Arkansas CEOs: Look Past "Shallow Rhetoric"

Six corporate leaders based in Arkansas today encouraged voters to "look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season" and truly check out the stellar record of leadership from Governor Huckabee in their state.

Here's the entire statement (emphasis added)...

Columbia, SC - Today, the following businessmen from Arkansas released a statement in support of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee: Scott T. Ford, President and CEO, Alltel Corporation; Warren A. Stephens, President and CEO, Stephens Inc.; Madison Murphy, Former Chairman, Murphy Oil Corporation; John Tyson, Chairman of the Board, Tyson Foods, Inc; and French Hill, Chairman and CEO, Delta Trust and Banking Corporation:

"We are a traditionally bi-partisan group of executives of several of the largest corporations headquartered in the State of Arkansas, each with considerable exposure to the Administration of Governor Mike Huckabee. Of late, Governor Huckabee has attracted what we believe to be unwarranted criticism regarding his business record."

"Our experience with Governor Huckabee indicates that he not only values greatly the freedoms of religion and liberty, but of the free market as well. He is an atypical leader who garnered the respect of not only the professional business community but of the working men and women across our State as well."

"When he became our Governor, he inherited our long sub-standard education system, infrastructure, and regulatory climate. Under his leadership, we were able to grow our businesses, increase our employment, reduce our litigation exposure and enjoy, along with all of our fellow Arkansans, a healthier economy, improved schools, updated highways, and new healthcare delivery facilities."

"In our support of Governor Huckabee's truly conservative, small government business outlook and his pragmatic, yet compassionate style of governing, we invite you to look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season to see what we have experienced first hand - that with the right political leadership in place, businesses and citizens can jointly prosper and as they do, they contribute so much more to the economic and societal fabric of a community than simply tax revenues."

Issue: Economics

I'm not going to type a long defense of Governor Huckabee's Economic record or plan. Instead, I'm simply going to point everyone to the video of Governor Huckabee's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last Friday.

There should be a new rule that any critic must address what the Governor said in this speech before being allowed to attack him as a "Liberal."


Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



This is one of the best speeches I have ever heard, and I have two degrees in Speech Communication, so I've studied some of the best.

David Brooks with another winner

David Brooks has another great column in the NYT. It's not specifically about Mike Huckabee, but it directly addresses the theme of Republican Party shifting that needs to occur, and is in fact happening, at least for some Republicans who get it.

He closes with a reference to the groundbreaking insight from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, which i have mentioned a few times. Soon to be a book, it started with an article called the Party of Sam's Club.

Here's a good excerpt from the Brooks column...

The political situation has changed, too. Republicans used to appeal to the investor class with economic policies and the working class with values, crime and welfare policies. But that formula has broken down. The workers are walking away from the G.O.P., and the only way to win them back is by listening to their economic concerns.

As a result, smart Republicans are groping for a new economic model, and as they do, Republican economic policies are shifting. The entrepreneur is no longer king. The wage-earner is king. As the presidential campaign rolls into Michigan, it’s clear that Republicans are adjusting their priorities to win back the anxious middle class.

The Republicans who are reaching toward this new model still sound very different from Democrats. They never describe American workers as victims. They never describe globalization as a remorselessly punishing process. They argue that individuals can still control their own destinies, provided they work hard and get educated. They believe it would be a catastrophe if the U.S. abandoned free trade or adopted a European-style safety net and suffered European tax rates. But they envision a different role for government than the 1980s Republicans.

Brooks outlines 4 "spheres of policy innovation" that Republicans must address to be successful.

1. Human capital agenda
2. Health care reform
3. Resiliency agenda
4. Fiscal rectitude

I had this epiphany more than a year ago after reading that Sam's Club article, and it's one of the things about the Huckabee campaign that appeals to me. If the GOP wants to build a new winning coalition, it must figure this out. Then perhaps, perhaps, the chattering class will get on board, too.

Issue: Spending

In one of the debates this weekend, Fred Thompson used the term "revenue neutral" to talk about any changes in the tax system. Why are Conservatives worried about being "revenue neutral"? It seems to me that Conservatives should be willing to support a tax plan that brings in fewer dollars because they foresee reducing the amount that our Federal Government is spending.

I just did a quick hit of all five of the major Republican Candidates' websites. The only candidate who actually proposes specific reductions of current levels of Federal Government spending is Rudy Giuliani. McCain and Thompson make broad claims about removing earmarks and increasing transparency. Thompson says we need to reduce wasteful spending but doesn't make any specific proposals. Mitt Romney's plan is merely to slow the rate of growth for spending.

Governor Huckabee talks about ensuring balanced budgets by giving the President a line-item veto. That's something of a start, and it is a point shared with Giuliani and Romney. This is an area where our favorite candidate could strengthen his position and perhaps allay some of the fears of the traditional fiscal conservatives.

Governor Huckabee's tax plan is unquestionably the most conservative, but he needs to back it up with a concrete plan to reduce spending. This is an area where Governor Huckabee could gain some traction, but he has to be willing and able to spell out the cuts that can and should be made.

