John Fund on Mike Huckabee’s liberal record
October 26th, 2007 by Brendan SteinhauserThanks to my colleague Peter Suderman for emailing this article to me. (He could have just walked down the hallway, but in today’s world, I’ll accept information any way I can.)
Excerpts from the article:
Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once “his No. 1 fan.” She was bitterly disappointed with his record. “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,” she says. “Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.”
That’s not all. Fund points out that,
Free-market advocates are skeptical. “He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement,” says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. “He’s hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate.”
Why am I so adamant about pointing out the tax and spend record of Mike Huckabee? Because I don’t want him to get away with re-branding himself as a conservative when he is not. Say what you will about John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul or Rudy Giuliani, but at least you know what they really believe.
October 27th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
That is why I am supporting Fred Thompson. Thompson is just as socially conservative as Huckabee, probably more pro-gun than Huckabee, he has a better economic conservative record than Huckabee (Thompson has made mistakes, he’s human, but overall he has a much better economic record than Huckabee), and he also sounds tougher on illegal immigration and terrorism than Huckabee does.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Here is a response to the criticism by Fund.
http://roebuckreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/funds-column-assassination-of-huckabee.html
Friday, October 26, 2007
Fund’s assassination of Huckabee misleading
– Huckabee’s social conservative track record is unrivaled by the GOP frontrunners
– The governor’s fiscal track record stacks up well, too
By Lucas Roebuck
Manhattan myopia fueled by the natural tension between fiscal and social conservatism seems to be the modus operandi of the assassination piece against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, penned by John Fund, one of the Journal’s leading editorial voices.
Fund attempts to make the case that Huckabee is “not the ‘consistent conservative’ he claims to be.†However, instead of constructing a well-researched case of examples of Huckabee’s supposed conservative inconsistencies, Fund strings together a handful of individuals who simply accuse Huckabee of being liberal with little or no factual support. Furthermore, what little evidence Fund does present is skewed by critical omissions of relevant fact.
Huckabee is obviously a stronger conservative on social issues than on fiscal ones, which is the opposite of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, hometown favorite of the Manhattan GOP crowd. The Journal, based in New York City, values fiscal conservatism over social conservatism, so the worst kept secret is the group-think going on among the opinion writers at the Journal favors Giuliani.
Fiscal conservatives have become frustrated with their weakening influence in the GOP (not that I blame them) and have grown to resent social conservatives reign over the Republican party since President Bush took office in 2001. Also, the elite in the GOP have always looked down on their mostly Southern social conservative allies, and this is particular true for the Journal, which often, like much of the mainstream media, can’t see very well beyond the shores of Manhattan. Fund’s column against Huckabee embodies this frustration. Huckabee’s gaining in Iowa polls, and he is the strongest social conservative hands down among GOP candidates, so naturally he is drawing fire from the GOP elite.
The strongest case against Huckabee’s fiscally conservative record in Fund’s column is Fund’s implication that Huckabee raised the gas tax in Arkansas to pay for road repair for Arkansas dilapidated interstate system. (I would argue, even on a philosophic level, that raising gas taxes to pay for roads is not necessarily contradictory to fiscal conservatism.*)
I say that Fund implied Huckabee raised the tax, because Fund knows saying outright that Huckabee raised the tax would be inaccurate. Fund refers to Huckabee’s “efforts to raise taxes to repair roads†and cites a state senator who said Huckabee urged him to “back a gas tax increase.â€Â
What Fund omits from his column is that this tax was a referendum in 1999 put out to be voted on by the people of Arkansas, not something imposed by a state legislature and signed into law by a governor. The people of Arkansas spoke at the ballot box, and through direct democracy, imposed the tax on themselves.
If you want the bottom line on Huckabee’s tax policy, as Fund points out, Huckabee has signed the Americans For Tax Reform no new tax pledge. Rudy has not signed the pledge.
As an Arkansas journalist for nearly a decade, I had a unique opportunity to observe Huckabee’s character. I believe Mike Huckabee is a man of his word and if elected president, will not raise taxes.
