be more effective Mr Rett
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“(meaning more costly infrastructure like roads)”
uh…
Arkansas: fewer people, more roads needed, but less traveled, and in a climate that does not cause rapid deterioration of concrete and other road surfaces.
MASS: more people, fewer roads, but that are more heavily traveled, and more exposed to the elements.
I think it balances out, don’t you?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
RayinNH,
The growth in rates (adjusting for economic growth) is not the same thing as overall state and local tax burden. Apples and oranges.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
MWS, the point is that Huck didn’t start out with super-low taxes and was forced to raise them 47 percent. He had more than enough money coming in and wanted more.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Within his first 4 months in office, he released these press releases about taxes:
04-22-2003, Romney, small business owners agree: don’t raise taxes
04-28-2003, Romney to legislature: resist urge to raise taxes
And then in 2005:
10-03-2005, Romney calls for tax cut as revenues come flooding in
and 2006:
05-02-2006, Amid record revenues, Romney and Healey renew call for tax cut
There wasn’t a tax cut Romney didn’t promote:
Apr 19, 2007; Policy Briefing: Abolishing The Death Tax
Jan 06, 2007; In Case You Missed It: “Romney on Taxes”
Jan 04, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney Signs “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”
2006
01-24-2006, Romney urges taxpayers to file for new tax breaks
02-24-2006, Romney urges taxpayers to deduct home heating expenses
05-02-2006, Amid record revenues, Romney and Healey renew call for tax cut
08-14-2006, Romney expands tax benefits for disabled veterans
2005
03-30-2005, Romney proposes c.h.o.i.c.e. tax relief program for seniors
06-10-2005, Romney files legislation to “fix” capital gains error; citizens will get refunds, not retroactive tax bills
07-22-2005, Romney approves tax-free shopping holiday
08-11-2005, Romney, dimasi, hart promote tax-free shopping weekend
10-03-2005, Romney calls for tax cut as revenues come flooding in
11-18-2005, Romney proposes tax fix to prevent retroactive taxation
11-20-2005, Romney signs bill to give seniors tax relief
12-08-2005, Romney signs bill abolishing retroactive tax
2004
08-11-2004, Romney promotes tax-free shopping day on saturday
2003
04-15-2003, As they rush to file returns, taxpayers hear from Romney
04-22-2003, Romney, small business owners agree: don’t raise taxes
04-28-2003, Romney to legislature: resist urge to raise taxes
06-25-2003, Romney announces extension of investment tax credit
06-30-2003, Romney signs no new tax budget in time for new fiscal year
December 8th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“Also, Massachusetts has arguable the best school system in America, where as Arkansas has a horrible one. What is Huck spending this money on, because we know it’s not being spent on Education or Incarceration?”
Destroying hard drives from his administration.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Mitt Romney Tax Quotes
” America’s tax code is a labyrinth that imposes an enormous and unnecessary burden on our citizens and employers. Keeping taxes low and simplifying the code will grow the economy and enhance our competitiveness.”
Governor Mitt Romney
“I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs . I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage.”
Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, October 24, 2005
“It is fundamentally unfair to tax people retroactively . If we are to keep faith with the taxpayers of Massachusetts, we need to correct the constitutional error that occurred here.”
Governor Mitt Romney Press Release, 2005)
December 8th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Any year the government puts money back in taxpayers’ pockets is a great year. Of course, next year will be even better if we can convince the Legislature to start rolling the tax rate back to 5 percent.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 01-24-2006 Press Release
“High energy prices have put a strain on older homeowners and young families alike. This deduction was designed to help people make it through the home heating season, and I’d like to see 100 percent of those who are eligible receive this tax break.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2006 Press Release
“It may be Tax Freedom Day, but there’s no reason for celebration in Massachusetts. Next year, I’d like to see Tax Freedom Day in Massachusetts arrive a little bit earlier and the way to make that happen is by reducing the income tax rate to 5 percent.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 05-02-2006 Press Release
“That money does not belong to the government,” Romney said. “That’s the taxpayers’ money and we can clearly afford to let them keep it.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 05-02-2006 Press Release
” One of the highest duties of government is our obligation to take care of the men and women who defend this nation. This legislation follows through on that commitment by providing additional benefits to disabled veterans, as well as to the families of soldiers killed or missing in action.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 08-14-2006 Press Release
“We enacted property tax relief for our senior citizens and instead of levying a retroactive capital gains tax hike, we acted to refund $250 million to Massachusetts taxpayers.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 2006 State of the Commonwealth address
“I don’t like taxes. I think we need less government, not more government.”
Governor Mitt Romney, Interview with Mort Kondracke (March 2006)
2005
“You don’t create economic prosperity by raising taxes.”
