Incidentally, Larison explains here his views on self-reliance, and why he thinks Huckabee is a phony populist. Excerpt:
Fundamentally, all of this comes back to the question of whether dependent people can be the governors of those upon whom they depend, and the answer is no. Without that, there can be no real self-government, and as Caleb said no real freedom. To the extent that he has no intent on breaking this chain of dependency, Huckabee is not any kind of populist that Caleb or I would recognise. He uses the opposition between “Main Street” and “Wall Street” rhetorically, but one has to wonder if he thinks that their interests are really all that divergent, or if he thinks that there has just been some misunderstanding in allocating the benefits. He acknowledges that something is awry, but he apparently thinks the answer is to elect him so that working Americans will feel better about their President (he will remind them of their co-workers!), as if that will alleviate their real ills.
I should register here that I basically agree with this, in the sense that Huck's populism has seemed more like a rhetorical pose than anything of substance. I should note, though, that I read something earlier this week on The Hotline -- and I can't find the link this morning, so you'll just have to trust me -- saying that as Arkansas governor, Huckabee showed a penchant for distrusting centralized power. If true, that's something. But no, I don't think Huckabee is a populist in any sense that Larison and Caleb (Stegall) would recognize. His rhetoric to that extent is largely therapeutic, giving people the satisfaction of populist feeling (and believe me, I've enjoyed it) without the real thing.
On the other hand, as I've been saying here for a while, I like Huck not because he's the avatar of crunchy conservatism, which he plainly is not, but because I think he's the only national political figure who shows signs of being open to the message, instinctively. I know he's got a copy of the book (I gave it to him last year, in person), and was surprised to learn not long ago that he'd actually read it. I was startled and pleased when, in a telephone conference call with national reporters (in which I participated), he praised the environmental chapter as being "vital" to the future of conservatism. All well and good. Huck is a man of faith to the marrow, and "Crunchy Cons" bases its arguments on an appeal to traditional conservatism, which itself is based on commitment to transcendent principles. In other words, Huck understands in a way I don't think any of the other GOP figures do, how environmental stewardship is intimately connected to the blessedness of Creation, and the duty we have to care for it. To put it another way, I believe Huckabee is the only GOP candidate who could read Wendell Berry and find in his work and sensibility a conservative traditionalism -- especially Berry's views on how intricately the health of the economy depends on the health of the family -- worthy of respect and adoption. Most of the other guys would wonder who let the elderly commie farmer in the room.
None of that adds up to populism, I'll grant you, and I'm not sure I would call myself a populist in the Larison-Stegall sense. But it does suggest that a President Huckabee would open up some interesting pathways for conservative thought and action, and start some creative arguments on the Right, which is in desperate need of them.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Don't worry about Huck's tax plan. It would never survive Congress.
Good A costs $1. Add a 30% consumption tax, you have $1.30. The 'fair tax' however is a percent of gross, not a surcharge. Therefore .30 / $1.30 is 23% and voila, you have a '23%' fair tax. This is what Huckabee is proposing.
The putative advantage of such a system would be that there would be fewer beneits to lobbying. However companies lobby just as much in regard to regulation as they do 'tax loopholes'. 'Tax loopholes' are a largely immaginary monster that is supposed to explain why everyone's taxes are so high. It is related to the other largely imaginary monster "wasteful spending."
As Mr. Cosimano points out, this is as likely to make it through Congress as heavy fur coats are likely to become trendy in Miami. However his proposal does have note his deep aversions to taxing corporations or the wealthy. In his recent talks about stimulus packages on NPR, he spouted nonsense about reducing corporate taxes and regulation. He's a populist in name only.
An important point that you are forgetting is that the "Fair Tax" taxes services as well. Think about it. Let it sink in. Every $200 trip to the stylist will be taxed. Every $500 tune up for a Hummer will be taxed. Every $5,000 tab for lipo will be taxed. Every $300 dinner at the local 5 star restaurant will be taxed.
And when do rich people spend most of their wealth????? In the last few years of their life living in luxurious retirement condos. All taxed.
So if you live within your means, if you are frugal, you will benefit from the fair tax. If you want your children to inheret all that money that you can't take with you, they get it. And what do most of those people do with their inheritance? They spend it and that will be taxed.
The poor and the middle class and the rich will all receive a pre-bate to offset the tax on necessities. Tell me which system is fairer???
Actually no John. As a percentage of income, the poor approach 100% consumption. Their relative income tax would be 30%. High income earners spend say 60% of their income on consumption. We'll ignore for the moment that a large portion of wealthy people's income is not labor. Their effective income tax is 18% then. The prebate, or the welfare payment as it should be called, will reduce the burden for the poor and not really change the middle class and rich. Those hardest hit would be the middle class. Once you get into 2nd order calculations, the poor also take some lumps.
The tax rate would be 23%, but it also sends a pre-bate back to every American citizen. The great thing about it is that it forces everyone to pay taxes including illegal immigrants and people that choose to make their living doing things that can't be put on the books. The average person pays about 15% in taxes right now. The net net affect of this tax would be in actuality much less than that due to the fact that the cost of things would go down due to the fact that the businesses manufacturing these things would be paying fewer taxes as well. I'm a major proponent of the fair tax, but I don't think it will go into affect any time soon due to fear of the unknown. With that being said Huckabee would make a great president for more reasons than just that. I'm from Arkansas. When he took office our public school systems were #49 in the nation. Shortly after he left they ranked us at #7 in the nation. When he took office we were ranked by truckers magazine as having the worst highways in the nation. We completed 15 years of road construction in 5 years. This saved our economy and brought numerous jobs to Arkansas. We were also #49 in the nation in teenage pregnancy. When he left office we were #17. This is a man that not only preaches and preaches well, but he is also a man who practices what he preaches. I like Huck!!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.