Arkansas Blog

Stephens was right; Huckabee and Weiss were wrong (which is what Huck gets for keeping a career Democrat as his Chief Fiscal Officer). We took half off 30 days ago and the sky has not fallen. It will forever be an embarrassment to the RPA that Beebe did in three months what Huckabuck wouldn't in ten years.

Stephens was politically naive to think the measure unbeatable and wouldn't run ads or organize a campaign for it. He didn't see the self-serving whisper campaign of the political infrastructure coming until it was too late. He is right not to forgive Huck. And I'm sure it's worth $80K to get a little payback. Wish I could watch Mike's face at the tally.

The dots always lead to one after another of sickening piles of crap. I think Stephens needs a new Utopian dream to chase. Gubbermint is here to stay and as the nation grows so will the gubbermint.

I love it when Repukes are eating their own.

70, it's the tension each party has to live with. If you don't play quite a bit of backscratch you aren't a viable party and you can't win anything. If you play too much, it doesn't mean anything to win anyway. So you get Rs unhappy with Huck and Ds unhappy with Pryor.

Personally, I think Huck could have done much more than he did. Nice to see him get his and it's not like we're losing our most viable candidate for November!

Who do you find as your most viable candidate Theo?

Theodosius's post needs a bit of context. While it's indeed true that the state reduced the sales tax on food by half recently, that reduction came in the middle of a period in which the state has a sizeable budget surplus. When Constitutional Amendment Proposal Number 3 went before voters in 2002, the situation was much different. In fact, Huckabee called a special session of the General Assembly in 2002 to deal with projected budget shortfalls (http://tinyurl.com/2wsxdr), and there was much discussion of drastic cuts to Medicaid to balance the budget.

Context means a lot on this issue. A drastic tax cut in 2002 without any method of recouping the lost revenue would have led to severe cutbacks in several vital areas of government services. With the state having its surplus in 2007, a cut in the tax on food is not quite the fiscal idiocy it was in 2002. Huckabee was right not to back Little Stevie's irresponsible measure in 2002, and he doesn't deserve to take flack for making the right decision.

ARK. BLOG: Gaddis, thanks for context. My quick search this PM failed to turn up the background I wanted to link to. Remind me also: didn't this proposal also take the grocery proceeds from city and county taxes, which the reduction this year did not do?

Gaddis, even more reason to doubt Huck's republican credetials is that he had no faith in the Bush tax cuts to usher in this prosperity and tax largess. Also, as I remember, the sales tax elimination measure would have given the legislature 7 months to replace the revenue.

I remember well the time after 9-11 when everyone predicted the states were going to take it on the nose. Well...guess what....they didn't. And we were taxed to death which explains all that extra money. If I could have sold beer to people for 5 bucks a bottle back then, I'd be rich today. Yet at the time I thought it might be wise for Arkansas to pay close attention to detail because it was impossible to know what was going to happen next.

Of course now we know nothing happened next except a bunch of shopping over here and a lot of no bid contracts and dying going on over there. I'm not a Republican any more, but I do think my state taxes are too high. I'd really rather spend that extra money at the grocery store.

But hey....I like the part where Huck says he must be gaining traction if there are Huck attack ads. Ken Lay must have been getting him some traction too......it's not an attack when people are telling the truth about you. America 0, Arkansas 0, Huckabee 0.......business as usual.

Don't you mean to say, "connect the money"?

Just kidding. Great reporting and it makes sense. And even though I'm a Huckabee supporter, I would have to disagree that removing the sales tax from food is somehow "crippling" to government--more like "liberating" from BIG government not to mention incredibly non-regressive form of taxation.

Huck gets a pass for 1997. He was the "accidental Governor" with six months to prepare, no directors of his own in the agencies and 10% Rs in the House. But in 1999 and 2001 Huck could have done whatever he wanted to phase in an elimination in the sales tax. There were proposals to eliminate it, cut it in half, phase out a penny a year - you name it. Huck could have written it. (He could have used some of the CHART windfall to help as well...)

So there never should have been a 2002 ballot proposal. And he never should have lied to Stephens.

That's all the context I need.

Scary question Lwood. But since Huck is mired with Brownback and Tancredo and well behind Undecided, Fred Thompson (who's running but not announced) and Newt Gingrich (who apparently is neither) which puts him in about 7th at best, then I'm positive it's not Huck.

Theo, I think you guys will be stuck with the Mormon. He looks close enough to Hollywood Arnold, has a checkered past (minus the alcoholism) and lots of money. Were it Rudy then knowing that Rudy would do whatever it takes to get the fundie vote, Huck would be the vp de jour, hustlin votes from Okla to No. Carolina.
But, a lot can happen in the coming 15 months. I wouldn't bet on any of them regardless of the odds.
.

When was Richard Weiss ever right about a budget forecast and why did Huckabee did keep such a proven incompetent? So that he could get along with the tax and spenders, like Jodie Mahonie, who kept whinning about the "needs" not being met when all they ever did was to tax poor people (because they're used to it) and pretend they did something good.

Why do you look at an article like this and say "thats a good point"? there are only vague sentences in this report. if we want something to talk about have the press print something valid. also, if we are so great as democrats, why are we bashing republicans? we really need to get our act togather, and until we do, i agree that there doesnt need to be a democratic president, so far the republicans are doing a decent job, anyone with a blind eye could see that.