The Dangers of the FairTax Platform

This is not about the merits of the FairTax itself, but about whether Mike Huckabee will be helped or not by his advocacy of the radical tax plan to replace most all current taxes with a national sales tax. I believe it is a dangerous, risky stance for Mike. Here's why…

• While not nearly as complicated as I expected it to be, the FairTax is such a radical change in our tax policy that the average voter will not immediately grasp what it's about. Even some should-know-better reporters are spouting falsehoods about it. To the extent that it is reducible to a soundbite, it is much more likely for that soundbite to be a negative one used by opponents of Huckabee and/or the FairTax.
  
• Continuing that point, detractors will make no effort to fairly portray the plan, even if they do understand that. We already see the merging of these 2 points with media assertions that the plan is overly regressive and, most damaging, that it will cause prices to rise by over 20%. Neither is actually true, and the latter charge is not even close to being true.
  
• The point about illegal immigrants and under-the-table earners now paying their fair share is a rhetorical winner, but it can be intellectually challenged by the expectation that a new underground economy would arise. The blackest of black markets.
  
• Given the criticism of Mike thus far about his record in Arkansas with taxes, and the skepticism by hardcore fiscal conservatives that he is bona fide, the FairTax is especially problematic for him. Given the first 2 points about confusion and obfuscation, voters, unable to sort it all out with facts, unsure whom to believe, might use the FairTax as a sign that Mike's opponents are correct. It does require a huge outlay of federal funds with its prebate (what makes it not regressive). Of course, the prebate is essentially a refund of taxes paid, so financially for the government it is not an outlay, but a wash. Will voters take the time and effort to figure that out, or will they be hoodwinked by devious ads and mailers saying "see, we told you this guy was a big-government conservative. See how much money he wants to spend."?
  
• Likewise, detractors will deviously assert that the FairTax is a big tax hike. "See, we told you this guy was Tax Hike Mike. He wants you to pay 23% more for your groceries. Will you even be able to afford that next new car?" In a soundbite world, can you make voters understand that CURRENT prices already reflect the cost of taxes, and that the FairTax wouldn't cause prices to rise materially, if at all?
  

Keywords: Take Control & Keep It Simple

The best pithy argument for the FairTax is not the abolishment of the IRS (even though that is a catchy line), but about Americans being more in control, and about making taxes simpler to understand. Fiscal conservatives talk about "starving the beast" of government, but how do you do that with an income tax (not to mention all those other federal taxes)? For most of us, we can't just stop making an income, so we have to keep feeding the beast. Sure, we can seek out tax shelters and such, but generally speaking those are marginal effects, and so the beast gets fed. With a sales tax, effectively kicking in above and beyond basic needs, taxpayers do have more control over how much food to put in the bowl, by way of discretionary spending. Of course, there are macro-economic impacts to those spending decisions which should not be ignored, but I would argue that for the most part, these would be purchases delayed, not purchases avoided altogether.

How would that work? Well, it might not work, given how hard it is for the federal government to pay attention to us. But you do what you can, and if you don't like the way the government is operating, or disagree profoundly with how it spends its money, you can "vote with your wallet". A drop in the ocean, it may feel like, but no less important than your single vote among millions. Even if there is no direct impact or benefit, there would still be a psychological or symbolic benefit for taxpayers. In short, a sales tax is more in line with the precepts of "of the people, by the people" than is the income tax.

Mike should also hammer away at the idea of making taxes simpler. You shouldn't need a CPA to understand how your government is funded. The current system is so complex that even the experts can't figure it out. Such a setup fosters discord and distrust that weasels will not pay their fair share. It breeds anxiety that the taxpayer is a sucker unless he ponies up for expert help.

Both of these rhetorical approaches connect at the point of governmental transparency, a big hot button for young voters. And so while the FairTax platform for Huckabee presents some difficult challenges, it also affords an opportunity to connect with voters if handled correctly. Governor Huckabee has demonstrated an ability to lead and persuade on issues important to him, and I have confidence in him on this subject, despite its risk.

3 Views from First Things

One of my favorite magazines is First Things. It bills itself as a "Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life". In their November issue, the magazine presents 3 short essays about the 2008 election. The first, by Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff, focuses on pro-life issues. The third, by FT editor Joseph Bottom, reviews the depressing litany (his view) of candidates, and is annoyingly dismissive of Mike Huckabee.

But i call your attention to the middle essay, by John J. DiIulio Jr., who served as the first Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. DiIulio looks at the candidates through the lens of economic justice. Who is best equipped to lead the country economically, not merely for the sake of fattening already-fat wallets, but for taking care of all of America's citizens? He concludes that Mike Huckabee is the best of the GOP candidates.

P.S. I am linking, not excerpting, from the columns, due to my confusion over First Thing's copyright policy. Don't want to step on their toes. To find Di Iulio's essay, you'll have to scroll about halfway down the link.