Urgent Message about Jim Inhofe, By: Mike Huckabee

As someone that has proudly endorsed Jim Inhofe for Senate, I wanted to reach out to you with only hours to go before his campaign's midnight fundraising report deadline.

Jim's running as a strong conservative and a man of action.

Just days ago he stood up to politics-as-usual crowd in Washington and voted against the bailout of Wall Street. That took courage and was the right vote at the right time.

Jim didn't put his finger to the wind before he cast his vote, he listened to his heart and knew it was against everything anti-spending, anti-tax Republicans like you and me stand for. It was the right vote at the right time and it took courage.

He's done it before on immigration and climate change and I know he'll do it again if we help re-elect him on Election Day.

Today, we can take a step to make sure that Jim wins. I urge you to make an immediate contribution of $10 or more directly to his campaign. And if you can afford to contribute $50 or even $100 please do so immediately (we only have hours to go!).

Senators with courage to fight for what is right and stand up against what is wrong are few and far between these days. Let's make certain to support the good ones, principled conservatives like Jim Inhofe.

I urge you to make an immediate contribution now of $10, $25, $50 or even $100 or more, before the midnight deadline.

We can't afford to lose Jim's conservative voice and vote in the Senate. So let's do everything we can to make certain we reach this goal. My political action committee has already given, I urge you to make the maximum contribution you can afford.

Proud to stand with Jim,
Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Inhofe, Andrew Rice, and a Couple of Oklahoma Liberal Bloggers AGREE: Oppose Bailout

http://www.okiefunk.com/node/448

This is an interesting post from an Oklahoma Liberal Blog, OkieFunk, (by: Dr. Kurt Hochenauer - Professor at University of Central Oklahoma) and shows that many liberal Democrats are in agreement with many conservative Republicans in opposing the bailout plan.

Democrats Should Oppose Bailout
Submitted by dochoc on Mon, 2008-09-29 18:01.

House Democrats should unite and defeat the massive $700 billion financial bailout of Wall Street.
Not only does it make sense to refocus the bailout on middle-class taxpayers it would also ensure sweeping Democratic wins in the November elections.
President George Bush and the members of his ruling junta, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, are proposing taxpayers put their money on the line for Wall Street investment firms and banks. This committed money will mean fewer programs for the middle-class in the future. It will almost certainly jeopardize the government programs Social Security and Medicare.
It will also affect state government budgets, as well, because the federal government will have to slash funding to state programs that help the vast majority of Americans.
Those who support the measure, and this includes many leading Democrats, say the measure has safeguards, that Americans are actually buying a stake of these financially insolvent companies. If the companies rebound, then taxpayers could benefit, they argue. Do you actually believe this?
But the bottom line is the people who were wrong about the subprime mortgage crisis and housing bubble are the ones now pushing this radical solution. Why do it so quickly? What are the political bigwigs and investment bankers trying to hide from the public? How will this bailout affect you in years to come? No one can answer that.
Here are some issues and questions raised by Ohio's U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich about the bailout:
The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?
Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.
In a press release today, state Sen. Andrew Rice, a Democrat running against U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe in Oklahoma this year, said, "This bill gives too much away to the people who created these problems without guaranteeing that it won't happen again. Any bill would need to require much tougher consequences for Wall Street in order to earn my support."
That is a good stance for Democrats, though I would go further and suggest party leaders completely shred the Bush plan and start over. First, we should implement a bailout for the middle class, then we can worry about Wall Street. We should work from the bottom up, not the top down.
The House is supposed to vote on the measure today. Watch as leading national Democrats capitulate one-by-one to Bush’s last bit of thievery and then actually try to take credit for it.
Public opinion is against the bailout. Democrats should seize the day and create a bailout plan that forces many Wall Street investment firms to face the consequences of their own reckless decisions and greed as it helps ordinary Americans keep their homes. Democrats are risking the viability of their party if they go along with the Bush plan.

Bailing On Our Principles - Mike Huckabee Goes OFF! Rips Congress, Including Republicans, HARD! Gives Suggestions, Too.

September 23, 2008 - 08:01 PM

Bailing On Our Principles

by Mike Huckabee

Send to a friend

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!

