Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, takes a back seat to no one in his respect for the Reagan legacy. That's why it's surprising that his sharp criticism of Mike Huckabee happens to be on the fronts where Reagan's record is not as conservative as those of us who view him as one of the greatest modern presidents are concerned. Rush hits Governor Huckabee in four key areas near and dear to conservatives of all stripes: taxes, immigration, populism and potential judicial appointments. It is worth a trip down Memory Lane to see how the greatest president of our generation compares to the candidate Limbaugh believes is out to destroy the Reagan Coalition.
Taxes.
Limbaugh criticizes Huckabee for only enacting 94 tax cuts while accepting three tax increases. His information comes in part from the Club for Growth, which was once the go-to organization for fiscal policy analysis. Recently, FEC filing data showed that the Club for Growth has been co-opted by supporters of Mitt Romney who had already maxed out their donations to the former Governor's campaign. CFG's ads critical of Huckabee's tax policy are made possible by more than $585,000 in donations from Romney and his supporters.
Limbaugh is overlooking a few key points about Huckabee's record on taxes. Huckabee, unlike Mitt Romney faced a court order mandating improvements to schools. Having inherited a state in a shambles and burdened by a huge deficit, Huckabee's options were limited and he accepted the tax increase solution the Democrat legislature saddled him with. The second tax increase was voted on by the people of Arkansas. Add to that the third tax, a penny added to the retail sales tax and a gasoline tax and the net increase is probably much less than the nearly half a billion dollars Mitt Romney confiscated from the people of Massachusetts. The rest of the story is that in obeying the court order, Huckabee took the state with schools that were a dismal 49th in the nation under Clinton to 8th in the nation. The gas tax left the state with roads that Trucker Magazine rates among the best in the country. Then he left office, leaving an $800 million dollar surplus with a recommendation that his successor return that to the people of Arkansas. Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative media fail to mention the surplus at all.
By comparison, Ronald Regan was vilified by liberals for his massive tax cuts taking the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. That is an achievement, the fruits of which we still enjoy today. What Limbaugh leaves out of his re-telling of the Reagan tax story is that Ronaldus Magnus also presided over what National Review called the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. The "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, or nearly 1 percent of the gross domestic product [1].
That, of course doesn't make the Gipper a liberal. Nor do Huckabee’s tax cuts, followed by tax increases, make him a liberal. Both left office with their respective charges in better condition than they found them. Both created surpluses where a prior Democrat administration had only left corruption and malaise.
Immigration.
Limbaugh and other conservative commentators take Huckabee to the woodshed over his immigration policy, claiming that he is an open borders advocate who would grant amnesty to the more than 12 million illegals in this country. Their concern is based on a proposal to allow children of illegal aliens who attended Arkansas public schools for their entire K-12 school career to compete for state scholarships -- if they filed for citizenship. Contrary to hysteria of conservative commentators about these scholarships, only thirty children in the whole state would have qualified, U.S. citizens would not have lost their right to compete and most importantly, the proposal was never enacted. Even if it had been enacted, it is not likely illegals would expose themselves by coming forward to participate, since they had to apply for citizenship to qualify.
Huckabee's open borders immigration policy is a bit scary though. In summary he calls for:
OK, so it's scary if you're here illegally. His nine point "Secure America Plan" is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. It is also similar to a plan put forth by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana.
Compare Huckabee's proposed opportunity for thirty students here illegally to compete for scholarships if they come forward and apply for citizenship -- and his immigration policy outlined above with the three million illegals summarily granted amnesty by Ronald Reagan.
In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately three million illegal immigrants. This should be of at least some consequence to Limbaugh and other conservative leaders (assuming Huckabee's thirty high school students who never got their scholarships are a travesty of justice.
Critics of IRCA felt the law had no teeth and would not stem the tide of illegals. They were right. In granting three million of them amnesty, Reagan gave them quite a head start. Reagan proved to be a compassionate conservative when it came to immigration. Upon signing the law, Reagan said, "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans." [2]
On balance, comparing Huckabee's immigration policy to Reagan's is like comparing Tom Tancredo's policy with that of Cesar Chavez. OK, maybe not that extreme.
Economic Populism.
