I dropped a note to my friend regarding Huckabee, and rather than try to recreate his argument, I have copied his reply below. What do you think?
It is not that he will suddenly govern differently because of a different belief system, but the office itself is Constitutionally different (Gov. to Pres.) There are powers properly delegated to the state that are not delegated to the federal government. For example, as a constitutional strict constructionist I don't believe there is any ability for the fed. govnt to pass a law providing for federal unemployment benefits, but any state wishing to pass such a bill would be well within their constitutional right to do so. Therefore, I believe that there should be limited, robust government at the state level, but purely limited government at the federal level.
Such a governmental dynamic should, in theory, result in a higher tax burned at the state level rather than the federal level. Without respect to what the federal government is or is not doing a govn const. obligation both federal and state is to ensure the financial viability of the state and the programs deemed worthy of funding.
I have not heard any specifics regarding the taxes Huckabee raised, nor have I heard any specifics regarding other taxes he may have lowered while raising some. Simply because a governor raises taxes does not mean they are not fiscally conservative. It depends upon the context. What was happening in the state at the time? FYI Ronald Reagan the standard barer for conservatism raised a number of taxes in California as governor yet pushed through two tax reductions while in office as President. I would agree there is no "revenue" problem for which any tax should be raised at the federal level. At the federal level a number of things need elimination and taxes could easily be lowered dramatically while paying off the debt. However, I cannot necessarily say the same for each individual state; I simply don't know. And I have yet to hear M.H. critics explain their criticism.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate for President, until I run. So in the meantime I will choose the lest offensive. McCain and Romney have serious credibility issues, yet from many things I have heard about M.H. as Gov. leads me to believe he has a high level of integrity and credibility. That goes a long way with me even if I don't agree with you on all the issues.
It is not that he will suddenly govern differently because of a different belief system, but the office itself is Constitutionally different (Gov. to Pres.) There are powers properly delegated to the state that are not delegated to the federal government. For example, as a constitutional strict constructionist I don't believe there is any ability for the fed. govnt to pass a law providing for federal unemployment benefits, but any state wishing to pass such a bill would be well within their constitutional right to do so. Therefore, I believe that there should be limited, robust government at the state level, but purely limited government at the federal level.
Such a governmental dynamic should, in theory, result in a higher tax burned at the state level rather than the federal level. Without respect to what the federal government is or is not doing a govn const. obligation both federal and state is to ensure the financial viability of the state and the programs deemed worthy of funding.
I have not heard any specifics regarding the taxes Huckabee raised, nor have I heard any specifics regarding other taxes he may have lowered while raising some. Simply because a governor raises taxes does not mean they are not fiscally conservative. It depends upon the context. What was happening in the state at the time? FYI Ronald Reagan the standard barer for conservatism raised a number of taxes in California as governor yet pushed through two tax reductions while in office as President. I would agree there is no "revenue" problem for which any tax should be raised at the federal level. At the federal level a number of things need elimination and taxes could easily be lowered dramatically while paying off the debt. However, I cannot necessarily say the same for each individual state; I simply don't know. And I have yet to hear M.H. critics explain their criticism.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate for President, until I run. So in the meantime I will choose the lest offensive. McCain and Romney have serious credibility issues, yet from many things I have heard about M.H. as Gov. leads me to believe he has a high level of integrity and credibility. That goes a long way with me even if I don't agree with you on all the issues.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home