Mike Huckabee wants infrastructure jobs 'you cannot outsource'

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

It seems that Gov. Mike Huckabee is the latest conservative on Team Trump to fall victim to the Keynesian delusion that infrastructure spending is the way to revitalize the economy. A tweet by Fox News yesterday quoted Huckabee as saying, “The most effective way to put people on a job is to do infrastructure jobs b/c it’s the one thing you cannot outsource.”

The tweet does not offer a link to a clip of the segment, so Huckabee’s comment cannot be viewed in full context, but the statement comes after other members of the Trump transition team, including the president-elect himself, have signaled that infrastructure spending, most likely financed by debt, will be a top priority in the new administration.

While Huckabee is technically correct that construction jobs cannot be exported to foreign countries, the construction industry is a major employer of illegal immigrants. In 2012, four years into the unemployment crisis brought on by the Great Recession, Pew Research found that about 15 percent of construction and extraction jobs were held by illegal aliens.

During the campaign, it was pointed that Donald Trump had even used illegal aliens in the construction of the Trump Tower in the 1980s.  The Washington Post reported that Trump was also using illegal workers in the construction of his new hotel in Washington, DC, a charge that he denied.

Even without possibility of government infrastructure money going to illegal workers, Huckabee’s infrastructure comment shows a lack of deep thinking on the issue of jobs. Government spending on infrastructure can create jobs in the short term, but what happens when those projects are finished? Government projects often run behind schedule and over budget, but eventually they come to an end. If the underlying problems with the economy are not fixed the result will be a country with a lot of nice, new roads and bridges, a lot more debt and a chronic high unemployment rate.

The key to revitalizing the economy is to create a climate in which American companies can create things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. Tax and regulatory reform would allow American businesses to build things at prices that are competitive with the rest of the world.

When the federal government takes on more debt, it needs more tax money to pay back what is borrowed. Higher taxes and more government spending make the US less competitive. Neither families nor countries can borrow their way to prosperity.

The infrastructure stimulus has been tried and has failed numerous times. Most famously, President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” created the Works Progress Administration, an entire government agency whose purpose was to create infrastructure jobs for unskilled laborers. The WPA was responsible for many roads, bridges, parks, and post offices, but what it did not do was end the unemployment crisis.

More recently, President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 spent $787 billion on “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs. The success of Obama’s program can be judged by the fact that unemployment is still a problem eight years later.

One conservative critic of Obama’s stimulus said at the time, Republicans in Congress “were elected to represent their constituents, but they can’t hardly do that and vote to pile on unimaginable debt on their grandchildren.” He continued, “If you think future generations of Americans can afford a congressional version of ‘shop-til-you-drop,’ then just remain silent, but I don’t plan to.”

Who was that outspoken critic of Obama’s stimulus boondoggle? It was Mike Huckabee.

When did borrowing money to create jobs paid for by the government become a conservative policy, governor?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is Hillary electable?

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for president. Her candidacy was begun with a tweet and a two-and-a-half minute You Tube video, of which only about 40 seconds is Hillary giving her announcement and rationale for seeking office.

In contrast to the Republican hopefuls, who kicked off their presidential campaigns to adoring crowds, Hillary’s campaign began with a soundbite on social media followed by a trip in her “Scooby” van to Iowa with no organized campaign stops along the way. Hillary’s presidential announcement was almost secretive in comparison to the Republicans, with no rallies, no crowds of supporters and no questions from the media.

Hillary’s trip to Iowa is more akin to a fugitive sneaking across the state line than a triumphant politician arriving to assume her mandate. When Clinton’s “Scooby” van stopped at an Ohio Chipotle restaurant, the presumptive Democratic nominee was incognito, hiding behind a large pair of sunglasses. She not only did no campaigning, but she was only recognized when the manager examined the store’s surveillance videos after being tipped by a New York Times reporter than Hillary had visited the restaurant. Neither employees nor other customers had recognized the former First Lady.

Dick Morris, a longtime confidante of the Clintons, explains that the subterfuge is part of Hillary’s nature. Unlike her extroverted, fun-loving husband, Hillary is “hidden, paranoid, secret, controlled, and scripted” according to Morris. Where Bill was a natural campaigner, Morris calls Hillary a “born bureaucrat” who sticks “to a script, blundering when she make the slightest departure.”

The current crop of scandals that are already dogging the Clinton campaign can only serve to heighten Hillary’s sense of secrecy and paranoia. She has hidden from the media for the past several months as the scandal of her personal email server and deleted emails developed. Questions about the legality of sending classified documents via unsecure personal email and an unsecure server mean that Hillary has to consider that any questions that she answers might come back to haunt her in a criminal proceeding.

Keeping Hillary away from the media and real voters also minimizes the chance of an embarrassing gaffe. Ms. Clinton is known for a number of misstatements, such as when she asked congressional Benghazi investigators, “What difference, at this point does it make?” or when she claimed that the Clintons were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House in 2001.

One embarrassing error has already occurred. Hillary’s long-awaited announcement also came with a serious typo according to Bloomberg. A press release heralding her announcement claimed that she had “fought children and families all her career,” omitting the word “for.” Although the wording was quickly corrected, it is shocking that such a high profile announcement on a multibillion dollar campaign could have seen the light of day.

