I think that the fair tax is a pie-in-the-sky idea. Generally, I think that the idea of getting the tax code simpler and flatter is a good idea. However, I don’t see how the fair tax accomplishes that. When pressed on the specifics of how it would affect low income Americans or other special interests who now pay no taxes, they talk about prebates. Once we’ve gotten to that point, however, there is little stopping the government from recreating any or all the tax exemptions now currently in the tax code. Thus, we have done little to affect who is paying taxes, but only shifted how they pay it. How that helps the tax situation is beyond me.

Proponents also argue that the national sales tax would help tax black market activities. James Taranto over at Opinion Journal looks further into this claim:

“Ask Mike Huckabee about his tax plan and he’ll talk about pimps and prostitutes,” the Concord (N.H.) Monitor reports. Not a bad lead. The story continues:

The Republican presidential candidate often says that one of the selling points of his plan to replace the federal income tax with a 23 percent sales tax is that it would force those who deal in cash to pay taxes.

“You end the underground economy,” Huckabee said at a recent luncheon for the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. “Illegals, prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, drug dealers–everybody pays taxes.”

Huh? Does Huckabee really think prostitutes are going to collect sales taxes and pass them on to the government? Apparently not:

William Ahern, spokesman for The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group in Washington, D.C., said even Huckabee’s claim about pimps and prostitutes isn’t true.

“Say (a drug dealer) spends $100,000 on a tricked-out Hummer,” Ahern said. “Instead of just paying the local car tax or sales tax, he would be paying, according to the Fair Tax, the full 23 percent (tax).

“But he won’t be collecting the Fair Tax on his sale of drugs,” Ahern added. “You and me, the two secret heroin addicts who are pouring our wages into the coffers of this drug dealer instead of making mortgage payments . . . we avoid paying the Fair Tax by buying heroin instead of taxable goods.”

To put it another way, under Huckabee’s plan, johns and drug addicts would pay for sex and drugs with pretax income.

I’ve hit Huckabee on foreign policy before, and I think with good reason. His simplistic equivalence of international relations with ordinary human interactions shows a lack of both seriousness and depth. I’ve also compared him (I think accurately) with Jimmy Carter. Powerline blog agreed. Now come the editors at NRO joining in the chorus:

Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.

This seems to me to be exactly the wrong direction to take the country that still is at war with violent Jihad. Not only do we face the threat of independent operators, but also hostility from national regimes. The type of effort that it requires to confront these different types of threats takes more than just good interpersonal skills. The force of Huckabee’s personality will do us little good in the face of real military threats. In those situations we need someone more tough-minded who can evaluate real world consequences. We need someone that can evaluate the data, process the arguments of dissenting voices, and make hard decisions. Reliance on colloquialisms and quips will seem little consolation when deaths are imminent and the country faces real peril. Confronting other nations will also require some creativity, something that Huckabee has not shown even a glimmer of. Those qualities needed to confront nations are the qualities of one candidate: Mitt Romney.

As I’ve browsed the blogosphere and listening to just a little talk radio today, a few questions keep popping up from reporters, pundits, and the general public. These are a significant minority of the overall reactions. Mostly they sound something like this: How can Romney invoke his faith and not discuss the details? How can he claim that America wants a man of faith, yet not any particular faith? How can Romney assert that faith is important in a secular nation?

One of fundamental values upon which our constitution is built is balance: balance between federal and state governments, between branches of government, between the citizens and the government, etc. We use several different phrases to describe this balance (federalism, separation of powers, etc.), but the underlying premise is the same. We want a government with enough power to enforce the laws, but not to tyrannize its citizens. We want a strong central government, but not complete or even significant concentrations of power.

All of these require balancing by embracing both values without rejecting either. It is sometimes difficult to find the precise balance, but that’s what we have to do. Through experience and maturity we increase our ability to find this balance and approach new situations.

Such is the case with religion in the United States. The Constitution specifically eschews the enshrinement of a national religion or religious test for office. On the other hand, the Constitution does not decry the practice of religion. Thus, we have a nation of religion without a national religion. The Constitution only sets the framework from which we begin to balance the two competing values. However, the wisdom of this framework is self-evident.

Taking either value to its logical extreme shows the fallacy of holding too tightly to one value at the expense of the other. There is no more wisdom in a theocratic Iran than an atheistic Soviet Union (back when it was such). But of course Mitt explained all this in his speech.

