I'm Walkin' on Sunshine

Woo hoo, K Street Mole is in a very good mood because it's Friday, Huckabee is within spitting distance of his goal of 2,500 contributions by Sept. 30 (but keep 'em coming, and don't forget to email me if you've completed the challenge), and best of all...
I just met my man Mike Huckabee in person for the first time. :-)

It was a great event, and Mike was every bit a personable talking to me as he seems on TV. He told us all a great story about being between flights in the Dallas airport, and he sat down at an information booth that was closed for the evening so he could get a little work done between flights with a comfy chair, tabletop, and place to plug in his laptop. He said about a dozen people asked him where the bathroom or restaurants were. Instead of saying "I don't work here, I'm running for President" he just gladly pointed the way.

That's what a President should be: a man of the people, not "above" the people, who points the way to a better America.

3 Days Left for September Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge

So far only 3 people have written me to qualify for the Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge, in which I have pledged to donate $50 to the Huckabee campaign for each person who joins Team Huckabee and writes to major media sources explaining why Huckabee should get more coverage. (Follow the link for details.)

While I plan to continue the challenge after the end of September, Huckabee needs the contributions now, by September 30, the end of the quarterly reporting. I'm sure lots more people have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge -- they just haven't emailed me to tell me about it yet. Please email me at kstreetforhuck@hotmail.com by 6:00 p.m. Eastern on Sunday, September 30 so I can be sure to fulfill my side of the bargain by midnight.

Go Huckabee!

Michael Steele Lambasts "Front-Runners" for Ducking Thursday's Debate

Michael Steele, former Lt. Governor of the People's Republic of Maryland, Republican with the best-run Senate campaign, best TV ads, and least deserving to lose in 2006, and now Chairman of GOPAC, expressed extreme frustration with the GOP "front-runners" for backing out of the Morgan State University debates coming up this Thursday.

"I spent months working to set this up, and the candidates have known about it since March," he said, in response to a question about how to attract more minority voters to the Republican party at a small fundraising reception in Northern Virginia this evening. "People ask me to connect them with minority voters, and I set them up, but it doesn't work if every time they turn around, the candidate's not there."

"This is a shame, because the Republicans have much to be proud of. This week is the 50 year anniversary of the integration of Central High School in Arkansas, under a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And the Republican Party is the original party of African Americans."

"Republicans can't afford to ignore minorities. George Bush wouldn't be President if it weren't for getting 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004. That was up from just 6% or something like that in the previous election. It really makes a difference, and we can't afford to write off the minority voters."

Attendees at the fundraiser were shocked and dismayed to learn about the "front-runners" skipping this debate. They asked who was participating. When Huckabee's name came up, Steele noted, "he won 45% of the black vote in his last election as Governor." A Virginia legislator interjected "he's a good man."

Okay then, people, if you're willing to pony up $250 or more in support of local elections to see Michael Steele, and you're disgusted by the behavior of the current GOP Presidential "front-runners," let's put the same kind of money up for the one man who can score a landslide against Hillary Clinton by capturing nearly half the minority vote, in addition to earning the support of solid conservatives and middle class workers of all races!

(Jim Geraghty over at NRO's Campaign Spot keeps positing excuses for this self-destructive behavior. I think the real reason the "front-runners" have skipped the last two debates is because every time they show up for a debate, Huckabee wipes the floor with them. If they don't show, most people don't watch, so Huckabee gets noticed less, and they get shown up less. If they keep debating Huckabee, he has everything to gain and they have everything to lose, so they simply duck and focus on their precious fundraisers.)

Is the Fair Tax a Good Reason to Support Huckabee?

Yes and No. But it is definitely not a reason to oppose him.

In anticipation of Vertical Day, let me offer some thoughts on an important issue that Huckabee wants to discuss with the American people, while the other candidates avoid it: a pure consumption tax to replace the federal income tax (with features to avoid hardship for the poor and lower-middle class), dubbed the "Fair Tax."

The Fair Tax is fair because it rewards both hard work and savings, no matter where you are on the income scale. It also discourages consumption, because that is what gets taxed. Wall Street would much prefer a flat income tax, which simplifies the system and rewards people who are more financially successful than average, but does not discourage consumption. Wall Street thinks consumption is the number one measure of a healthy economy, because the more you consume (buy) the more profits they make off of you, causing stock prices to rise. But is consumption really a good measure of economic health?