Similarly, Hillary’s campaign logo, a blue “H” with a red arrow, quickly became the target of widespread ridicule. Many claimed it resembled a road sign that pointed toward a hospital or the FedEx logo. Julian Assange claimed that it was based on the WikiLeaks logo.

Hillary has long been assumed to be inevitable by many on both the left and right. Now with her lack of campaign skills, scandals, and a slipshod campaign becoming evident, the question is whether she is electable at all.

Hillary’s biggest advantage over any Republican is that she is well known. Many Republican candidates are new to the national stage and not familiar outside the GOP. According to Gallup, 90 percent of Americans are already familiar with Hillary. No Republican even comes close.

The downside for Hillary is that, while she is well known, she is also a polarizing figure. Even the Huffington Post puts her approval rating almost equal with her disapproval at 47 – 46 percent. Further, polls that use likely voters rather than adults give her a much high negative rating. Republican candidates are not as well known, but have much lower negatives.

While Hillary’s name recognition gave her an early lead in polling, there are signs that her lead may already be fading. Karl Rove pointed out in the Wall St. Journal that recent polling in 15 battleground states showed Ms. Clinton trailing a generic Republican. Recent polling available on Real Clear Politics also shows several races around the country where Republicans Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry hold slight leads over Ms. Clinton.

Nevertheless, Hillary’s failings may be more than offset by several factors. First, whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is will win at least 40-45 percent of the popular vote. The worst Democratic wipeout in recent history, Richard Nixon’s 1972 trouncing of George McGovern, still saw McGovern win 37 percent of the vote even as he lost 49 states. Ms. Clinton would undoubtedly do much better than McGovern. With normally reliable Democratic states such as those carried by John Kerry in 2004, any Democratic candidate can be expected to win at least 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed just by appearing on the ballot as a Democrat.

Second, Ms. Clinton now heads the Clinton money machine. Hillary is backed by many on Wall Street including friends at Goldman Sachs. The Clintons also have a well-established network of foreign contributors. Republican candidates will be struggling to establish support networks for the first time, which will put them at a disadvantage. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Hillary will face a serious primary threat, which will enable her to get a head start on general election campaigning and fundraising.

Finally, Hillary will benefit by default if the Republicans nominate someone who seems more extreme and unlikable than she is. Hillary’s negatives will only take Republicans so far. The Republican nominee must be able to close the deal with moderate and independent voters. This will require the ability to present a positive vision to voters and not simply focus on negatives like Ms. Clinton’s poor record or promising to repeal Obamacare. The Republican candidate must convince voters that he cares about them more than Ms. Clinton does.

Despite her problems, Ms. Clinton’s money and network alone make her a formidable candidate, but not an inevitable one. Conservatives would do well to remember that she has only run in three elections, twice for the Senate and once for president. Of these, only one, the 2008 Democratic primary, was a tough race. Hillary lost.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

Marriage can be antidote to poverty

Portman (Josh Jensen/Wikimedia Commons)

Many Atlantans probably heard Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, when he appeared on the Michael Medved Show on February 28.  Huckabee and Medved discussed the Oscars and Natalie Portman’s pregnancy.  Both men agreed that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Portman, as well as other high profile stars, sent a “problematic message.”  Huckabee went on to say, “Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care.  And that’s the story that we’re not seeing.”  This week Huckabee, who won Georgia’s 2008 Republican presidential primary, has been taking heat for his comments. 

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence to support Huckabee’s position.  The United States is a prosperous country by most standards, but there are always exceptions.  Consistently, just fewer than 15% of Americans are considered to live in poverty.  This number has remained relatively constant since the 1960s.  About 20% of Americans in poverty are under 18 years old.  .  Statistically, it is far more likely that members of single parent families will live in poverty than any other group.  This points to the breakdown of the family as a causative factor in child poverty.

Census data shows a dramatic increase in US divorce rates over the past half century.  The divorce rate rose sharply in the 1970s and remains high, although slightly lower than its highest point which was in 1979 and 1981.  Georgia has had a low divorce rate in the past, but it is rising because, even though the number of divorces is falling, the number of marriages is falling even more.  Three towns in Georgia (Dalton, Albany, and Warner Robins) are among the cities with the highest divorce rates in the nation.  The US divorce rate is one of the highest in the world.

The increase in divorce corresponds to the years following the implementation of President Johnson’s Great Society programs, specifically the expansion of welfare to include people who are not elderly or disabled.  Making welfare available to single parents removed a negative consequence of raising a child outside of marriage (although many other negative consequences remain).  The majority of teenage girls no longer believe that having a baby outside of marriage will cause problems in their life.

To be fair, statistics do show a decrease in the overall rate of poverty since the Great Society, at least until the current Great Recession.  This is largely due to a decrease in poverty in senior citizens.  This may be due to the implementation of Medicare, a health insurance program for the Americans age 65 and over.  By the standards of government social programs, Medicare is successful in that it did meet its goal of helping to reduce poverty of the elderly. 