Fund, quoting Arkansas Business scribe Blant Hurt, points out that Arkansas spending rose faster than the inflation rate and sales taxes were raised during Huckabee’s tenure. Both of these facts are true, but the tax increase was the result of an Arkansas Supreme Court order in the Lake View school funding lawsuit that Huckabee fought, but lost – another fact Fund failed to mention.
Education eats the lion’s share of state expenditures, inflating the rate of increase of state spending. Lake View was a horrible court decision, and I fought it on the editorial pages at the time as Huckabee fought it in court. To use the results of the forced tax increase (and forced spending of that new revenue) as proof Huckabee isn’t really fiscally conservative is erroneous at best, if not deceptive.
Fund also trots out Huckabee’s enemies in the Eagle Forum, who take the opportunity to blame Huckabee for the Arkansas Republican Party woes. This statement is patently ridiculous. While Huckabee was governor, Republicans gained ground in the state house up until 2006, which as we know, was not a banner year for Republicans nationwide. When Huckabee was on the ballot, Republicans won more offices than they had since Reconstruction. Huckabee was always one of the most popular politicians in office, according the the University of Arkansas’ Arkansas Poll, conducted annually.
The Eagle Forum doesn’t like Huckabee because he doesn’t take the hardest line against illegal immigration. He specifically earned the groups ire when he supported a bill (which failed) that would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who were applying to become citizens access to merit based state scholarships.
If an absolute hard line on immigration is more important to you than say, ending abortion, then Huckabee isn’t your candidate. Huckabee says on immigration, “My number one priority is to secure America’s border†and “those caught trying to enter the country illegally must be detained, processed and deported†(as opposed to catch and release). Still, Rep. Tom Tancredo is farther to the right than Huckabee on immigration, so send your donations to Tancredo if this is your primary voting issue. Of course, Huckabee is as conservative or more conservative on immigration than former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Fund is either ignorant that the immigration issue is at the heart of the Eagle Forum opposition to Huckabee or disingenuous. Fund and his fellows on the Wall Street Journal are well known for being centrists on immigration reform. The Journal certainly is as centrist or even more so on immigration than Huckabee, which is probably why Fund didn’t give context to the Eagle Forum comments.
As far as blaming Huckabee for the GOP woes in Arkansas, the Republican Party in that state stared unravelling in 2002, when the social conservatives turned on Sen. Tim Hutchinson, largely because of his divorce and remarriage to a former staffer. This gave rise to pure ideologues like Jim Holt, who twice was able to win the GOP nomination for statewide races (once for U.S. Senate, once for Lt. Governor), but was unable to assemble a winning general election campaign. Don’t get me wrong, Holt worked hard and was more conservative, both fiscally and socially than President Reagan, but lacked Reagan (and Huckabee’s) communication skills. Unfortunately Holt, who managed to alienate nearly every Republican in the state legislature, was not savvy enough to beat the persecution of the Arkansas press.
Tim Hutchinson’s fall from grace also tainted (unfairly) his brother, Asa, who was the Republican who ran to replace the term-limited Huckabee. (Asa, whom I supported, was uncontested in the GOP primary, because of the sudden death from cancer of Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller, a moderate Republican who was as popular as Huckabee statewide.)
In considering Huckabee’s social conservatism, Fund either is talking out of both sides of his mouth or implying Huckabee is hypocrite. In one sentence, Fund describes Huckabee as “running hard right†on social issues, but then cites Texas judge Paul Pressler, who “led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt” saying that Huckabee “never appointed conservatives while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.†Fiscal conservatives? Theological conservatives? Social conservatives? Those who like conservative hymns instead of guitar-led worship? In his weak attempt to discredit Huckabee, Fund doesn’t say  another omission.
At any rate, Huckabee’s social conservative track record is unrivaled by any one else in the GOP field. Front runners Romney, Giuliani, McCain and actor Fred Thompson don’t even come close to the consistency of Huckabee’s social conservatism, which is ultimately where Fund’s analysis of Huckabee falls apart. When Huckabee is talking about being consistently conservative, he is talking about the promotion of the sanctity of life, opposition to gay marriage and other core social conservative values that his opponents have flip flopped on enough times to rival John Kerry.