Let's take two scenarios.

• Scenario 1: Joe and Jane each work full time for $40,000 salary each, for total family income of $80,000. They spend $25,000 on day care for their two children, and spend $5,000 a year on commuting costs. Their house payments are $25,000 a year, they spend $8,000 a year on food (eating out frequently and buying pre-packaged food to save time), $3,000 on clothes, and $3,000 on miscellaneous necessities. They pay a 20% flat tax on their income--$16,000. At the end of the year, Joe and Jane have $5,000 more in debt than they did at the beginning of the year, but they consumed $44,000 in goods and services.
• Scenario 2: Jack works full time for $40,000 and Jill stays home with the children and does a little work from home for $10,000, for total family income of $50,000. They spend nothing on day care, and their commuting costs are halved ($2,500). Their house payment is the same ($25,000) but they only spend $5,000 on food because they eat at home more and make more from scratch. They spend the same $3,000 on clothes and $3,000 on miscellaneous. They have only consumed $13,500, far less than Joe and Jane. If they paid a 30% consumption tax on this, that's $4,000 in taxes. At the end of the year, they've put $7,500 in the bank!

Who would you rather be? I think the answer on Main Street would be nearly unanimous (unless you're a woman who really hates staying home with your children -- in which case, why did you have them in the first place?). But Wall Street much prefers Joe and Jane, because they consumed more than 3 times as much as Jack and Jill! There isn't much opportunity for Wall Street to make money off of Jack and Jill because they provide more goods and services for themselves.

This is why the Fair Tax is absolutely right from a philosophical, pro-family and even pro-environment point of view.

Now let's talk about practicalities. If Mike Huckabee is elected President, will he be able to make the Fair Tax law? Sorry to disappoint you, but almost certainly No. Here are some reasons why:

• The President can't make law himself under our Constitution. He has to get a bill from Congress to sign. Congress won't enact the Fair Tax because...
• Under our current tax system, there is a big deduction for home mortgage interest. Houses sell for about 15-30% more than they otherwise would because you're buying a big tax deduction with the house. The Fair Tax does not favor home ownership over renting. Without any tax benefit to mortgage payments, housing prices would likely drop drastically, which would enrage homeowners, i.e. the great majority of voters. The homeowners would "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.
• Congressmen rely on big donations from wealthy people who like to consume a lot themselves, and want others to consume even more to improve corporate profits. The donors would "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.
• Remember how I said that stock prices rise when people consume more? With the Fair Tax, people will consume less, causing stock prices to fall.* The media will declare that the sky is falling because the stock prices are falling, and anyone with a 401(k) won't be too happy either (including a lot of y'all on Main Street). The media and investors will "punish" Congressmen who vote for the Fair Tax.

So are the editors of National Review right when they criticize Huckabee for supporting it? Well, I think they are right that this should not be a foundational pillar of his platform, and I agree it won't be enacted. So what's the value?

The value of talking about the Fair Tax is it starts a national conversation about what our priorities should be. Do we really want to measure our economic good by consumption? Or is that an immoral and unsustainable goal for our society? Is the good of Wall Street really aligned with the good of Main Street? If not, what can we do to get Wall Street more aligned with Main Street, instead of the other way around?

The real genius of the Huckabee campaign is not a slogan like "Fair Tax." It is a conversation about what it really means to govern for the "general welfare" of this great Nation.

------------

* On further reflection, this is an over-generalization. For companies that have a globally diversified market, they will experience a lower cost of capital and demand for consumption in the rest of the world will more than pick up the slack for lower domestic consumption, resulting in higher stock prices. But for companies that sell goods or services primarily or exclusively to Americans, the lower cost of capital is of little help if consumption demand falls, because the main use for capital is for expanding production capacity. If demand falls, increased supply only makes the situation worse by driving down the price (which can wipe out any profit gains from a lower cost of production). Therefore, it is only the companies with primarily domestic markets that are likely to experience lower stock prices. But you can certainly expect these domestic companies to have a substantial and powerful lobbying presence in Congress.

"Right-leaning" Media Gag on Huckabee?

Since I posted the Top-Tier Huckabee challenge, a lot of other bloggers have started initiatives to get better media coverage for Huckabee, particularly among "right-leaning" outlets such as National Review and certain Fox News and talk radio pundits. One Mom's blog is particularly helpful, linking to contact info for the media outlets and even providing suggested language for a letter.

