Huckabee stands by Copeland

Ok, this is not going to become a political blog; I do not have the time nor the inclination to keep up with the nuances of the campaigns. However, I do think the Huckabee emergence is quite interesting. There are multiple pitfalls that await and indeed he appears to be rising in polls and the minds of Republicans. One pitfall is the investigation of the Grassley Six and questions about Huckabee’s relationship with some of those targeted.

Who knows where the investigation will go but I thought this Time magazine article made a pretty good case that the outcome will be unlikely to impact very much the candidates endorsed by ministers and ministries — at least in the primaries. In the general election, anything will be fair game. I will be quite surprised if religion is not central to the reporting of the¬†next¬†election.

One thought on “Huckabee stands by Copeland”

  1. Mike Huckabee’s ardent support for the FairTax sets him apart from all other viable presidential candidates. The FairTax Act of 2007 (HR 25/ S 1025) represents a prospective power shift of massive proportions in America. It lays out a practical ideal of voluntary payment of taxes, based on a substantial level of taxpayer choice that the plan affords. Since FairTax untaxes basic necessities (up to socially-accepted poverty-level spending), what is taxed is marginal, and/or desired or preferred, on a broader base of retail products and services. This is to say that the taxpayer may, under the FairTax, choose to purchase used products and avoid paying the tax. And, to the extent desired, the taxpayer may choose to self-perform certain services rather than pay for them. This will stimulate do-it-yourself education, improve citizens’ self-reliance; indeed the FairTax represents the possibility of ushering in a new can-do, citizen psychology that would accrue to greater demands for government accountability – truly, a cultural sea change.

    Government is the “necessary glue” that enables the social fabric to cohere. It does this by effecting “rules” that ostensibly provide members with equitable access to wealth and resources. It also must provide ostensibly equitable enforcement of those rules in order to mitigate threats to the social fabric. It is unrealistic to believe that the structures of a national government can be supported on donations, thus the need for taxes. Naysayers love to characterize anything purporting to be a “fair tax” as an oxymoron – but it is not true. The idea of fairness has to do with equitable sharing in the cost by all members who depend upon the social fabric for food, shelter, clothing and post-necessity economic enterprise. And, because of the shift of power from politicians and special interests under an enacted FairTax, the elected will find it more difficult to both enlarge government, and implement any dual system of taxation. FairTax strategist, Dennis Calabrese, discusses how the FairTax repeals the income tax, how it does away with the IRS, and how it addresses other aspects of frequent concern to skeptics.

    The FairTax has a much greater opportunity for success to operate as a “self-regulating” mechanism because of increased visibility. One finds that the current system, ostensibly regulated by the Internal Revenue Code, is in fact poorly regulated because of continually increasing complexity (the effect of tax favors from politicians, through lobbyists, to favored corporations and other special interests) stemming from the desire by those holding government position to steer public behavior using tax code “carrots.” We have seen how 100 years of this type of behavior has eroded the Nation’s currency and the purchasing power of working family incomes. “Visionist,” Tom Frey believes the current tax system will simply collapse; and economist Laurence Kotlikoff heralds – short of enactment of FairTax (or an otherwise unlikely change in spending habits) – the U.S. will shortly face an irrevocable economic breakdown. (Kotlikoff believes that passage of the FairTax can stave off the economic ruin we’re facing, but would be surprised to see it happen.)

    Frey and Kotlikoff may be right on both counts, and we may not be able to successfully evoke change; but shall we not try?

    Mike Huckabee believes we should.

    (Permission granted to republish, in whole or part. -Ian)

Comments are closed.