Rush Limbaugh is well known to his fans as a perpetual optimist. Where many people see challenge, he sees opportunity. So it is with the economic challenges working class people cope with everyday. Limbaugh has been there. He shares stories of his struggles from time to time, and his story is inspiring -- especially to a starving broadcaster like myself. However, he parts from the Gipper on this subject.
Reagan understood that standing between the working man and his struggle for security is opportunity. Like Limbaugh, he had an infectious optimism that if government roadblocks were removed, ordinary people could do extraordinary things. This, along with his giving support to social conservatives that would become the Republican base, is what made the 1984 landslide possible. We called them Reagan Democrats. Stan Greenberg analyzed voters in Macomb County, Michigan where the population,mostly unionized auto workers, supported Kennedy in 1960 by a margin of 63%. These same people bolted the Democrat party and voted 66% for Reagan in 1984. [3]
Reagan Democrats saw in Reagan, a person who related to and understood their middle class aspirations. The Democratic Party descended into a coalition of grievance groups, and it has remained so ever since. The attraction of working class people to the Republican can-do ideal is not an accident and it should be the norm. What appeals to working class people in Huckabee's "populist" rhetoric is that it lacks the angry revolutionary tone of Pat Buchanan or the angry class envy of John Edwards. Instead, it is one that says Huckabee wants to be able to relate to voters "like the guy you work with on the line rather than the guy who fires you." That bit of humor doesn't do justice to the means by which Huckabee intends to show his concern for those in a soft job market or who are coping with higher fuel and healthcare costs. Get the government out of the way and empower small businesses.
Indeed, while Huckabee may want to relate to the guy you work with, he understands, as does Rush and as did Ronald Reagan, that if we do not empower business, there will be no risk taking, capitalism, expansion -- and jobs -- that benefit us all.
It is understandable that one who has struggled and worked hard to be at the pinnacle of his profession would be offended by populist rhetoric. Nobody in conservative circles has an ear for the language of victimization and class envy. But we all are united in our appreciation for the language of opportunity. It's OK to say you feel someone's pain if what you intend to do about it is empower him to achieve without the crushing weight of government regulation. Such is the "populism" of Mike Huckabee. When his supporters listen to his comments about the economy, they are inspired that together we can do better. When they listen to John Edwards or Pat Buchanan, they just get depressed and go to bed early.
Judicial Appointments.
Limbaugh's criticism of the candidates he considers liberal often includes references to the judicial appointments they're likely to make based on their presumed liberal worldview. Judges are unelected and unaccountable, often serving for the remainder of their natural lives. Conservative commentators have been able to keep social conservatives in line by reminding them of the threat Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat boogeyperson poses to the republic if they are able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. There is merit in choosing a nominee who is inclined to choose strict constructionist judges for the federal judiciary and for the Supreme Court. Most of the justices on the court now are well into their move to Florida years and it's likely the next president will make more than one appointment.
On this point, one need only look at the liberal tendencies of the pro-gay and pro-choice advocates in the race. Other than Huckabee, all of the candidates have varying degrees of support for the liberal side of the equation. Social conservatives are more likely than their moderate counterparts to recognize the activist role judges have plaid over the years in decisions affecting free speech, government sponsored discrimination, gun rights and the death penalty. Pro-life conservatives also see the ultimate in judicial activism in the form of Roe v. Wade, our generation's version of the infamous Dred Scott decision.
Two thirds of Reagan's successful Supreme Court appointments resulted in liberal or at best, moderate jurisprudence. The worst of the justices appointed by conservative presidents is Anthony Kennedy, who has baffled constitutional scholars and conservative commentators alike by finding precedents in European law. Kennedy's record on abortion is mixed, and leans heavily in favor or Roe. He has been on the liberal side of cases involving Gay Rights, and has been a reliable vote in opposition to capital punishment. [4]
Some critics believe Sandra Day O'Connor was something of a judicial shape-shifter, making seemingly arbitrary decisions and changing her principles according to political expediency. Notable cases Rush probably would not support was the ruling that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Conservatives recognize McCain's effort at suppressing free speech in political campaigns as the "Incumbent Protection Act". In two 2003 cases, O'Connor held that the University of Michigan undergraduate program had engaged in "unconstitutional reverse discrimination", but upheld the university's Law School affirmative action program as constitutional. [5]
While Supreme Court appointments can be controversial, the confusion of muddled lawmaking from the bench often makes matters worse. Each decision is carefully researched and published, but laypeople only know the outcome as it affects them. As long as you discriminate in a specific limited fashion, it's OK. As long as you abort the baby by a certain date, it's OK. Reverse discrimination is OK some of the time but not others, and affirmative action is OK all of the time, but not others.