It is truly shameful that the New York Times covered Huckabee's 63% win at the Value Voters Debate, while NRO completely ignored it (until it received complaints, and then it gave a buried dismissive mention). What is going on here?!

Could it be the Wall Street factor? Huckabee threatens them because he puts the middle class and poor first. He wants more good jobs to stay onshore, which improves the standard of living for average Joes but cuts into corporate profits. (At the same time, he's no class warrior, and spends several pages in "From Hope to Higher Ground" explaining why people who make a lot of money from hard work and risk should not be penalized for that, but should be lauded for the jobs they create.) And a flat tax on consumption scares Wall Street, because they want to be able to consume, consume, consume while hiding behind deferred compensation plans and tax benefits for capital gains. A consumption tax would favor savings (creating competition with them for provision of capital, while simultaneously lowering demand for luxury goods and McMansions) and give them no tax shelters for hiding - except cutting consumption, which is beyond the pale to Wall Street.

Any subscriber to the print National Review knows that they constantly operate in the red and have to take "donations" to survive (though they are not a tax-exempt organization). Perhaps their Wall Street benefactors have put a gag on them? And O'Reilly and Sean Hannity operate out of New York City as well -- is it their Wall Street friends or pressure from Rupert Murdoch?

Hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but that's my best shot at an explanation for why these media sources are ignoring as "irrelevant" a charismatic candidate who is in exactly the same position that Bill Clinton was 16 years ago.

Please prove me wrong by storming the editors' desks until they remove the gag! Head over to One Mom's blog for shortcuts.

Top-Tier Huckabee Challenge

[Updated 9/19 with simplified rules to qualify - see "fine print" below.]

I firmly believe that if voters merely get to know Huckabee as a "top-tier" candidate, he can win. He is the most dynamic and appealing of the Republican candidates, and the most in touch with the values of the "Republican base." At the same time, he has the most appealing message for middle class independents, who will determine who sits in the White House. Every conservative friend or family member I talk to says "I like Huckabee the best, but can he win?" My answer is this: he just needs to be seen by the American public (or at least likely Republican primary voters for now) as a top-tier candidate and yes, he can win.

How do we Huckabee supporters help him be seen as top-tier?

1. We announce our support publicly with bumper stickers and other signs that can be viewed by friends and strangers alike.
2. We influence the pundits who lead the opinions of Republican voters to start covering Huckabee as a serious candidate.
3. We help him raise more money so he can pay for ads and events that get him more exposure.

I realize that #3 is particularly hard because Huckabee does not appeal to the Republican moneybags so much as the middle class rank-and-file. He freely admits this on his Team Huckabee fundraising appeal video. So I'm proposing this challenge so together we can maximize our impact to help elect the best Presidential candidate in the field.

For each person who (1) joins Team Huckabee with a contribution of $20.08 or more, (2) prominently displays a Huckabee sign or sticker, and (3) writes letters urging well-known pundits or media sources to give Huckabee top-tier coverage, I will donate $50 to the Huckabee campaign, up to the legal couple limit of $4,600.

Let's leverage our support for all it's worth! Your letters to pundits and signs of support are worth far more than my $50 because they have the potential to draw in many, many more supporters who would each be willing to join Team Huckabee. But if you also report your donation to Kevin Tracy's blog, you can get another 50% match of your donation. Think about it: your $20 for Huckabee + my $50 match + "Semp's" $10 match = $80. You've just quadrupled your monetary gift to the Huckabee campaign, and the exposure you're giving him is priceless.

Power to the People, as Laura Ingraham says!

I'm a lawyer, so here's the fine print on how to take me up on this challenge:

1. Join Team Huckabee with a donation of $20.08 or more. Please note you must go through the Team Huckabee website, instead of the Mike Huckabee website, or your donation will not be treated as "joining." (Don't ask me why. Take it up with the Huckabee campaign staff.) You will get an ID card and bumper sticker in the mail. (It's okay if you did this already some time ago.)

2. Put that bumper sticker or other Huckabee paraphernalia some place a lot of people will see it, like your car bumper, on the bag you carry to work, a sign in your front yard if you live on a busy street, etc.

