Here is an interesting example of how screwed up the political process is: Mike Huckabee, Republican of Arkansas, is being heavily criticized for
having raised taxes during his term as governor. For years, the rallying cry of so-called "fiscal conservatives" has been decreasing taxes, under the premise that government is always less efficient than private enterprise at solving problems.
Of course, as with all one-sided issues, the question of taxation versus private enterprise is a canard. It is more than foolish to blame high taxes for all of the problems in this world.
For example, Huckabee raised taxes approximately $500 million net (once you take into account taxes eliminated) as a governor. However, at the same time, the state's $200 million budget deficit turned into a $844 million surplus in the same time. Tax advocates might argue that the increase would be even greater had taxes been lowered, but let's look at the truth of the matter. Reagan and both Bush presidents cut taxes, and the deficit rose in both cases. Clinton raised taxes, and the deficit decreased at the same time as the economy flourished. For citations, see here, here, here, and here. The last citation is particularly interesting, as it discusses the long-term effects of budgets based on deficit spending (living off the government credit card is another way of thinking of it). The standard economic effect is that as you borrow, your interest rates climb to compensate. An interesting side note is the end of the article predicting that interest rates will only rise 1.12% after 2004's record deficit spending. In fact, the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis we currently find ourselves in was caused by a very slight increase in the interest rate as dictated by the Federal Reserve. The rate increase itself should have been harmless, but when combined with the obsessive anti-regulatory credo our current administration lives and breathes, we have thousands of unethical predatory adjustable rate mortgages suddenly increasing monthly payment by several hundred dollars, and foreclosures by the thousand affecting the entire economy with a ripple effect. Another interesting side note is that the only reason our economy continues to function is because China is literally supporting our system by buying huge numbers of government bonds. The new question nobody is asking is what does this really mean? The obvious answer is that should China wish to do so, it could squeeze the U.S. government and shift our policies in its favor just by threatening - behind the scenes - to stop this process. What it really means is that very quietly, and unnoticeably, the control over the U.S. economy and even policy is shifting to Asia. This is not intrinsically bad, and in a perfect world, allows our economy to function with the help of our benevolent neighbors. What it also does do is allow a bad apple government to exert undue control over the U.S. from afar, much as a bad apple U.S. government has run amok over the Iraqi people, but in a far more subtle way with profound implications for everything here, including the military and other national security issues.
So, coming back to our main story, Huckabee raised taxes to fix horrendously ill-maintained state highways, to pay for nursing homes for poor seniors, to pay for strapped school districts, supporting tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants, and improving the state parks system. In case you've been living in a hole, these are all liberal issues, and yet they all passed with huge bi-partisan support in Arkansas.
So why don't I like him much? Actually, much of what he says on his issues page resonates with what is really important. His views that the environment actually kind of matters, that education is a serious priority for providing vectors to move from a poorer life to a richer one, faith as a non-prescriptive but important part of life - all of these sound great. However, he then proceeds to turn right around and say it is just fine to proscribe that his personal view of homosexuality and faith allows him to legislate the lives of gay people in a highly intrusive and discriminatory way. He also blindly lumps together Iraq in with Al Qaeda, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the United State's own imperial hubris that led to the creation of "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" - an organization that did not exist prior to 2003. His demonification of illegal immigrants, pandering to white racists who see "those Mexicans" as a problem and finally have an excuse to get rid of them is pure opportunism, especially considering his actual stance as governor supporting the children of illegal immigrants.
Ultimately, however, this is a candidate who understands that government has a purpose that serves to rectify the natural inequities inherent in the capitalistic system. I'd never vote for the guy because it takes more than an effective manager to unify a country that has thrived on division under the worst manager in the history of the nation, but it is comforting to see that even social conservatives are starting to recognize that the Bush/Reagan paradigm of economic management and governmental anarchy is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States economy. It would give me no end of pleasure to be *only* arguing about domestic issues of personal privacy, health insurance, education, and all the other things that really matter to day-to-day living. With an effective manager at the helm, the United States can finally pull out of this tremendous quandary that is the Bush legacy.
