Mike Huckabee on Budget & Economy Republican AR Governor

2007 economy ok for the rich; but working class struggled

While it might be true that our macroeconomic outlook appeared to be doing well, at least if you used economic indicators as a guide, our microeconomic position was turning sour for working-class Americans, and the signs of things improving were not good. I said that while things were fine in the corner office, they weren't going so "swimmingly swell" down on the freight docks where people were lifting heavy things. The CEO might see a bonus this year, but the people from the middle on down were probably struggling to pay the rent.

I had challenged the orthodox Republican doctrine that if the folks at the top were smiling, everyone else out to be smiling as well. I knew that it wasn't true. The people I met every day weren't getting ahead. In fact, they were slipping behind.

Infrastructure projects: start immediately, for stimulus

A: Maybe Mitt Romney’s highway department didn’t do what the other highway departments across America do, and that is, they have these projects already ready. The engineering is done. The eminent domain is already done. Environmental impact studies have been done. The only thing that we lack--you ask any governor--is funding. If we had the funding, we’ve got projects we’re ready to pull the trigger on tomorrow

We’re worse off than in 2000, due to Congress’ over-spending

A: I don’t think we are. And the real issue, though, let’s not blame President Bush for all of this. We’ve got a Congress who sat around on their hands and done nothing but spend a lot of money and they’re spending, leaving us $9 trillion in debt that we’re passing on to our grandchildren. I don’t blame the president solely for that. But are we better off? Well, new home starts are down 40%. That’s going to have a cascading impact on everybody who is in the building trades. And all over our economy, with unemployment up to 5% across the nation, that means there are a lot of families today that don’t have a paycheck. And I think what Americans are looking for is somebody to be straight with them and tell them that, no, it’s not better and it’s not going to get better unless we have some serious leadership in Washington that says that we’re going to have policies that touch the people not just at the top, but the people at the bottom.

Rebates of $150 billion help China; widening I-95 helps US

A: Well, if we end up with the rebates, we’re going to borrow the $150 billion from China. When we turn it into rebates, most people are going to go out and buy some consumables like a pair of shoes that they probably don’t even need, but they’re going to buy them, and they’re most likely an import from China. My point is, whose economy are we stimulating when we do that? The Heritage Foundation did a pretty interesting study on past rebates & found it does not really stimulate the economy in the way that we hope it will. If you really want an economic stimulus package, look at what infrastructure investment does.

I steered AR from $200M deficit to an $850M surplus

A: Well, not only not as impressed with the record in the private sector, but also think that it’s more important to be able to run the public sector to run a government, which I did longer than anyone running for president, Democrat or Republican. And I steered a state through good times and bad times. We went through a recession. I saw our state go from a $200 million deficit to an $850 million surplus. I also presided over the largest job creation in the history of my state as well as a per capita income increase of 50 percent during my tenure. That’s the kind of record people want you to be able to bring to the table when you’re president. So I would contend that I’ve got probably the best preparation to lead this country during a time like this.

Recessions “trickle-up”--working class hit first & hardest

We often hear about trickle-down economics. Well, there’s a sense in which there is a trickle-up effect of a recession. It starts and hits hardest at the people who are just making it from paycheck to paycheck. It takes a while for it to get to Wall Street, but it hits Main Street pretty hard, and it hits them early.

I was understanding that, seeing it, & predicting it. People were laughing at me then. Now they have to admit I was right. And I think that that’s the kind of president we need, is someone who’s in touch with all sectors of the American public, not just the people at the top.

Infrastructure investment causes long-term economic stimulus

We’re neglecting our infrastructure. If you look at what’s happening to--the fact that our sewer systems, water systems, roads, they were built 50, 60, sometimes 80 and 100 years ago, and they simply are not able to keep up with the growth.

And as a result, we’re not just having trouble today, but look at the problems that we’re passing on to the next generation on top of a $9 trillion national debt. Now we’re going to give them an infrastructure that is falling apart and the cost of rebuilding that and fixing it is four times the money we’re putting into it to actually keep up with it.

Stimulus plan is $150B from China, to spend on Chinese goods

A: In talking about the stimulus package, one of the concerns that I have is that we’ll probably end up borrowing this $150 billion from th Chinese. And when we get those rebate checks, most people are going to go out and buy stuff that’s been imported from China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated the most by the package. And I’m grateful that something is being done.