Governor Mitt Romney, National Review (June 2005)
“Our seniors should be able to live their remaining years in the comforting surroundings of their homes and communities. We can help them by providing property tax relief and other tax breaks.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 03-30-2005 Press Release
“It is fundamentally unfair to tax people retroactively. If we are to keep faith with the taxpayers of Massachusetts, we need to correct the constitutional error that occurred here.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-10-2005 Press Release
“We’re sending taxes in Massachusetts on a little summer vacation. Everyone should head out to their favorite stores to take advantage of the tax-free holiday.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 07-22-2005 Press Release
“Taxes in Massachusetts have the weekend off. This upcoming sales tax holiday, consumers can enjoy savings at a range of shops from major retailers to their favorite mom-and-pop stores.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 08-11-2005 Press Release
During a visit at the shopping plaza in Landmark Center
“No matter how you look at it, this is extremely positive news for the people of Massachusetts. Revenues were up across the board in every single category. There are more people working, our business sector is healthy and creating jobs and consumers are spending money.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 10-03-2005 Press Release
“Now, it’s time to take the next step. There is no longer any reason not to give the people what they voted for – a 5 percent income tax rate.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 10-03-2005 Press Release
“It is simply wrong to change the rules after the fact on taxpayers who sold assets in reliance on the tax code in effect at the time.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 11-18-2005 Press Release
“We have tried to come up with a solution that addresses the concerns of legislators worried about the impact of the refunds on the state treasury. By spreading out the payment of refunds over three years, rather than all at once, we can soften the revenue impact. Ultimately, it’s going to cost the state some money. But if we don’t act, thousands of taxpayers who played by the rules will be punished for a mistake they did not make.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 11-18-2005 Press Release
“With the rise in property values, it makes it difficult for seniors to stay in their homes. Seniors should be able to stay as long as they want in the homes where they’ve raised families and created a lifetime of fond memories.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 11-20-2005 Press Release
“By making this important correction we will keep faith with the taxpayers and prevent thousands of families from enduring any financial hardship from an unfair retroactive tax. I commend the Legislature for approving a solution that fixes this problem once and for all.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 12-08-2005 Press Release
2004
“And a special thank you to the citizens of Massachusetts: You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 01-15-04 State of the State
“If you want someone who voted for tax hikes 98 times, send in John Kerry. If you think trial lawyers need more money, our economy needs more law suits, and malpractice costs should go even higher, then send in John Edwards with him.”
Governor Mitt Romney, September 1, 2004; 10:09 PM
Remarks to the Republican National Convention
“They say there are only two sure things in life – death and taxes. We can’t do anything about the first, but we can make life a little easier when it comes to taxes. I encourage people all across our Commonwealth to head out to stores and malls this weekend to enjoy the benefits of tax free shopping.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 08-11-2004 Press Release
December 8th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
The thing about Huck is that you don’t HAVE to delve into the details of his AR record, because he OPENLY derides the Club for Growth and Wall Street on the campaign trail.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
2003
“Let me come back to something more parochial, which is how our state fits into all of that and how you who are entrepreneurs and investors, financiers, faculty members and others who are associated with the process of innovation fit into, if you will, “our state.” I am convinced that this is an extraordinarily attractive place to grow and develop ideas and technology. That this state has many of the features which are unique in our nation and perhaps in our world – the clusters of technology and capability that have assembled here — means that enterprises that begin here begin with a natural advantage. We have also thought to keep the attractiveness of the, if you will, ‘the Petri dish” here for technology innovation very robust and vital. There are some who would suggest we could solve our problems best by, for instance, raising our tax rates and business payroll taxes and so forth. I am afraid of going down the path California is going down. I am afraid that going to an 11% income tax will scare away innovation and scare away jobs. California is a beautiful place. We don’t have their weather to compete with, so we have to compete on other bases. For us it’s a place where that tax burden is not overwhelming with a 5.3% tax rate – they’re going up to an 11% tax rate, with over 9% today. We have to make sure this is a place as attractive for people to come and grow their enterprise – our regulatory structure.”