Every year while governor, Huckabee led the line in Arkansas’ annual Right to Life march. Huckabee also led efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as a bond between one man and one woman. Finally, Huckabee was proactive in helping to strengthen marriages in Arkansas by promoting “Covenant Marriages†as an option in Arkansas, where couples must see counseling before a judge will grant a divorce on grounds of convenience.
Huckabee is not the perfect candidate. HIs flirting with carbon credits and his weak stance against SCHIP expansion, both noted by Fund, don’t thrill me.
But who can I count on to strongly oppose the infanticide going on in this country? Not Giuliani, who is self-described as pro-choice, nor Romney, who flips on issues like abortion for political expedience. Who can I trust not to raise taxes? Not Giuliani, who won’t sign an anti-tax pledge, nor Romeny  again, whose flip-flopping ruins his credibility.
Contrary to Fund’s assertion that Huckabee is an inconsistent conservative, Huckabee is a social conservative I know I can count on.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Here is Huckabee’s response:
News Release: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Responds to Wall Street Journal Column
October 26, 2007
Little Rock, AR – Presidential Candidate and Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee wrote the following letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal in response to Friday’s column by John Fund:
To the Editor:
John Fund’s view of my ten-and-a-half-year record as governor of Arkansas and my vision for America’s future (“Another Man from Hope, Who is Mike Huckabee?â€Â) calls for me to set the record straight.
It’s important to note that every living Republican in Arkansas who has been elected to either a statewide or a federal office has endorsed my candidacy. I’m grateful for their support and proud that in 1998, I received the largest percentage of votes ever received by a Republican gubernatorial nominee in Arkansas, and that Arkansans re-elected me to another four-year term in November 2002.
I am even prouder that, throughout my tenure as governor and lieutenant governor of Arkansas, I campaigned tirelessly for countless Republican candidates for the state house and federal office – and even helped get some elected.
As governor, I pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history  a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families; led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights; and created a welfare reform program that reduced the welfare rolls in the state by almost 50 percent. We also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married. In total, I led the fight to cut taxes and fees over 90 times during my ten-and-a-half years as governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million. When I left office, Arkansas had over $800 million in state surplus.
One of my proudest achievements as governor was signing legislation creating ARKids First – creating health insurance coverage for more than 70,000 Arkansas children who otherwise might have gone without. I am firmly committed to finding a way to provide health care and a better education for America’s children, who hold the key to our nation’s future. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious misunderstanding about my SCHIP comment at a recent presidential debate.
I was not criticizing President Bush’s veto as a matter of policy, but as a matter of politics. I fully believe that Bush should have negotiated a compromise and not let it get to the point of a veto. Bush indicated he was willing to spend more than the $5 billion he originally proposed, but less than the $35 billion the Democrats pushed through, so there was clearly room to negotiate. In no way do I support spending an additional $35 billion, or moving two million children from private insurance to government insurance, or letting SCHIP be a step on the path to socialized medicine.
I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment and support many paths to reducing our emission of greenhouse gases, such as more nuclear power and alternative sources of clean energy. As part of our overall effort, I also support a cap and trade system, which has worked well for reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. However, I do not agree with those who want all allowances to be auctioned off because I believe that will create too great a burden on businesses. The alternative to cap and trade is a carbon tax, which I don’t support.
It is difficult to fully understand the institutional challenges of a Republican running for office in Arkansas. In 1993, when I was elected lieutenant governor, I was the fourth Republican to be elected to statewide office since Reconstruction. Students of Arkansas politics should talk to former U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson, U.S. Rep. John Boozman or former Rep. Jay Dickey, all of whom support my candidacy for president, but none of whom is cited in Fund’s column, about these challenges.
