UPDATE: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Huckabee---Whatever Tax You Pass, "You Will Have Nothing But My Profound Thanks"
May 5, 2003-Governor Mike Huckabee addressed the Arkansas General Assembly, pleading with them to pass a tax, any tax. He ticked off a list of various taxes that he would find acceptable, a tax on tobacco, a surcharge on the income tax, a sales tax... "I will very happily sign that," he proclaimed.
Jump forward to the present day, Mike Huckabee running for the Republican presidential nomination has signed a no-tax pledge and jumped on the Fair Tax bandwagon.
You'd never know that as governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee's solution to every government spending "need" was higher taxes. He never suggested using funds we had from the tobacco settlement. He never suggested cutting wasteful spending. To him, most of the time, there was no such thing as wasteful spending. In fact, there wasn't enough spending. He pushed hard to make sure that the state would keep giving taxpayer funded benefits to illegal aliens and even advocated giving illegal aliens college scholarships. The list is goes on and on.
All of this is a far cry from the image of the Mr. Conservative that candidate Huckabee is trying to create. "I want to get it on the record," he said then. Well, he got his wish. I bet he wishes it wasn't on the record, now.
UPDATE: I have been receiving some comments claiming that Huckabee did cut spending and/or that he couldn't cut it any more.
Here's a little tidbit of info you should consider. For FY03 (2003) Arkansas state budget, expenditures were $12,943,812,838. That's nearly $13 BILLION, with a B! Huckabee was only trying to raise $100,000,000 for his spending need, meaning that he only had to cut .77 % of the state budget to meet that need.
I've also seen that Huckabee supporters are claiming that Arkansas wanted him to increase taxes. That's simply not true. It highlights the fact that he LIED about the '99 tax increase that he's claiming that 80% of the people of Arkansas voted for. We didn' t vote on a tax. We voted on a BOND ISSUE. Huckabee signed the tax into law himself, which he has repeatedly lied about.
This video is exclusively available as a service from the Arkansas Journal, Arkansas's #1 Conservative Blog.
posted by Henry Rearden at
11:01 PM
44 Comments:
Thanks!
www.ronpaul2008.com
Excellent!
I've been telling people about Huckabee and taxes until I'm blue in the face.
As to blocking comment posts on your YouTube video...
I say ..LET'ER RIPPPP!
I want the evangelical nanny staters to try and defend this huckster, who we now know why, he couldn't raise any funds.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUT OF CONTEXT SNIPPET...Typical hit piece from this bunch. It's pretty easy to trap somebody in a one minute video...WHERE'S THE REST? This is probably concerning the revenue needed for road construction that was VOTED ON BY THE PUBLIC...
Can you post the entire speech please? I'm an evenhanded person and I want to know what the full context was.
Thank you.
This is not an out of context snippet.
It has nothing to do with the highway taxes. He signed that tax increase into law in 1999, which he's been lying about on national television, claiming that we voted for, when what we voted for was a bond issue. He was already raising that tax.
This video is from 2003.
Huckabee never sought to cut other spending when he had a spending "need". He always sought to raise taxes.
In addition, he started all new wasteful spending programs like ArKids 1st, which was his baby, an SCHIP program.
He wanted college scholarships for illegal aliens.
I could go on for hours.
Try a dose of truth at RightSmart.blogspot.com
See the 2003 articles reference on this post about the tobacco tax and income surcharge tax. Medicaid costs continued to rise and states were left holding the bag, no thanks to Washington. What good were Sens. McCain, Thompson and Clinton?
Music Organalist,
I haven't blocked my comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaJW7nXw30A
That's my link.
How much is Fred paying you boys
Unfortunately, Mr. Ritterbush, Huckabee never sought to cut any other spending. His first response, was, as always, to raise taxes.
Make excuses if you will. A conservative views opportunities like that as opportunities to cut spending.
Plus, he had a chance to avoid the Lakeview Decision which led to one of his huge tax increases, but he let that pass.
Huckabee raised twice as many taxes as he cut, in terms of dollar amount.
Huckabee was a net tax raiser.
Well, Henry, you're wrong again. Huckabee did cut spending according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (11/15/02) before being forced to raised taxes.
Would you suggest Huckabee should have violated a state supreme court order to increase funding for education? Or maybe he should have closed some prisons instead?