Governor Mitt Romney, Deshpande Center IdeaStream Symposium, May 13, 2003
“Let’s put the numbers to a test. Pass my reforms and I’ll deliver the savings. Even if one thought the savings would be smaller, that’s no reason to abandon the reforms. If a reform saves money, let’s take it. This is not a choice between deep cuts or higher taxes. There is another way. My plan calls for reform. It’s hard to say goodbye to the old way of doing things, but people are demanding change.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-15-2003 Press Release
“As the reality of last year’s tax increase sinks in, it is imperative to remember how important it is to hold the line on raising taxes again this year.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-15-2003 Press Release
“Given our fiscal crisis, we have a unique opportunity this year to make permanent changes to state government that make sense, save money and make us more efficient. Let’s not squander that opportunity, but instead work together to achieve reform once and for all.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-15-2003 Press Release
“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They provide jobs for our half of our workforce and stimulate our economy. Raising taxes will force them to cut jobs and will drive them out of Massachusetts to a more business-friendly state.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-22-2003 Press Release
“Higher taxes are simply not an option for my administration, for working families or for the hundreds of small businesses who are struggling. It is time for reform.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-22-2003 Press Release
“Analogic’s continuing expansion is extraordinary in light of our challenging economic climate. If we’re going to attract and retain more companies, we need to get serious about reforming state government and taking steps to foster a pro-growth environment. Those steps include holding the line on taxes.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-28-2003 Press Release
“I find it unbelievable to hear people in the State House talking about tax increases as an option to closing the budget gap. Raising taxes at a time of rising unemployment will hurt working families, drive companies out of Massachusetts and push our economy into an even deeper rut.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-28-2003 Press Release
“Higher taxes are simply not an option for my administration, for working families or for the hundreds of businesses who are struggling. It is time for reform.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 04-28-2003 Press Release
“Massachusetts has tremendous potential – a highly skilled and educated workforce, top-notch institutes of higher learning and excellent health care facilities. But, we need to work harder to convince employers that Massachusetts is a good place to do business – and that starts with a stable tax structure.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-25-2003 Press Release
“The Investment Tax Credit is one of the vital tools we have to attract employers and stimulate job growth in Massachusetts. I applaud the House and Senate leaders for their efforts to maintain the Bay State’s pro-business environment.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-25-2003 Press Release
“We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state’s history without raising taxes. Not many states can make that claim, but here in Massachusetts we can be proud of what we have accomplished on behalf of our citizens. I am grateful to the Legislature for their efforts.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
“With this budget, we’ve launched the state on the road to reform. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got a lot. And as Arnold Schwarzenegger might say, ‘I’ll be back.’”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
“Change doesn’t happen overnight or in six months. Reform is a four year job and we’ll be fighting for it every step of the way.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
“This year’s budget represents just the first step,” Romney said. “We still have financial challenges ahead of us, but with ingenuity and hard work, we can solve them.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
“We will continue to push for our plans to merge the Turnpike Authority, adopt court reform and institute workforce changes that will give us the tools to manage effectively. Our energy is limitless.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
“I support the changes to the Quinn Bill. The exceptions I have proposed are fair to our police officers who have either served their country or are more than halfway through their course of study.”
Governor Mitt Romney, 06-30-2003 Press Release
2002
“The easy way to fix any problem is to go to the people and say you have to pay more money, but that’s not what the job of management is. The job of management is to find ways to permanently and structurally change the costs of our structure such that we can have a balanced budget without always raising taxes every time people think there’s a need.”
Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Herald, March 22, 2002
“America’s tax code is a labyrinth that imposes an enormous and unnecessary burden on our citizens and employers. Keeping taxes low and simplifying the code will grow the economy and enhance our ccompetitiveness.”
Governor Mitt Romney’s Commonwealth PAC
December 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Mitt Romney wanted to cut the state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, which translates into an average of $100 per taxpayer. In 2000, voters approved a gradual lowering of the income tax rate, which was 5.85 percent at the time, to 5 percent. But in the depths of the state’s fiscal crisis in 2002, the Legislature froze the rate at the current 5.3 percent.
“Now, it’s time to take the next step. There is no longer any reason not to give the people what they voted for – a 5 percent income tax rate.”
Press Release, 10/3/2005
December 8th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Stop clogging the blog with cherry picked comments. Anybody an do that.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism.[5]
He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.[6]
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.[7]
He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003)[8], and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001.[9]
He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.[10]
He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.[11]
In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law.[12]
By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform,[13] garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
..Including yourself apparently. At least bjalder is backing up his statements with evidence.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Stop trying to claim Huckabee was a fiscal conservative.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Metro – you’re still up?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Besides, there’s a difference between posting a bunch of opinions from supporters, and posting actual facts. If what you’re accusing me of is posting facts that are positive for my candidate, then-guilty as charged.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
RayinNH, I’m in and out.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Well, since we’re pasting super lengthy posts nobody will read:
Response to the Club for Growth (Part I)
Since January, the Club for Growth has attacked the Governor Huckabee’s credentials as a fiscal conservative. The first salvo came with the release of their white paper, “”Is Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee a Pro-Growth, Economic Conservative?” An honest examination of Huckabee’s tenure as governor would have to conclude that he is the most pro-growth, economic conservative with executive experience in the race. Instead, CFG used the paper to slander the Governor’s record and deceive numerous trusting conservatives. Even more surprisingly, journalists have accepted the CFG’s claims without question, even though more than 80% of the “analysis” consisted of out-of-context news clippings.
