With all the cleaning and reorganizing going on at our house, I found a radio that I could take to work. I’ve been listening to the day-time political talk shows when I can and I was surprised at how tough they all are on Huckabee. Limbaugh and Hannity both came down pretty hard on him for some issues where they say Huck is too far left (meaning too far away from the Republican platform).

I view these guys first and foremost as entertainers. You have to evaluate all their talk through the lense of sensationalism. But at the same time, they do have full staffs that spend hours and hours sifting through interviews, articles, and historical reports that I just don’t have time to do. So, when these guys say stuff like Huck is against school choice, or Huck is a big-government tax-and-spender, I have to at least check the facts.

Like I said many times in reference to spiritual matters, blind faith is deadly. You have to know what you believe before you can believe what you know. I like Huck, but it is my responsibility to know for certain why I like Huck and make sure it’s all true.

I won’t even bother arguing the whole scholarships for illegals thing. Huck’s answered that one over and over. I don’t see any real evidence that Huck is soft on immigration.

Nor will I bother arguing about Huck being “soft on crime.” To be honest, I haven’t seen enough evidence to call this one, so I’m deferring on the issue for now.

I am for school choice. If you don’t like the way your local public school does things, if you don’t like what they teach or how they teach it, you should have options. One option is private school. That’s expensive and not everyone can afford it. Then there’s home schooling. Obviously this has requirements that some families can not meet. Then there’s vouchers, the hotly debated idea that you should be able to use your tax money to send your kid to another district. Here’s were sound-bite politics have come to hurt Huck. But rather than explain it all here, I’ll just like to some others who’ve already explained it quite well.

Kevin Tracy changes his stance after a phone interview with Huck.
National Review Letter to Ed explains Huck’s stance on vouchers in Arkansas.

I am against big-government. But here we have to split some hairs. One of the main causes for problematic, big government is federal involvement in state and local issues. There are very few issues in which the federal government should be involved. National security, international relations and interstate affairs are pretty much it.

Gay marriage is a federal issue because all 50 states need to have the same standards for what constitutes a marriage (interstate affairs). Otherwise you could be married in one state but not in another. Likewise, federal involvement makes sense for uniform driver’s licenses (and IDs) to insure that all states agree on who can and can’t get a driver’s license and how to prevent fake IDs.

I feel pretty strongly that education is a local issue, not a federal one. I (like Huck) do not believe that the federal government should mandate school vouchers. Educational standards, like “No Child Left Behind” are great, but only for creating a standard measure against which the states can compare their own educational performance.

Some people are put off by the fact that the NEA (a very big-L Liberal organization) endorsed Huck. But in this article you’ll see that they endorsed Huck based on his track record for improving education in Arkansas, even though they don’t agree with him many issues. Keep in mind that as governor it was Huck’s job to manage education. As president, his role will have to be different.

Now, when I say I’m against big government, you can infer that I’m against raising taxes to fund unnecessary government programs. (That’s tax-and-spend.) Huck did get beat up pretty bad in a report by CATO. They gave Huck a D overall based on his tax policies in Arkansas.

Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package… He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax—a significant pro-growth accomplishment.

But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved… In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase.

I believe that most of the attacks against Huck on this issue come from fiscal-first conservatives. Fiscal-first conservatives (like Dick Chaney and CATO) reject any candidate that supported any tax hikes ever. However they will push for close relations with China or immigrant amnesty because these things are “good” for the economy. This is a major dividing line in the Republican party. To me (a social-first conservative), the rule of law, and the sanctity of life are more important than the economy, so China and illegals lose and necessary taxes can be forgiven.

This comes down to defining unnecessary programs. It’s the governor’s job to keep roads and infrastructure up-to-date. It’s the president’s job to keep national defense up-to-date. Would you be willing to pay more federal taxes to keep our soldiers properly equipped? I would. Would you be willing to pay more state taxes to keep highways and bridges safe? I would.

So is Huck a tax-and-spend guy? I’m not convinced either way yet. I still haven’t found any details on Huck’s 2002 spending package. Thus, I can not make an honest assessment of this issue yet.