Fuel prices & subprime mortgages possibly cause recession

1. Fuel prices: Everything costs more because it took more money to transport it. With our dependency upon foreign oil, if we don’t begin to revers that and become energy independent, we well could continue this enslavement to foreign oil, and ultimately wreck our economy.
2. Subprime mortgages: Two million people today in America risk losing their homes. Now, there’s culpability on both lender, as well as a lot of borrowers who bought more home than they could.
3. Health care costs
4. Education costs. All those factors together.

Do things differently so people need not sacrifice

A: Sometimes it’s not so much doing things so that people sacrifice; it’s doing them differently. Let me give you an example. A lot of the federal budget goes to health care. We need to do what most American companies are finding works in reducing health care cost. That’s moving from the intervention-based health care model to a prevention-based. Our current model is upside-down. We wait until people are catastrophically ill and then we spend the most expensive ways of trying to cure incurable diseases. If we would put the focus on prevention, we would find, like American business is finding, that there really is savings if you kill the snake rather than just treat the snakebites, which is the way our current system is built.

To reduce spending, get rid of IRS & revamp DHS

A: The first thing that I would get rid of would be the Internal Revenue Service. Secondly, I agree we need to revamp [the Department of] Homeland Security. It’s a mess, and we have a real problem with the way that it’s currently structured.

Rein in out-of-control spending and balance the budget

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Created state surplus in AR; cut spending to do same for US

When I left office in early 2007, Arkansas had nearly $850 million in state surplus, which I urged should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut.

I believe that our massive deficit is not due to Americans’ being under-taxed, but due to the federal government’s over-spending. Achieving and maintaining a balanced federal budget is an important and worthy goal necessary to our long-term economic well-being. To achieve a balanced federal budget, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.

Bankruptcy reform: limit Chapter 7; protect states' role.

The Governors are particularly concerned that bankruptcy reform legislation address the following issues:
1. Prevent Chapter 7 Use by Those with the Ability to Pay: Present bankruptcy law does not prevent use of Chapter 7 by those with ability to repay, nor does it require that debtors use Chapter 13, which would require them to repay creditors what the debtor can afford. The Governors strongly support federal efforts to prevent debtors from using Chapter 7 when they are financially able to pay some or all of their unsecured debts.
2. Encourage Payment of Domestic Support Obligations: Bankruptcy interferes significantly with states’ ability to assist citizens owed domestic support and to collect unpaid domestic support owed them. The Governors strongly encourage Congress to ensure that any federal bankruptcy reform requires that domestic support obligations have the highest possible repayment priority, that all domestic support obligations be nondischargeable, and that commencement of bankruptcy not prevent the continued collection of child and other support obligations.
3. Give State Claims Parity with Federal Claims in Bankruptcy: Today, bankruptcy rightly gives certain preferences in payment to federal claims against the bankruptcy estate, but similar treatment is not always accorded state claims. The Governors strongly support congressional efforts to reform the treatment of state claims in bankruptcy to provide parity of treatment with federal claims.
4. Protect the State Role: The Governors oppose efforts to preempt state authority to determine exemptions under state bankruptcy law. Currently, debtors have a right to choose between federal and state exemptions. The Governors support efforts to shape bankruptcy reform policy that protects the rights of states to determine their own standards instead of having uniform federal regulations imposed without regard for individual state needs.

Uphold commitments to states before other spending.

The Issue

NGA’s Position

Protect local milk supplies with Southern Dairy Compact.

• Whereas, the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have all enacted the Southern Dairy Compact as state legislation; and,
• Whereas, these states adopted the Southern Dairy Compact in response to the hemorrhaging loss of the region’s milk supply, whereby every state must now import milk from outside the region to supply at least part of its beverage milk needs, with Alabama and South Carolina supplying less than half their fluid needs; and,
• Whereas, establishment of this form of interstate compact is the formal, constitutionally authorized means for a region to address interstate issues of common concern in the public interest; and,
• Whereas, these states each adopted the Southern Dairy Compact because the Compact strikes the appropriate balance among all the interests involved in the regional dairy marketplace, including those of consumers, processors, retailers and farmers alike; and,
• Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has operated successfully as a pilot project in the six New England states since 1996, stabilizing that region’s dairy industry in the manner anticipated for the south under the Southern Dairy Compact; and,
• Whereas, southern dairy farmers are experiencing particularly dislocating farm price swings and depressed overall pay prices which are expected to continue throughout 2000 and which will certainly result in an even greater loss of the region’s milk supply without response under the Southern Dairy Compact; now, therefore, be it
• Resolved, That the Southern Governors’ Association formally petitions Congress to approve the Southern Dairy Compact.