Troubled by this unwarranted attack, the Huckabee campaign recently sent Andy Roth, the author of the white paper, a series of clarifying questions:
” Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and highways?
” Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for education?
” Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for Medicaid?
” When, if ever, does the CFG consider a tax hike to be legitimate?
” Does the CFG believe in balanced budgets?
” If yes to #6, should taxes be raised when cuts in non-discretionary spending are not enough to cover the budget shortfall?
Unless the answer to each of these questions is an emphatic “no” the analysis by the CFG does not make sense.
The Arkansas constitution, in a measure that should be lauded by all fiscal conservatives, requires that the state budget be balanced. More than 90% of the state’s budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services. Naturally, cutting spending is always the first response of conservatives, as it was for Governor Huckabee. But that solution is inadequate when there is a shortage of elasticity in the budget. Unable to resort to deficit spending (as other candidates are able to do) the Arkansas Legislature was forced to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure repair, conservation efforts, court-mandated education expenditures, and federal mandates.
The purpose of this rebuttal is not to convince everyone that Governor Huckabee is their kind of candidate. Anti-tax radicals will never be convinced that tax monies can be legitimately spent on highways, bridges, schools, and Medicare. Instead, our aim is to prove to true fiscal conservatives-those that expect responsible governance, low taxes, reduced spending, and balanced budgets-that Governor Huckabee has the most consistently fiscal conservative record of any Presidential candidate.
The following is a point-by-point response to the “Taxes” section of the CFG’s white paper. The portions from the CFG’s paper are in bold.
Governor Huckabee touts himself as an economic conservative, writing in his biography that he “pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history” and “led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” early on as governor, but he only offers a small piece of the picture. It is true that Governor Huckabee fought for an $80 million tax cut package in 1997 that was passed by the Arkansas Legislature; cut the state capital gains tax in 1999; and passed the Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights in the same year, limiting the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit.
Before the CFG attempts to downplay these significant actions, let’s take another look at what they’ve admitted he was able to accomplish:
” Pushed through a Democrat legislature the first, major broad based tax cuts in the state’s history.
” Pushed through a Democrat legislature an $80 million tax cut package.
” Cut the state’s capital gains tax by 25%.
” Established a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights
” Limited the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit
Here are a few that they left off the list:
” Eliminated the income tax for families below the poverty line.
” Increased the standard deductions.
” Eliminated the marriage penalty.
” Eliminated bracket creep by indexing the income taxes to inflation, thereby preventing taxpayers from moving into a higher bracket when their paychecks increase due to inflations.
” Doubled the child care tax credit.
” Eliminated capital gains tax on the sale of a home.
However, his record over the rest of his 10-year tenure tells a starkly different story.
” The CFG implies that Governor Huckabee made radical tax increases that offset the cut in capital gains, the $80 million tax cut, and the other fiscally conservative policies. As you’ll see, though, they have to misrepresent the Governor’s entire record in order to make such a specious claim.
Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
” According to the Cato report cited:
“Upon taking office in July 1996, Huckabee immediately backed a 1/8-cent sales tax hike to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism. The voters enacted that hike as a constitutional amendment in November 1996.”
” Governor Huckabee didn’t “sign a sales tax hike.” An overwhelming 80% of the voters chose to do so through an amendment to their state’s constitution. He supported the measure, however, because he believes that conservatives should be “conservationist” and that clean lakes, streams, rivers, and forests are a necessary expenditure.
Notice they also left off the rest of what Cato had to say:
“In his first budget, however, he redeemed himself by proposing a sweeping overhaul of Arkansas’s archaic income tax system. The $80 million tax cut package was enacted in 1997 and became the first broad-based state tax cut in more than 20 years. It increased the standard deduction, eliminated the income tax “marriage penalty,” and indexed the state tax brackets for inflation.”
He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
” Indeed, Governor Huckabee joined 43 other state governors in sending a “strong and unified message to Congress: deal fairly with Main Street retailers, consumers, and local governments.”
As the letter stated, “If you care about a level playing field for Main Street retail businesses and local control of states, local governments, and schools, extend the moratorium on taxing Internet access ONLY with authorization for the states to streamline and simplify the existing sales tax system. To do otherwise perpetuates a fundamental inequity and ignores a growing problem….The loophole creates serious budget problems for schools, states, and local governments. A study estimated that states could lose as much as $14 billion by 2004 if they are unable to collect existing taxes on Web-based sales. Nearly half of state revenues come from sales taxes.”
” Governor Huckabee supported the federalist position of allowing the states-not Washington, D.C.-to decide whether sales taxes were collected from goods sold within an individual state. Why should the federal government be allowed to say that Amazon.com must be given a 7% tax break over a local Arkansas book store owner?
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
” The CFG fails to note that Arkansas law prohibits deficits and requires that the state budget be balanced.