Nevertheless, running for election and re-election, and more importantly, governing in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, prepared me to climb that next mountain: running for president and leading America with an optimistic vision and solid plans to successfully confront the complex challenges we face today.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee
Presidential Candidate
Former Governor of Arkansas (1996-2007)
October 29th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Yet another response from someone from Arkansas who was there:
October 27, 2007 - 02:30 PM
Response to Huckabee Attacks
by Team Huckabee
Send to a friend
October 13, 2007
With all due respect to my fellow fiscal conservative advocates, as President of the Arkansas Health Care Association during Governor Huckabee’s tenure, I wish to dispel criticisms of the provider tax that was initiated for the Arkansas nursing home program.
Governor Huckabee’s position should be considered as one that saved Arkansans from huge tax increases. Let me put the situation in perspective.
For over 20 years prior to the governor’s tenure, Arkansas paid for its nursing home program through a “negotiated” illegal class rate. The hammer was coming down on the entire program. Federal law requires a nexus between the rate and the cost of the care. Arkansas’ state government is required to operate with a balanced budget. For over 20 years the nursing home program survived with minuscule rate increases based largely on how much money could be negotiated in the final state budget. To compound the problem our class rate for nursing home care had fallen to an average of less than $64.00 per patient day which created a short fall of over $12.00 per patient day. Governor Huckabee’s administration, legislators, consumer advocates, and nursing home owners all agreed that care was sub-par, jeopardizing the entire Medicaid program.
Most suggested the old tax and spend philosophy. Raise income or sales taxes to fix the problem. Growth was not an option because there is a finite number of nursing homes and nursing home patients. A soft drink tax had been passed a few years before to prop up the Medicaid program.
The industry and key legislators brought the provider tax concept forth. It was agreed on by the Huckabee administration only after assurances were made for accountability and an entirely new payment methodology was implemented. The tax was placed on total receipts for nursing homes. I could explain in greater detail if asked.
Out of 228 nursing homes in Arkansas only 3 are private pay (that is, they refuse to admit patients who receive federal or state subsidies). These homes were opposed to the provider tax because Federal Law requires all providers be taxed the same. A wide-ranging group of legislators and Governor Huckabee agreed to raise additional Medicaid dollars with the provider tax increasing the matching 3 to 1 federal dollars for nursing homes. Without this solution we would have been faced with huge tax increases for the entire state of Arkansas or the entire Medicaid program in Arkansas could have been decertified.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Jim Cooper
President
Arkansas Health Care Association
October 29th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Finally, my take on it.
I have been a fiscal conservative and social conservative all of my voting life (50 years old now). I have run for office and lost. I have thought about some of the questions we ask on our conservative polls. I have considered how I would answer if I were in there. I would answer to leave myself room to maneuver. That means I would NOT guarantee no taxes, but I would be using every tool at my disposal to rid the American people of the IRS and every tax I could. I don’t believe we should naively believe that there can be no taxes. I believe a total tax in non-war time of 20% would be adequate for all levels of government.
Anyway, I don’t have a problem with Huckabee, but I do with Ron Paul and I do with Thompson and boy to I have a problem with the Rhino Romney. He should change parties. I deeply respect McCain’s service, but he lost my support for president some time ago.
I like Thompson’s no nonsense Rumsfeld like responses, but I would choose Rumsfeld over him. I like Duncan Hunter, but I like Huckabee more, so far. I like Tom Tancredo, but again I like Huckabee better so far. I like Alan Keyes, alot, but his fervor and shrillness takes away from his actual level-headedness. I think Huckabee, even though his name works against him, can win it. I could be wrong, but I have to choose and so far it is Huckabee. So much so that I have already sent in monetary support and intend to do so in increasing increments if I continue to like what I see, observe, and research.
My 2 cents worth, and, by the way. I am no fan of either party and hate party politics. I think we should throw most of them out (Duncan excepted and a few others) and get a brand new batch in. Clean House and clean Senate and send the message that we don’t want politics. We want statesmen who put America and the values of the Founding Fathers which should be our values FIRST!!!
October 29th, 2007 at 2:27 am
PS I think Fund’s group is getting scared of Huckabee and he should, because Huckabee has the support of the little guy, the common man. I predict more and more people will start maligning Huckabee. That is proof that He is gaining and that he just might have the little guy’s interests at heart.