On the other hand, Medicare is very expensive and getting more so.  In 2010, Medicare alone costs $452 billion, over 12% of the federal budget.  This figure alone does not reflect the true cost of Medicare because the program reimburses doctors at artificially low rates.  This means that doctors must make up those losses by charging other patients more.  More and more doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients at all.  Even charging below market rates for care, Medicare is projected to be insolvent by 2017, only six years from now.

Huckabee (David Ball/Wikimedia Commons)

Statistics show that marriage tends to be associated with lower rates of poverty.  The highest rates of poverty are in families headed by a single woman with children under eighteen.  Almost 40% of these families are under the poverty line.  One quarter of American kids are raised in single parent families and 84% of these families are headed by women.  Most of these women are divorced or separated (58%) or were never married at all (24%).  The idea that poverty is strongly linked to single parent families is borne out by statistics.

Intuitively this makes sense.  If you are a parent, you know how expensive it is to raise children.  In a two income family, both parents are working to pay for food, shelter, clothing, childcare, and other necessary expenditures.  When there are two parents but only one income, child care, a major expenditure is removed, as are costs associated with the second spouse’s job, such as transportation, business attire, and meals.  Additionally, the working spouse does not have to lose income or use sick days when a child is sick. 

On the other hand, a single parent family has only one income (although often multiple jobs) for all necessary expenditures.  This often includes childcare costs since the children cannot stay home alone while the parent earns an income.  When a child is sick, the parent often cannot work unless extended family members or friends can care for the child.  The difficulty and the costs are compounded when there is more than one child.  This is not to say that many or most single parents are not dedicated and loving parents, but they start at a tremendous disadvantage.

The societal costs of single parent families are not limited to the cost of government programs.  One of the most obvious costs involves the fact that children who are unsupervised are more likely to get into trouble.  Children from single parent families are more likely to act out and be aggressive.  They are also more likely to become unwed or divorced parents themselves, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

It should be in the government’s interest to reduce the number of failing marriages and out-of-wedlock births because this would reduce the number of Americans that are dependent on government entitlements.  Factors that are known to affect the chances of making marriage last include the age of a woman at the time of marriage, whether she was raised in an intact two-parent family, whether religion plays an important role, and whether she had a high income or lived in an area with a high median income, low male unemployment, and low poverty.  Additionally, people who divorce once are more likely to divorce if they marry again.  Unmarried cohabitation is more than twice as likely to result in a breakup as a marriage.

The government can act to reduce the divorce rate by repealing no fault divorce laws and requiring marriage counseling prior to divorce.  In Georgia, a divorce can be granted if only one spouse can establish that refusal to live with the other and that there is no hope of reconciliation.  In approximately 55% of divorces, only one spouse wants out of the marriage and there is no clearly defined cause.  Many of these marriages could be saved.  Further, the government could launch public awareness campaigns similar to anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns to promote marriage and marriage counseling. 

(Joe Mabel / Wikimedia Commons)

Ultimately, it is up to the spouses to fight for their own marriage and family.  Love alone is not enough to make a successful marriage.  It takes work and communication.  A series at Peachtree Community Church in Villa Rica recently covered the four communication patterns that most threaten marriage from the book Fighting for Your Marriage.  Withdrawal occurs when one spouse is unwilling to engage in important conversations.  Escalation occurs when spouses raise the stakes, making an argument more and more hostile.  Invalidation is when a spouse puts down another, either intentionally or not.  Negative interpretation occurs when one spouse sees the other’s behavior more negatively than was intended.  These communication patterns are found in over 90% of distressed marriages.  (The two-sermon series for February 13 and 20, 2011 is available for download at peachtreecc.org.)

Peachtree Community Church pastor David Reid also recently authored the book Leading to the Bedroom, a couple’s guide to more satisfying sex.  In the book, Reid points out that when faced with conflict, the result for most people is to either get angry or go passive.  Neither is good for communication in a marriage.  To strengthen a marriage, spouses must overcome these natural tendencies.  The ultimate result will be both a stronger marriage and a more intimate and exciting sexual relationship between the spouses.

It is up to the men of Georgia and the United States to step up and work for their marriages and families.  Traditionally, men are the head of the household, but over past decades there has been a tendency for men to become withdrawn and delegate their family responsibilities to women.  This is probably partly due to the fact that welfare makes it more acceptable for them to run out on their kids.  Media focus on sex and portrayals of strong women and shiftless men may also be a factor.  The fact that many boys from broken families grow up without a positive male role model undoubtedly also contributes to the vicious cycle.  All of these factors (and more) combine to make negative changes in the way society views families and parenting. 

The stability of the family is a key to America’s future stability and prosperity.  It is one of the most important issues that we face as a country and one that we must address. 

The Michael Medved Show airs weekdays in Atlanta from 3-6 p.m. on WGKA AM920.  The show can also be downloaded as a podcast on MichaelMedved.com for a small fee.  Archives of the show, including the February 28 interview with Mike Huckabee, are also available on the website.

If you enjoyed this article, please click “FOLLOW” above to receive updates from the Captain Kudzu.

 http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/huckabee-comments-on-portman-pregnancy-stir-criticism#ixzz1FgMiwmzE">