” According to the article cited, the reason Governor Huckabee opposed abolishing the food tax was because it would drain $168 million from the state’s Medicaid budget by eliminating the soft drink tax. The article also notes that the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas also opposed abolishing this particular tax, saying approval would likely lead to an increase in the general sales tax.
He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
” The CFG fails to note that 90% of the state’s budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services.
” The CFG fails to note that the gas tax was used to fix 1,300 miles of highway, much of which was considered the worst in the country.
” The CFG fails to note that the cigarette tax was used to cover a budget shortfall. In 2003 the state’s chief financial officer projected a $62.3 million revenue shortfall that would result cuts in state services, possible layoffs, tax increases or the possible repeal of late 1990s tax cuts. The Legislature was presented a series of options and chose to increase the tax on tobacco.
” The CFG fails to note that the bed-tax on private nursing home patients was instituted to generate revenue for a nearly 3-to-1 match in federal Medicaid funds. Without this revenue low-income patients would not be able to find beds in nursing homes.
In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).
” Notice the odd wording, “allowed…to become law”? Here is how the Cato Institute report describes the incident:
“In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase, and the Legislature sent to him a smaller sales tax increase with a corporate franchise tax to make up the difference. Huckabee let it become law without his signature.”
” Governor Huckabee had three options: sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or let it become law without his signature. As the Governor told the Arkansas News Bureau (1/28/2004), “If this is what they want to put their signature on and their stamp on, then I should let them do it, even though I think that’s pathetically less than what we ought to be shooting for, it will let the public see that that’s the best they could offer.”
He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements. (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
” In Arkansas, 49% of the tax revenue comes from Sales/Use taxes. Such increases were required to meet the legal requirement to balance the budget. The citizens of Arkansas, like most true conservatives, the benefit of having an educated populace far outweighs a 7/8-cent tax increase.
By the end of his 10-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07),…
” As noted above, the Governor allowed the sales tax to increase from 5.125% to 6% (+7/8 cent) to increase funding for education.
” As noted above, the 3-cent higher fuel tax was used to make needed repairs to the state’s dilapidated highway system.
” As noted above, the cigarette tax was used to cover a budget shortfall of $62.3 million. …garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute.
” The CFG doesn’t explain why fiscal conservatives should care how a libertarian think tank grades a candidate. Perhaps they were unable to find a fiscally conservative group that would aid them in their hit piece.
” Unfortunately, Cato’s analysis is as weak as CFG’s:
“Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package that was the first broad-based tax cut in the state in more than 20 years. He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax-a significant progrowth accomplishment. But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved, including an expansion in Medicare eligibility that Huckabee made a centerpiece of his 1997 agenda. He agreed to a 3 percent income tax “surcharge” and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase.”
” After praising his accomplishments, Cato bashes Governor Huckabee for proposing a sales tax to “cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved…” Again, 90% of the Arkansas state budget is on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services. Obviously, the radical libertarians at Cato consider it blasphemous to have the state funding schools or paying the medical bills of the poor. But complying with state law in order to balance the budget and pay for such entitlements does not make a governor a “big-government conservative.”
Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa conservatives.[15] On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on “Meet the Press”[16] and then at the National Review Conservative Summit.[17] The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.
” Governor Huckabee has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge which states he will, “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”
” It should be noted that Sen. Thompson and Mayor Giuliani have refused to sign this pledge.
A final word about the motivation for the CFG’s attacks:
” In January when Governor Huckabee announced he was forming an exploratory committee, the CFG released a white paper on his tenure in Arkansas. Governor Huckabee was the first candidate scrutinized even though he entered the race after Sen. McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Sen. Brownback, and Governor Romney.
” What was the reason the CFG thought he was worthy of moving to the head of the line? The tax burden during his time in Arkansas was better than under Mitt Romney’s in Massachusetts. Likewise, his record on spending was better than Mayor Giuliani, who increased spending more than under his Democratic predecessor. So why was Governor Huckabee singled out as inconsistently conservative?
” The reason is that one of the CFG’s biggest donors and organization officials is a longtime political rival of Governor Huckabee.
