Huckabee seems likable and his personal approach to politics is a strength that other candidates should implement in their own campaigns. His stance on social issues seem also good. However, Huckabee’s record on spending, taxes, and big government is the wrong direction for this country.
Here are some evidences of Huckabee’s spending sprees:
During an interview with Lou Dobb’s on CNN, Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s new endorsement, confessed that Huckabee likes to spend taxpayer’s money. When trying to defend Huckabee’s proclivity to spend money and raise taxes, Collins said that if Reagan were running today even Reagon wouldn’t pass the “puritan’s” litmus test from organizations like the National Review. Collins stated, “There are a lot of things a governor has to do if you are going to be a good governor and make the state function better.” I don’t by it.
Mitt was a phenomenal governor. He reduced taxes, got Massachusetts out of a $3 billion dollar deficit and still managed to (1) get some of the top scores in the nation in regards to the education of his youth, (2) get every resident of his state affordable healthcare, (3) fight for traditional marriage, and (4) enforce immigration law. I guess such should not come as a surprise given the 25 years he spent in the private section revamping failing organizations and saving a scandal ridden Olympics.
In this next video Huckabee and Chuck Norris on Bill O’Reilly’s show. When questioning Huckabee whether he will impose his religious views on the nation he replied, “When we tried to improve education … when we improved health care … when we built better roads … frankly I think is consistent with a person of faith.”
And of course, the Club for Growth put this ad out a few weeks ago that highlights Huckabee’s more Democratic-like fiscal, economic, and tax policies.
Frederic Bastiat once said:
-
“But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.
With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder. . . .
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all. . . .
When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. . . .
Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. . . .
You say: “There are persons who have no money,” … Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.”
Mr. Huckabee, the government is not a charity. It rules only by force. Force is the antithesis of charity. Religion is about charity, not force. It is not charity to force people to pay for things, that is false philanthropy. Perhaps I’m wrong but false philanthropy seems some what inconsistant with religious teachings.
Vote for Mitt. A candidate for less force.
The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.
Posted by idahoansformitt 
Posted by idahoansformitt 
Posted by idahoansformitt 