Fiscal conservatives who expect something for nothing are as delusional as fiscal liberals who believe more government spending can solve every problem. Get past the bumper-sticker mentality and exercise some critical thought!
Your 'conservative blog' sounds very leftist to me. How about context? I could probably take snippets of some of your speech and make you look like anything I wish. Post the entire speech, and the background. Not interested in your pedantic isolation of info without clear context. Get enough of that from liberals.
Mr. Ritterbush, I appreciate your comments.
I have posted a response in the original post, on my homepage.
I noticed that you haven't responded to just the two spending increases Huckabee pushed. I doubt you have an answer. And I really doubt you want me to start listing the other spending programs he's pushed. There are lots. And I'm going to get to them. If you're honest and not just a Huckabee hack, it will blow your mind.
A one-minute outtake from 10 1/2 years as governor - big deal! If he hadn't improved the Arkansas highway system and a bridge had collapsed like the one in Minnesota, he'd have been criticized for that.
These allegations have been asked and answered for at least eight months now. Now that it looks like Governor Huckabee might actually be getting some traction, they're being recylced again.
I suppose if Huckabee was independently wealthy, he could draw a few million from his trust fund, run a bunch of slick Madison Avenue TV spots, and counter this.
Instead, supporters like me have to take their lunch break to post links to other rebuttals.
Mike Huckabee is re-writing the playbook on how to run for president. Some people just can't stand the idea that a candidate who isn't anointed by the party elites or beholden to special interest groups could actually run an effective campaign on nothing but a lot of innovative ideas about education, health care, and yes, taxes.
Great examples of how I sound like a liberal, bobwise. I'm surprised you didn't do what you said you could do with the things I've posted. Yeah, I'm a liberal. You got me. HE CAUGHT ME, FOLKS!!! I'm apparently a liberal.
I don't have to post the whole speech and I don't have the whole speech. Who cares?
What possible explanation could a conservative have for begging for a tax increase? All he had to do was reallocate less than .8% of the state budget that year to avoid a $100,000,000 tax increase. Instead, he literally begged for a tax increase.
I'm glad to know you're from Texas, curious texas, because if you were from Arkansas you'd know better.
The clip is from Huckabee's speech to the Legislature opening a special session to deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court decision that declared the state's method of funding schools to be unconstitutional. There's nothing in the rest of the speech to redeem it -- Huckabee started from the premise that the decision required a huge new tax increase (though it really didn't).
Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative. Period, end of story. Before he started running for president, he never claimed to be one. There are lots of reasons to vote for him, but his tax & spend record is not one of them.
Huckabee is a National joke, the Canadians have been making fun of him for years. I think a Huckabee Presidency is hardly gaining any respect with other countries, this is completely separate from his Amnesty and TAX views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mjZR8-vw0
You should post it as a response to this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TWUxpS7anpo
Can you tell us when this speech was given? I'm trying to figure out the date of this.
kevin_tracy2002@yahoo.com
I'm glad to know you're from Texas, curious texas [sic], because if you were from Arkansas you'd know better.
And I'm glad to know you're anonymous, anonymous. It shows that you're unwilling come out from the shadows and reveal your true motivation for taking the stand you do against Huckabee.
How do I even know you're from Arkansas if you refuse to take on a blogosphere identity that can be traced? How do I distinguish you from the first anonymous in this thread?
Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative. Period, end of story.
I've given you three posts that refute the accusations lodged against Huckabee's fiscal record. Are you willing to take them on point by point, or would you prefer to withdraw back into your anonymity?
If you knew how Huckabee has treated people who got in his way, many friends of mine included, you wouldn't need to ask that question, tex. I agree with what the other guy said.
I've had a front row seat for Huckabee from day 1 and I'm scared to death of him. I also know that he's every bit the liberal on fiscal issues that his record shows. I don't have time to read what you linked to, but I'm not going to waste my time and neither should anyone else since you don't seem interested in answering the long litany of proof against him other than to say it's been refuted.
Oh, and how's this for a name. Does that ease your mind?
I don't have to post the whole speech and I don't have the whole speech. Who cares?
I care. And so does Kevin Tracy. Can you at least give us the date of the speech so we can research it ourselves?
Being the Curious Texan that I am, I always like to refer back to the primary source rather than rely on someone else's edited version and/or interpretation.
And if you don't have the whole speech, where did you get the excerpt? Just curious (hence the name).
I don't have time to read what you linked to,...