” In August the Club for Growth began running attack ads in Iowa on Governor Mike Huckabee. Salon.com found after checking disclosures through the IRS that the ads had been paid for by “a Little Rock neighbor and political rival of Huckabee’s named Jackson T. “Steve” Stephens Jr.” Not only did Stephens provide the $125,000 to Club for Growth.net, he serves as the chairman, along with his Arkansas business associate, Gary Faulkner. Stephens has contributed over $1 million to CFG
” CFG President Pat Toomey recently hinted that more context-less attack ads that distort Governor Huckabee’s record will soon run in Iowa. We’ll be ready with the truth.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
That response to the CFG has been thoroughly discredited, and its author was shamed into making an apology. And then you repost it after that?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Mike Huckabee, not only a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Gotcha. Huck’s AIDS debacle is front page on the Rudynews.com website. Oprah-Bama is tops on the Clinton News Network.com
December 8th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Bjalder,
“the point is that Huck didn’t start out with super-low taxes and was forced to raise them 47 percent”
Huckabee did not raise taxes 47%. Where do you get this stuff?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
WOULD YOU PEOPLE STOP SPAMMING THIS THREAD?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Mitt Romney just hit a 4-month low on Intrade, last trade of 18.4.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Metro – you will have to forgive MWS – he has kept quiet for months and months about his guy and now that his guy is up in the polls he will post whatever he can to try and defend that position and blind himself to the reality that Huck will lead to the schism of the GOP.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
bjalder,
do me a favor, go to my site and read the top post – and cross-post it onto your site if you are so inclined. Thanks!
December 8th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
BJalder,
Maybe this is where you are getting confused:
“(Huckabee) conceded there was a penny increase in the sales tax but said that was necessary to carry out a court mandate on public education. Huckabee also acknowledged state spending went up 47 percent during his tenure, but noted that at time other state budgets were growing by more than 98 percent.”
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Huckabee%3A+I‘m+not+a+tax-and-spender&articleId=8b36440a-6b28-47d5-bf32-6dea3b4b4358
December 8th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Metro – Romney has nothing to do with this post.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Metro,
“That response to the CFG has been thoroughly discredited, and its author was shamed into making an apology.”
Don’t be dishonest. The author apologized for some harsh rhetoric, not for any factual inaccuracies. But that’s what you want people to believe, isn’t it?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
RayinNH, the top thread is fair game for breaking news.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
At least in NH our Governors had the balls to battle the courts over “court mandated education.” The state was sued by a school district back in the late 90’s/early 00’s and we are still fighting against our supreme court who found for the school district. Instead of rolling over and playing dead my state stood against the courts. In fact, the Supreme Court head justice was re-called after the decision. And judges up here are appointed for life, so it took a movement of the people to re-call the justice. Maybe Huck should have asked for some help from the Rep. Gov of NH instead of just rubber-stamping Dem tax increases.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Ray,
“you will have to forgive MWS – he has kept quiet for months and months about his guy”
What are you talking about? I’ve been posting here for months. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Anyway, what difference would it make if I found this site yesterday?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Current Intrade numbers:
Rudy 40.0
Huck 20.1
Mitt 18.4
December 8th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
As long as that breaking news has to do with Romney, right my friend?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
This pretty well sums up where the Club for Growth is coming from:
“The tax burden during his time in Arkansas was better than under Mitt Romney’s in Massachusetts. Likewise, his record on spending was better than Mayor Giuliani, who increased spending more than under his Democratic predecessor. So why was Governor Huckabee singled out as inconsistently conservative?
†The reason is that one of the CFG’s biggest donors and organization officials is a longtime political rival of Governor Huckabee.
†In August the Club for Growth began running attack ads in Iowa on Governor Mike Huckabee. Salon.com found after checking disclosures through the IRS that the ads had been paid for by “a Little Rock neighbor and political rival of Huckabee’s named Jackson T. “Steve†Stephens Jr.†Not only did Stephens provide the $125,000 to Club for Growth.net, he serves as the chairman, along with his Arkansas business associate, Gary Faulkner. Stephens has contributed over $1 million to CFG
—–end quotes——-
It’s like the old saying, he who pays the band, calls the tune.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Gotta’ go, guys.
Have a good night, and God bless.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
MWS, all of that is meaningless when your guy OPENLY derides Wall Street on the campaign trail.
That means we don’t have to sift through budgets and numbers to figure out what Huckabee’s attitude about economics are. Just like John Edwards.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:06 am
How about rejecting Mike Huckabee on the basis that he has either:
1). No idea what the US Constitution says, or
2). If he does, has no intentions of abiding by it,
and thus is totally unfit to fulfill the purpose of the office of the Presidency, which is to uphold and defend said Constitution?
Numbers and statistics are always fungible, but they pale in comparison to the fact that Mike Huckabee clearly hasn’t the slightest as to what the purpose of the federal government is. He’s a guy with a lot of great ideas and theories about what the government can do for you and what the government can do with your money, but has obviously never read the Tenth Amendment.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Absolute nonsense posted by Huckabee supporters. I’ve done an analysis of ALL 50 states tax burdens, and tax increases during Huckabee’s 10 years as Governor. Only states increased taxes more: Rhode Island and Vermont, both hard left states (the latter was governed by Howard Dean for 6 of those 10 years). Ohio, which was Governed by Bob Taft of the 6.5% approval rating fame. And Louisiana, which was devastated by two of the largest hurricanes in history (and unsurprisingly was forced to raise taxes afterwards).