The Reagan legacy is proof that even the most conservative president can expect no guarantee of strict constructionist jurisprudence. Part of the process is selecting judges that will make it through the Senate confirmation process. Reagan learned with Bork and Ginsberg that compromise is sometimes necessary. Unfortunately, in the case of the judiciary, two of three Supreme Court justices served to muddy the waters or worse, advance the cause of liberalism. Huckabee, like most of the other candidates promises to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders -- and amenders -- intended.
There is so much to celebrate about the life and legacy of Ronaldus Magnus. His was a presidency more about what we love and value than what we hate or fear. Nevertheless, if we take Rush Limbaugh at his word, based on his criticism of Mike Huckabee, there are some things he hates about Ronald Reagan. If he took an honest look at Huckabee's record and his positions on the issues, he may be reminded more of what he loved about Reagan and what it is Governor Huckabee's supporters love about him.
References:
[1] Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. (2007, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:15, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982&oldid=174375848
[2] Ronald Reagan. (2008, January 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:18, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=185125734
[3] Reagan Democrat. (2008, January 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:23, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reagan_Democrat&oldid=183473106
[4] Anthony Kennedy. (2008, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:37, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&oldid=182827691
[5] Sandra Day O'Connor. (2008, January 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:41, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Day_O%27Connor&oldid=184734913
Why are you voting for Obama?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
What Limbaugh "Hates" About Reagan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just a quick clarification- I have been told that the actual amount the average person had to pay in taxes rose 63% while Huckabee was govenor. If this is true, it does not matter how many minor taxes he got rid of, he still raised taxes by quite a bit.
Of course, I don't have a source for this data- I would appreciate it if someone could prove this claim valid. (Or otherwise.)
Brilliant analysis. Of course since you apparently don't work for or are syndicated by Clear Channel, the vast majority of GOP voters will never hear it.
But a Limbaugh falling in the forest still makes a sound (even if only a few of us are around to hear it).
T Greer said, " I have been told that the actual amount the average person had to pay in taxes rose 63% while Huckabee was govenor."
Excellent question. Unfortunately, I can't even claim it is unfounded propaganda from another campaign. I did a lot of searching on this and could not find any references to a 63% tax hike for any candidate -- that's why it took so long to get your post moderated. I don't like putting up such comments without some foundation as other guests might take it at face value and turn it into something that belongs on Snopes.com.
To help you better understand how the Huckabee and Romney tax policies affected their citizens, consider this:
Huckabee served 10 years as Governor of Arkansas; during which the Governor’s mansion was restored, welfare was reduced by almost 50%, jobs increased, and many improvements were frugally funded. (Roads, schools, healthcare, parks, etc.) Yet, he left a huge surplus. How fiscally conservative does Rush expect? Let’s compare taxes to taxes. "Tax Freedom Day" is the first day of the year in which taxpayers have earned enough income to fund the annual tax burden. Arkansas’ “Tax Freedom Day” was April 22, 1997 and April 22, 2007, when Huckabee left office. By comparison, Massachusetts “Tax Freedom Day” was April 23, 2004 and May 6, 2007 when Romney left office. The so-called “fiscally conservative” elite pandering Romney served one term; during which he cut state funding and left a huge deficit."
The above was quoted from the Tax Foundation on a pro-Huckbee blog. I've cited the same figures in some of my own posts from the same source.
An interesting point of comparison, when the infamous "Bed Tax" is mentioned, nobody considered it as a compliance fee, which it was. Even Huckabee himself has referred to it as a "Bed Tax" and CFG figures include that $5.75 charge as a tax over the room rate in nursing homes. Much higher fees amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in Masachussetts were called "fees" and thus do not show up in CFG's comparative figures between these two candidates.
I don't know if the Tax Foundation counted fees as taxes, and therefore Masachussetts could have an even later Tax Freedom Day than Arkansas.... We only cite the Tax Foundation's figures in the interest of an "apples to apples" comparison from a reliable source.
Post a Comment