3. Write a letter to a well-known media source or pundit explaining why you think Huckabee can win and deserves "top-tier" coverage and either have it "published" in that source or get an individualized response back from the person you wrote to. Posting comments on other articles doesn't count, but if The Corner on NRO quotes something you wrote, for instance, that does count. Getting through on a talk radio show also counts. If you aren't successful in getting recognized by the "opinion gatekeepers" then you can show me 3 attempts instead. (By "well-known" I mean something that is read, heard or viewed by thousands or at least hundreds of people regularly, preferably targeted at key Republican primary voter groups such as political conservatives, conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, or homeschoolers.) One Mom's blog has great pointers on writing these letters and sending them to radio and "print" media.

Email me with forwarded copies of your letters to media, your Team Huckabee ID number (if you signed up recently and don't have an ID card yet, you can forward me the email showing you signed up instead), and a description of how you're publicizing Huckabee to: kstreetforhuck@hotmail.com. Please send it all in one email - I can't keep track of challenge-takers "in progress." In return, I will report publicly on this blog once a month how many Team Huckabee members qualify for the match (no names), and if you're one of that group, I will email you a redacted copy of the receipt for my donation for that amount.

I am not in any way associated with the Huckabee campaign. This challenge is in no way "coordinated" with Huckabee's campaign. This is pure and spontaneous grassroots activity - you be the seed and I'll be the fertilizer. (It's okay - lawyers are frequently called worse.)

Shame on Club for Growth

They spent September 11, a sacred and solemn day in this nation, putting up a hatchet job website devoted to slamming Mike Huckabee.

Maybe this is my own private conspiracy theory, but I am convinced that the number one thing holding Huckabee back right now is opposition from Club for Growth. Many of the big Republican donors are under their sway, and I think they've intimidated (or at least influenced) the conservative pundits into ignoring Huckabee.

I remember thinking Club for Growth was a good development when I first read about them in National Review several years ago. But increasingly they are becoming like Judicial Watch. Remember them? Back when Clinton was President and Al Gore was trying to cheat his way to the Presidency, Republicans loved this watchdog group. But founder Larry Klayman didn't know when to stop, didn't know how to choose his enemies or battles wisely, and it didn't take long for Judicial Watch supporters to walk away. Klayman left in 2003, and who has heard of them recently?

Likewise, Club for Growth has gone from opposing Democrats and RINOS to attacking anyone who votes for any tax for any reason. They are inflicting serious damage on Republicans by doing this. In Virginia, for instance, they are outspoken critics of the transportation compromise achieved in Richmond this year that will finally set aside billions of desperately-needed transportation dollars for Northern Virginia. Hey Club for Growth, did you realize that the suburban areas of Northern Virginia are a key swing vote for statewide elections, and that fully half of NoVa voters say improving transportation is the most important issue for them in state and local elections? Instead of praising the sensible Republicans who finally got a compromise through that will provide real relief for terrible traffic congestion without raising income or sales taxes, Club for Growth writes misleading talking points that go straight into the arsenal of Democrats, attacking the "abusive driver fees" that are mostly controversial because of a change made by our Democratic governor.

Oh, you poor (rich) boy, you can't drive your sports car 85 miles an hour or run a red light and get off with a $200 ticket - now it's a whopping $1,000 (over 3 years). These Club for Growth guys are perfectly illustrated in this new Onion video.

Look, I hate high taxes and taxes that discourage hard work, savings, and innovation as much as you do. But government does have the responsibility to provide transportation infrastructure, and has to pay for it somehow. Not all transportation spending is pork. When public transportation is so packed that people can't get on and all the major arteries in the area are parking lots during rush hour (and even on weekends often!) then government really does need to do something about it.

In NoVa it's transportation, and apparently that was a big issue in Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor, but the need to balance tax policy with other government priorities is a nationwide issue. A new Roll Call article notes that independent voters are most interested in positive government action on issues like health care, and Tax Tourette's Syndrome won't get a Republican elected to the White House.

Oh yes, and politics is about the art of compromise. If you want to get something done, you have to accept certain things you don't personally support because it is part of an all-or-nothing package. Counting small tax or fee hikes as black marks against politicians who vote for or sign a bill because the package is a good thing on balance is the basest form of demagoguery.

It's time for conservatives to toss Club for Growth on the "has been" heap with Judicial Watch.

P.S. Here's a great rebuttal to the Club for Growth slanders against Huckabee.