Huckleberry hates freedom
May 29th, 2008, 4:20 pm · 8 Comments · posted by Steven Greenhut
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee always set my teeth on edge, from his hokey folksy manner to his love of big government to his shameless use of his religion for political gain. But now I understand exactly why I found the Huckster to be so offensive (and it’s hard to stand out on that score given the overall quality of presidential candidates this year). Here, hat tip to AndrewSullivan.com, is a quotation from Huckleberry on Huffington Post regarding libertarianism:
“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says ‘look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.’ Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.”
So libertarians are unAmerican? Actually, the Huckster completely misstates what libertarianism is about. We don’t advocate kids going without education, but a free system — which will lead to kids getting a far better education than the one they get in the government schools Huckabee loves. We believe in freedom, not government coercion.
Huckabee makes clear what modern Republicanism is all about: paying for government, which explains his support for massive tax increases. The Huckster does make a good point when he explains:
“My experience in Arkansas was, a lot of the so-called conservatives said ‘Let’s cut the budget.’ But they wanted to add prison sentences, they wanted to eliminate parole, they wanted to have harsher sentences for various crimes. And I said ‘OK, that’s fine, but that’s going to be expensive. So which do you want?’ You can’t have both, or you do what the federal government has done, and this is where I think Republicans have been especially irresponsible. Their approach has been [to] just kick the can down the road and let your grandkids pay for it.”
Yes, Republicans such as George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger keep spending, but increase the debt rather than raise taxes. That’s a good point, but Huckleberry agrees with Democrats: increase spending AND increase taxes. It’s honest, any way, but the libertarian alternative — finding market solutions, reducing government, increasing individual responsibility — is far more fair and sustainable.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:35 am
you seem to forget the majority of congress (from 94 to nov.2006)was all for the spending that was done .As a matter of fact ,most of if not all the spending increase was republican sponserd and endorsed(with the exception of a small handfull)And as far as huckle bore id concerned ,duh! A spend and tax politition is a spend andtax politition no matter what his party claims.Plus the guy is a misguided religious nut who wants his values imposed just like the rest do.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Hey Steve.
Could you please explain to me the coercion that occurred with me when Boeing gets paid $140M (approx) for the F-22. I don’t recall being asked if I wanted to buy one. Yet I as a taxpayer paid for it.
Since there are private companies whose revenue streams are primarily government contracts (aka taxpayer) might we expect to see an article on the amounts of compensation paid to those employed by those firms. Your big on blasting government, how about a little even handed analysis to allow folks to make an informed decision.
In service for the people….
OC Dem
May 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
OC Dem,
Your comment has nothing to do with the post here, but I agree with you completely about the overpaid corporate whores who live off of contracts with government agencies. I’ve gone over this with others over and over, but here goes again: I am for the true free market — i.e., free companies competing without any government favors or contracts. In that world, I don’t care what execs or union featherbedders get paid as long as they don’t offload any costs to taxpayers. Many corporate CEOs seem ridiculously paid, the function of boards that scratch each other’s backs, but that’s none of my concern. At the end of the day, companies have to deal with the private market, which can be quite unforgiving on wasteful and fraud-ridden firms. But privatization — what you are referring to here — often ends up with the worst of both worlds — government coercion and tax dollars combined with private greed. The red-light cameras cities install is an example of this, as private firms have incentive to shorten yellow lights to yield more tickets, of which they get a cut. So are the awful companies who let cities use eminent domain on their behalf or who accept subsidies. I have written much about it and my book, “Abuse of Power,” has an entire chapter on the evil of corporate welfare and those who take it. I agree completely — and these defense contractors favored by Republicans are among the absolute worst welfare scam artists.
Steven
May 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I am posting my beliefs a la your colleague Mark does on his posts.
Thank you for your response. I for one wouldn’t mind seeing more writings from you and folks like you regarding the compensation of private sector execs whose sole revenue source is government. The Register is very critical of public employees whose earnings reach the six digit level, but we never hear about the Raytheon exec whose compensation is multiple seven digit sums. Yet both are paid from the same taxpayer source.
In service for the people…
OC Dem
May 30th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
OC Dem:
I’m a bit slow today and I removed my question to you when I figured out what you were referring to on my own. But you’re quick … and I get it now.
You are right that I should look at compensation of corporate welfare types. On balance — and I’m not defending the Raytheon guys here — the massive compensation paid to government employees probably is causing more harm to taxpayers (see Vallejo situation) given how widespread it is and the nature of the unfunded liabilities, but I will try to follow up on your suggestion.
In service to readers, taxpayers and the Constitution
Steven
May 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Steve,
I doubt the $16M deficit that has caused the city of Vallejo to declare bankruptcy is anywhere near the amounts of cost overruns by the DoD on some of there larger projects. Typically those costs are in the billions. And the execs for those corporations aren’t being forced to put recaps on the company limo to help bring costs into line.
Then again, I could be wrong.
In service for the people…
OC Dem
May 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
OCDem –
That’s a hard one to figure out. The overall dollars in a DoD project would be far higher than the total deficit in Vallejo, although police and firefighter salaries and benefits in that city eat up 75 percent of the payroll. Proportionally, it’s a much bigger problem. When you add up the unfunded liabilities in all cities, then that would certainly be larger than the Defense Department cost overruns. Personally, I think that most of what the Defense Dept. spends is wasteful, and I would gladly see our “defense” (actually, it’s more offense these days) budget slashed. I think you’re comparing apples and oranges, but I basically agree with your point.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:41 am
Steve,
Fair enough that you compare one contract to all cities. I agree that is an apples and oranges comparison. How about comparing all cities to the total cost of ALL DoD overruns. And then throw the figure of total executive compensation to draw a reasonable conclusion and comparison to the cost of a city’s employees. I won’t argue that Vallejo is a good example of overreaching unions and poor management by the city.