Tax Hike Mike's Waterboys

First it was Neal Boortz, and now Right On! Blogger James. "Tax Hike Mike" Huckabee is gaining support from all sorts of right wing sellouts.

Of course, this should surprise no one. Long gone are the days when "the right" stood up for the principles for individual liberty, limited government, the Constitution, and free markets. Now, just like their left wing counterparts, they sacrifice these concepts to the political expediency of creating a Brave New World, via the State.

Boortz, who has been rather critical of Ron Paul, has gotten behind Tax Hike Mike on account of his support for the FairTax, even though Huckabee has been clearly identified as a BIG government, tax-and-spend governor. Apparently, all it takes to get Boortz’ endorsement is the utterance of those two magic words, "Fair Tax".

Former Libertarian Party of Georgia Chairman, Jason Pye, has written an excellent "open letter" to Boortz, roundly criticizing him for his abandonment of the principles of individual liberty. I have nothing to say about that letter, except to expand on it to say, for Boortz, Paul is the better choice by an exponential factor. Boortz has long been familiar with Paul’s work in Congress, and has promoted his efforts from time to time. Paul is dedicated to reducing the size, scope, and cost of government, and wants to eliminate the income tax (the whole point behind the Fair Tax), which should be very exciting to Boortz. The problem is, as I see it, that Paul is not going to make implementing the Fair Tax his primary goal. And that does not sit well with Boortz.

I was at the 2004 Libertarian Party National Convention, held in Atlanta, which both Paul and Boortz likewise attended. Paul was the keynote speaker for the convention, and in his speech, he addressed the issue of the Fair Tax. He noted that many people asked him if he, as a member of Congress, would vote for the Fair Tax. His answer? Yes, he would. He stated he would vote for it because he has always told his constituency that he would do whatever he could to get them out from under the thumb if the IRS. However, he did qualify this support by stating that the Fair Tax was only a means to an end, and should not replace the goal of making government immensely smaller.

As I ask Fair Tax supporters that I know… if the FedGov was half the size it was today, would it really matter how we finance it? If government demands fewer resources from the productive sector, then isn’t that the best tax cut of all?

Boortz and Company say no. They have come to accept Big Government, and their only beef is about how we pay for it. They will gladly ignore a candidate offering them a better alternative. They are missing the forest for the trees, and intellectual honesty would demand that they stop calling themselves lovers of liberty.

And now, James, the blogger over at "Right On!" has cast off all pretense at desiring smaller government by also getting behind this laughable candidate. For James, though, the issue is immigration, and his magic words are "birthright citizenship". I’ve long said that the anti-immigrant crowd was an anti-liberty, anti-capitalist constituency, and this just confirms it. These types are just so anxious to keep out undesirables (via State control and regulation of the natural rights to free association and private property) that they will gladly vote in a liberal to give them what they want. Gone is the natural skepticism of the State that has been a feature of conservative thought. Now, they want big, activist government to manage society in the ways they feel it should be managed.

Of course, Ron Paul is also better on this issue as well, for these types. As I’ve noted before, the only major point of contention I have with Ron Paul is his stance on the immigration issue. On this issue, he is not my ally, but rather, more in line with anti-immigrant crowdlings, like James. Like Boortz on the FairTax, the anti-immigrant crowd value keeping out the dark-skinned non-English speakers more highly than they value smaller government. (Of course, it’s perfectly logical, since they need big government in order to implement their plans.) However, their support of Huckabee is not based on any consideration of which candidate could actually do the job, but instead, only based on the raw calculation for who might get the nomination. The fact is, Ron Paul would be more effective on this point, because his pledge to end the war on Iraq and bring the troops home would have the effect of bringing home people who’s job it was to patrol the border in the first place. From a resource allocation point of view, Paul’s plan makes infinitely more sense.

In any event, it’s been fairly obvious for a while that supporters of the GOP candidates are either without principle, have a flawed capacity for logical thought, or both. Ron Paul, as imperfect as he is, is the only candidate with anything close to a small government, pro-individual liberty, pro-free market platform. All the rest are Bigger Government panderers who can only gain support by promising to have government "do something".

Personally, I think government does too much. I want a candidate who’s going to tell me what they are going to stop doing. That candidate is Ron Paul.