December 9th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Absolute nonsense posted by Huckabee supporters. I’ve done an analysis of ALL 50 states tax burdens, and tax increases during Huckabee’s 10 years as Governor. Only 4 states increased taxes more: Rhode Island and Vermont, both hard left states (the latter was governed by Howard Dean for 6 of those 10 years). Ohio, which was Governed by Bob Taft of the 6.5% approval rating fame. And Louisiana, which was devastated by two of the largest hurricanes in history (and unsurprisingly was forced to raise taxes afterwards).
December 9th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Matt,
The point is that you are just suppose to accept those figures and be too lazy to actually investigate the situation. Darn You!
Lol!
Huckabee is just another slick politician from Hope.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Louisiana ended up with a surplus for the last two years in a row. It is also the only two years that I recieved a refund in state taxes.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:17 am
However you determined your tax burden is flawed.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Whatever method you are using obviously does not take into account other economic factors. The economy in Louisiana has overpowered any tax increase.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:20 am
The same is true in Arkansas, thats why the people still like him.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:22 am
The only difference between the two is that Governor Blank Stare had nothing to do with it. (Although she found a wa to spend the surplus)It was all spurred by post Hurricane contruction and industry boom. Not to mention the flow of federal dollars into the local economy.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Michael,
Terrific. What in the world does that have to do with anything? My point was simply that their stats are artificially inflated because of Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita, and indeed their taxes have come down since the peek in 05. But, they’re still higher then they would have been. I’ll also confess I’m not persuaded by the “well, ok so he was worse then 45 other states on taxes. But, the 4 that he was better then weren’t so bad”. That reduces fiscal conservatism, as an idea, to empty vessel you can fill with anything from Goldwater to Marx.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I used the tax foundation numbers that some of the Huckabot’s were citing above. Arkansas’ tax burden increased by 1.2% (as a percentage of income). If I recall, Rhode Island increased their’s by 2.1%. Ohio by 1.9%. Vermont by 1.7%. And Louisiana by 1.3%. The vast majority of states were RADICALLY lower then that. The average state increased taxes by .376%, less then a third of Arkansas’ increase. And no, my calculations aren’t flawed.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:33 am
The point is that those percentages don’t mean anything. What about actual dollars in someones pocket? Thats great that the average state was 0.376%, but it could mean more money than the 1.2% of Arkansas.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Its just not a fair assessment if the economics as a whole aren’t taken into account.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Michael, I refer you to #71. None of this is necessary.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Econ 101, Michael. Samuelson is the author, I believe. You might want to look at the Cliffs Notes version.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:44 am
“The tax burden during his time in Arkansas was better than under Mitt Romney’s in Massachusetts. Likewise, his record on spending was better than Mayor Giuliani, who increased spending more than under his Democratic predecessor. So why was Governor Huckabee singled out as inconsistently conservative?”
I have no idea who made these statements, but they’re both utterly ludicrous mis-directions. The tax burden in Arkansas increased by substantially more then the tax burden in Massachusetts; even when we project the latter out to 10 years (though there are good reasons to believe that’s a silly projection). The statement on Rudy is a bizarre non-sequitur. Even if we assume that Rudy increased spending more then Dinkins, this doesn’t have anything to do with Huckabee’s record. The statement “X spent more then Y, therefore Z is better then X” is logical nonsense. But, should we accept this claim? Absolutely not. It’s likely true that, in terms of sheer numbers, Rudy increased spending more then Dinkins. But, then Dinkins for 4 years, and Rudy was mayor for 8. And of course there’s adjusting for inflation to be done. I can’t seem to find the data on Dinkins’ mayoralty, but I know he increased taxes substantially, which would suggest he increased spending (relative to inflation) substantially.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:00 am
“The point is that those percentages don’t mean anything. What about actual dollars in someones pocket? Thats great that the average state was 0.376%, but it could mean more money than the 1.2% of Arkansas.”
This is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read, but it fits rather neatly. Your candidate said something similar the other night on Kudlow. Kudlow pointed out that we’d seen lots of growth, and the economy was really quite robust, contrary to many of the pessimistic reports. And Huck said something like “well, sure on the macro level, things are going well, but on the micro level Americans are struggling” as if, you know, it was plausible that we could have continuing economic growth, full employment, etc while everyone struggles.
To address your particular comment, we put figures into percentages because we’re attempting to compare similar types of numbers across unequal playing fields, so that I can’t say as a Pasedena mayor, “the Governor of California increased taxes by 3 billion, and I only increased them by 100 million. Therefore, I’m a better tax cutter, and you ought to elect me instead”. But, if you’re talking about “money in the pocket”, then the situation gets even worse for Huckabee. Because Arkansas has one of the lowest average incomes in the country, even when we adjust for cost of living. So a 1.2% increase in taxes in Arkansas is going to leave you with less disposable income (money in the pocket in layman terms) then a 1.2% increase in, say, Massachusetts.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:05 am
“Huckabee did not raise taxes 47%. Where do you get this stuff?”