Translation: Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind's already made up.
Can y'all read??? The first words of this post say "May 5, 2003."
A one minute clip. HA. thats funny. Lets see the whole clip in context then I will decide. To think no taxes is necessary is ridiculous.
The Murphy Commission was a citizen driven, two year initiative authorized by Mike Huckabee's first proclamation upon taking office (1996). It's purpose was to suggest ways to streamline and make more efficient Arkansas State Government without raising taxes. In fact it recommended cutting taxes. Huckabee pushed or sponsored almost none of its streamlining recommendations which would have saved the state at least $50 million annually. He chose to raise taxes instead.
Apparently, Huckabee did not have any faith in the Bush tax cuts to generate the large State surplus that we now have because he raised taxes in mid-2003, as demonstrated by this video, only a few months after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. How's that for leadership. What will happen if he were Pres. facing a Dem. congress?
This video is just about as disingenuous as it gets...
From my understanding this plea for revenue was a result of a Supreme Court order to get 100 million into the education system. The Governor had little choice unless he wanted to see his state go into dept.
He also had to do this with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.
He did a good job, he handled the crisis and still managed to keep his trend as a tax cutter.
A little perspective about what was happening in the state and what he was talking about would have been good (potentially called 'journalism'). At that time a tax increase was virtually MANDATED by the Supreme Court. Both sides of the aisle agreed it was necessary. His point was that he would agree with whatever comprimise the democratic legisalture (House and Senate) accepted as the best route for the State...
I'm back Henry, and yes, I have answers...
You said:
"For FY03 (2003) Arkansas state budget, expenditures were $12,943,812,838. That's nearly $13 BILLION, with a B! Huckabee was only trying to raise $100,000,000 for his spending need, meaning that he only had to cut .77 % of the state budget to meet that need."
Of this amount, only 9 percent or $1,164,943,155 might be considered non-mandated spending outside Medicaid, education, and prisons. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/11/03)
So to come up with $100 million dollars would mean hacking this amount by 8.6 percent! I suppose you could do it, but most Arkansans probably wouldn't like the results.
You also said:
I've also seen that Huckabee supporters are claiming that Arkansas wanted him to increase taxes. That's simply not true. It highlights the fact that he LIED about the '99 tax increase that he's claiming that 80% of the people of Arkansas voted for. We didn' t vote on a tax. We voted on a BOND ISSUE. Huckabee signed the tax into law himself, which he has repeatedly lied about.
The Senate approved a gasoline tax hike by a 33-2 vote; the House approved this by a 82-17 vote. These taxes financed bonds for highway improvements, which Arkansas voters approved by a 4-1 margin. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/17/99; 3/27/99)
The people of Arkansas spoke loud and clear, through their legislators and through the bond referendum, to improve the highways of the Natural State.
In 2000, Huckabee approved legislation to raise the sales tax which would offset a cut on property taxes, if approved by voters. This plan was approved by Arkansas voters in a 2000 referendum.
This video just demonstrates that Huckabee is more willing to raise taxes than to cutting spending. He sees higher taxes as a solution to budget shortfalls (as do liberals), which means that he's lost my vote.
Oh yes... I've augmented my original posting at RightSmart with these gems.
Huckabee never cuts spending huh?
"Gov. Mike Huckabee announced in November a $ 142 million cut to state agencies -- including $ 14 million for scholarships programs -- after revenues fell below projections." (2/2/02 Arkansas Democrat Gazette)
chukmaty: From my understanding this plea for revenue was a result of a Supreme Court order to get 100 million into the education system. The Governor had little choice unless he wanted to see his state go into dept.
It was worse than that chukmaty. Arkansas cannot go into debt because there is a constitutional amendment against it. There was no way that Huckabee was going to get a 70% DEMOCRAT legislature to make the necessary cuts.
I would lke to see the full video of this speech...where can i find it?
"Of this amount, only 9 percent or $1,164,943,155 might be considered non-mandated spending outside Medicaid, education, and prisons. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/11/03)"
Unfortunately, Mr Ritterbush, for your argument, anyway, the spending which Huckabee was "mandated" to make was part of the education slice which you just mentioned as off limits.
The federal government gives wide latitude with most of that funding, meaning that he could have quite easily reallocated some of that funding which is a vast portion of the non-discretionary portion, in addition to the $1.164 billion you mentioned.
Sorry, as a former budgetary expert for the state of Arkansas, you simply do not know of which you speak.