This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

Permalink: http://www.huckpac.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1899


Editor: This is the not the 1st time that Huckabee has mentioned his disdain for Sarbanes-Oxley. The blog, eyeon08.com, had reported the following in August, 2007 from a Huckabee Blogger's Conference Call:

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08/31/huckabee-blogger-conference-call/

I asked about his economic populism and why economic conservatives should support him. The response:

"I am supported by the true economic conservatives. … I believe that risk ought to be rewarded. .. The attacks come from special interest groups who have an interest in protecting a certain segment. … One of the reasons that I support the Fair Tax is that it doesn’t pick winners and losers. … When we have reforms on tax policy, it ought not be good for a few CEOs and hedge fund managers .. but for everybody. … Hedge fund managers make 2200 times what the average worker makes. … Hundreds of millions of dollars in instant profit… As a Christian, not just an economic issue, but a moral issue. When you have real success, you share it with the people who helped you. … That’s the difference between capitalism and greed. … A President has to show the moral leadership of the country, not just policy leadership. … Get rid of most if not all of Sarbanes-Oxley. … The basic way that the rules have been written to favor a few. … You have a tax policy that encourages boards a huge tax incentive to give a huge salary to the CEO."

Another good older Blog Post (Jan 31, 2008) about Huckabee's Solid Economic Plan

The following was originally from the blog, NEW YORKERS FOR HUCKABEE, which can be found at http://nyforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Thursday, January 31, 2008

CNN Debate: Romney Reveals Big Business Bias

Governor Mitt Romney, who has only recently been touting his support of the Second Amendment, is obviously not too experienced in the use of firearms. Am I the only one who noticed him pull that big fat gun out of his pocket and shoot himself in the foot last night?

He was, in fact, being asked a question about his record in Massachusetts re: taxes. Specifically, he was asked to defend his raising fees by hundreds of millions of dollars; to explain why those did not constitute tax increases. To defend his record, he gave as an example increasing the fee for McDonald’s to put a sign on the Massachusetts Turnpike to advertise their restaurant from $200 to $2,000.

Well, that’s just fine and dandy, if you’re a big multi-national corporation like McDonald’s. But what if you’re just a Mom & Pop family restaurant struggling to compete with places like McDonald’s? Forget it, Mom & Pop, says Governor Romney, you have to pay the 900% fee increase! Thus does Romney reveal that he cares about Wall Street, but not Main Street. And I’ll just bet that there were plenty of Moms and Pops out there in TVland who got his message, loud and clear.

Leave it to Mike Huckabee to define the divide between two different strains of economic conservatism with the Wall Street v. Main Street distinction. But since so many people—including Rush Limbaugh—seem not to get it, I’ll expound on it a bit more here. Because Mike Huckabee has the audacity to talk about the proverbial little guy and to criticize genuine examples of corporate greed, conservatives like Limbaugh conclude that Huckabee is a liberal and opposed to business; i.e., he can’t be a real economic conservative. They need to listen a little better to what Mike Huckabee has to say.

What liberal Democrats do is complain that the little guy is being crushed by the interests of big business. Hence, they justify greater taxation, regulation and litigation. And of course, that punishes all businesses, large and small, and drags the whole economy down.

On the other hand, Gov. Huckabee complains that small business is being crushed by excessive government taxation, regulation and litigation, and that this needs to be reversed (and the implementation of the Fair Tax would do it in one fell swoop). But big business can safeguard its profits against big government by outsourcing jobs and moving its capital offshore. This has the same ultimate effect of dragging down the national economy, and with it, ultimately, our national security. This process is, however, more insidious because, at least in the short run, profits—and therefore, tax revenues—keep rolling in, even as whole industries keep moving out overseas.

Mike Huckabee understands that most of America’s industry and most of its jobs are generated by small business—not big business. And just as importantly, he understands that what is good for small business is good for all business, big and small.

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it. He obviously believes that if we take care of big business, small business will benefit also. That ain’t necessarily so, as I have pointed out above.

Now how does this all play out in the political calculus of the current presidential election? Hmmm, it seems to me that there are plenty of billionaire industrialists (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros come to mind) who are eager to throw in their fortunes with liberal Democrats like Hillary. Ever wonder why that is?

My point here is that if you want a President in the White House who will just take care of big business, you don’t need a fiscal conservative of Romney’s stripe or even a Republican. Hillary will do just fine.

But if you want a President in the White House who is a real conservative—fiscal and otherwise—you need to help elect Mike Huckabee!

(And as for all you guys who want to post, on this blog site, pleas for Mike to withdraw from the race because he’s hurting Mitt Romney’s chances, you can forget that. And if you’ve taken the time to read this post all the way through, now you also know one reason why.)

Posted by Joel Brind at 4:51 PM