Yes, he did.
“Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure.”
This is where I got it.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/updated_huckabee_white_paper.php
When tax reduction advocacy groups say your guy is a tax and spender, and the only people you can find to say he’s not are your guy and his supporters…
December 9th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Glad you pointed that out in 88, Matthew. I didn’t want to steal your point.:)
December 9th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Why does everyone have their heads s far up huckabee’s butt? It’s getting rather funny. Huckabee has accomplished exactly nothing other than losing 100 lbs. and applying for pastor in chief. If it comes down to “ahh shucks” Huck than I would vote 3rd party in a heartbeat.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:30 am
†When, if ever, does the CFG consider a tax hike to be legitimate?â€
Basically Huckabee’s camp is saying that if they can rationalize their tax hikes then they’re okay. Then they went on to rationalize each and every one of them. Hmmm, I wonder what he’d do as President?
“Does the CFG believe in balanced budgets?â€
So, basically if you overspend, then it’s okay to raise taxes?
“More than 90% of the state’s budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services.â€
Yet, they lag behind in education, ranking around 41st, isn’t Medicare largely paid for in federal dollars?, Huckabee let people out of prison left and right, and what qualifies as “human services� is that just a bunch of entitlements?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:59 am
I would like to hear what a President Huckabee would do about CFG and similar groups that poison our politics.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:40 am
But, bjalder, you just don’t understand. That nasty old Club for Greed doesn’t like Mikey, so they don’t count.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
You guts use the same logic to discredit Morris.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
…guys..sorry
December 9th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Felcher#93
So all one has to do to be considered a “group that poison our politics” is disagree with Huckabee? And you want a “President Huckabee” will do something about them?
And you wonder why the rest of the country is concerned about the rise of Huckabee?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:25 am
While it’s true that Huckabee cut 90 different taxes while in office, the tax increases he championed and got passed more than offset the cuts by approximately $500 Million a year. All in all, he raised spending by 50%, raised the tax burden by 47%, raised the number of state employees by 20%, and generally governed a lot more like a Democrat than like a Republican. I have no doubt in my mind that in his mind he was doing the right thing in every case….e.g., the roads sucked and he wanted to make them better. Living in Southern Missouri, I have made dozens of forays into Arkansas, and I can tell you authoritatively, with no fear of jeopardization, that the roads there STILL suck. Whether or not new taxes were absolutely necessary on nursing home beds or on pet groomers, is a matter of political philosophy; to wit: are you a statist, or not? Contrast this record, though, with Mitt Romney’s. During his tenure in Massachusetts, state spending and state-level taxes increased at less than the rate of inflation. So, in constant dollars, in real money, they both decreased. There were fewer state employees when he left office than when he arrived. These different results are because the 2 men have different governing philosophies, but one of them is DEFINITELY in the wrong party. And, only one of them deserves the presidency.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:26 am
grrrrr…. I need to hire a proof reader.
Felcher#93
So all one has to do to be considered a “group that poison our politics†is disagree with Huckabee? And you want a “President Huckabee†to do something about them?
And you wonder why the rest of the country is concerned about the rise of Huckabee?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
I was at odds with CFG before this campaign, so it has nothing to do with a specific candidate. But since it appears that Huckabee will be the nominee it was natural to wonder what he would do.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Feltcher, #97 and #100
This is exactly why playing identity politics at the Presidential level is so dangerous. Us versus them. “Just wait until we get in. Then they will pay the consequences of ‘poisoning our politics’”.
The Democrats play this game all the time. It truly saddens me to see a sizable portion of our Republican party wanting to follow suit.
Huckabee is playing an exclusive game. The other major candidates for the nomination are playing an inclusive game. For a minority party, which game do you think has the better chance of winning the general?
December 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Whether or not new taxes were absolutely necessary on nursing home beds
Ask Romney who also supported this tax on nursing home beds.
but one of them is DEFINITELY in the wrong party. And, only one of them deserves the presidency.
What I know is that Romney didn’t want to return to Reagan/Bush. Someone is in the wrong party, I agree.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
This post has lead to reach one conclusion – Romney and Huckabee are both equally adept at dispatching their handlers to the web to fill the blogs with bulls**t about their respective bosses record.
Let me tell you guys a secret – some of us aren’t going to believe you. The 2 Governors respective records speak for themselves. One is a socially-conservative liberal the other has no convictions whatsoever and will support whatever is politically useful at the time. Guess which one is which.