As for your conclusion that it's okay to raise taxes if everybody supposedly thinks it's okay, that's not the mark of a conservative and never will be.
And you most certainly have not addressed the very simple fact that Huckabee has lied repeatedly when claiming that he didn't sign the tax into law.
As for the bond issue which received the approval of 80% of Arkansans, Huckabee led that charge, along with the charge for the tax increase which he DID sign into law, despite his lies otherwise.
Also, you have yet to address any of the spending programs mentioned. Mr. Rearden is correct that you won't like the extent of that once he starts listing the many, many unnecessary spending programs Huckabee created and pushed. Or, maybe you will. You seem to take pleasure in twisting very simple facts to benefit your candidate.
I'll call your bluff. If you are the budgetary expert you claim to be, where should the $100 million have come from?
You said: "As for your conclusion that it's okay to raise taxes if everybody supposedly thinks it's okay, that's not the mark of a conservative and never will be."
You're right -- that would be the mark of an extreme libertarian or an anarchist. If an overwhelming consensus exists to raise taxes to repair broken down roads, that is democracy in action; not a conservative/liberal split. Huckabee takes credit for his roads program, which 80 percent of the voters did support through the bond referendum.
Speaking on the 2003 tax increase to cover Medicaid shortfalls:
"Rep. Jeremy Hutchinson, RLittle Rock, one of 34 House members who blocked extension of the regular session, said of Huckabee's speech, "I don't like any speech that asks for tax increases.
"It's no fault of the governor, but it's not one of the more enjoyable speeches I've listened to. It's one of necessity, and I thought he outlined what's at stake." (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 5/6/03)
Apparently other Arkansans approved of Huckabee's management enough to re-elect him twice to office. You should thank the Lord if you don't need these "unnecessary spending" programs, but there are plenty of good people who need assistance.
"Call his bluff"? I guess you're one of the many who think there's no waste in government spending. Read the Murphy Commission reports if you want to know where to cut wasteful spending. Huckabee did and he ignored them. He knew where the waste was. Just throw a rock.
Defending him by saying he had to contend with a democrat legislature just proves that he didn't contend with them. He folded like a house of cards. A conservative fights for what he believes. He doesn't resign himself to political "realities".
"Apparently other Arkansans approved of Huckabee's management enough to re-elect him twice to office."
They're called democrats.
"You should thank the Lord if you don't need these "unnecessary spending" programs, but there are plenty of good people who need assistance."
Now, I see, you really are a Huckabee "conservative". That's some hardcore Huckabee rhetoric.
If Huckabee gets elected, you can bet he will pass around the collection plate again, and again, and again, and again, and again
Everyone keeps asking for you to let them watch the entire video, and since you are obviously not willing to let the truth be known, you won't post it, because it would reveal how this clip has been twisted to look like something worse than it really is. If you really care about people knowing the truth, I hope you will not delete my comment. Here is the link to the full video:
http://thehuckreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/huckabee-rising.html
Why would I delete your comment? I haven't taken anything out of context.
But the real question is, why are you quibbling over what the video says when your candidate lied about it on national television?
I wonder if the lackeys who posted the dishonest Huck spin on this issue will change their tune now that Huck himself admitted he was wrong on this issue.
"Anonymous said...
I wonder if the lackeys who posted the dishonest Huck spin on this issue will change their tune now that Huck himself admitted he was wrong on this issue.
November 15, 2007 8:13 AM"
He didn't admit he was lied. He's trying to play dumb. It's not gonna work. He knew what he was lying about. He'd had PLENTY of time to research it, but he didn't have to. He knew exactly what that clip was about the first time he watched it. He lied to make it look like he had no choice, thinking the American people were too stupid to follow up on it.
Huckabee was repeating the same talking point that his supporters had been using.
You can witness the fact that the Huckster's people are using talking points by cruising around to the various blogs where they're descending repeating the same things. Now it's supposedly a "misstatement". If that's the case, then Huck isn't smart enough to be president and/or he needs to fire his advisors for being retards when it comes to research.
He needs to fire them anyway and then quit for being so colossally arrogant and deceptive.
Getting back to talking points, it's also obvious that you Huck supporters are using them because of the prolonged silence after Huckabee was caught lying yesterday. It took y'all forever to figure out how to handle it and what to say and send out marching orders.
Post a Comment
<< Home