The questions asked above similarly seek for a logical extreme to facets of the religion question. They conclude that if Romney’s religion is known and going to play a role in his politics, he must fully explain it. However, this type of extremism is at odds with the types of balancing discussed above. The question, then, is what is the proper balance? How do we value the competing concerns of maintaining a proper distance from religion in politics without removing it from that sphere? Mitt has struck a balance as evidenced in his speech. He embraces religion and religious people, but will not exalt that religion to dominate his political life. Thus, it is important to be aware that he is religious while it is the specifics of his religion are not important. This is a balance.

Would other people have struck a different balance? Certainly. JFK’s speech concerned the almost complete rejection of religion in politics. Alternatively, former candidates like Pat Robertson would have exalted religion as the defining characteristic of their governance. Experience has proven to us that neither extreme is desirable. Where should the balance be struck? That’s an individual question and reasonable people can disagree. However, the extremist questions listed above are outside that range of reasonable disagreement. They exhibit a rejection of one value or another on the role of religion in the public sphere.

Hugh Hewitt posts a letter sent by James Dobson:

Colorado Springs, Colo. — Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s speech on “Faith in America”:

“Gov. Romney’s speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational. Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of Evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today.

“Many in the media have been busily crafting the obituaries of ‘values voters’ in recent months. David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times, along with Tom Brokaw, Frank Rich and other liberal journalists, have been predicting a dramatic ‘Evangelical crackup’. They are dead wrong. Religion has already played a major role in this election cycle, and will continue to be evident through’08. The sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and the care and nurturing of children will be important issues to people of faith as they choose a new generation of leaders. You can take it to the bank.

“Again, Gov. Romney’s speech served as a reminder that religion has always played a significant role in electoral politics. Candidates who disregard the spiritual heritage of this great nation and its viability today will do so at their peril.”

In some non-”The Speech” related news, AmSpec blog’s Quin Hillyer looks at Huck’s soft record on crime:

Well, now comes proof. Today, the Arkansas leader has the numbers. They are astonishing. They show that Huck “issued more commutations and pardons than all of the six neighboring states combined.”

Wow. We now see more and more that HUck is the diametric opposite of Rudy Giuliani on every issue under the sun. Rudy is known, of course, for being tough (wisely so) on criminals and on successfully making once-dangerous New York into a safe place. Rudy is a tax cutter and a fiscal conservative; Huck is a tax hiker and a big spender. Rudy is tough on foreign policy; Huck has no clue about foreign policy but his tendency is to be Jimmy Carter-like. And of course, in the one area where conservatives may give Huck the advantage, Huck is pro-life while Rudy isn’t. But again, they are opposites.

I found (h/t Marginal Revolution) this scholarly look at the effect of the early primary voting on later primary voting. It’s sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The bottom line:

The voting weights implied by the estimated model demonstrate that early voters have up to 20 times the influence of late voters in the selection of candidates, demonstrating a significant departure from the ideal of “one person, one vote.”

Sounds like the Giuliani campaign going down in flames to me.

Fresh off his endorsement of Mitt last week, ACU President David Keene writes over at The Hill why he endorsed Romney. It’s a fairly lengthy piece, but Keene makes a ton of good points:

I would have stayed on the sidelines, but was slowly coming to realize that Romney, unlike Giuliani, might just have the ability to unite conservatives and is their best chance to advance our policy goals should Republicans hold the White House. His commitments on a variety of issues have struck me as credible as he strives to put together a coalition of Republicans that will give him a chance to win both his party’s nomination and a general election…

Romney is quite different. He’s governed successfully in one of the most liberal states in the nation and while he’s had to bend to accommodate the reality of political life in Massachusetts, he’s managed to accomplish a good deal more than most conservatives would have under similar circumstances. Once more, anyone who has spent any time with him realizes that he is intellectually inquisitive and comfortable enough with himself to welcome divergent views from those around him.

Marc Ambinder has some questions to think about before “the Speech”. Do you have some answers? Let us know at info@mymanmitt.com. I’ll post some responses:

(1) Generally, should the content of a candidates religious practice inform a voter’s perception of a candidate?

(2) Are those who object to Mormonism on theological and doctrinal grounds religious bigots?

(3) Is a certain amount of “religious bigotry” necessary in a pluralistic democracy where people are encouraged to live according to their beliefs?

(4) Is there a difference between deciding not to vote for Mormon politicians and deciding not to rent a house to a Mormon family?

(5) Is Mormonism weird? Weirder that Christianity? Judaism? Atheism?

(6) Should candidates for office be forced to discuss and endorse the particular quirks of their faith?

(7) Is Mitt Romney proud of the tenets of his faith? Is he an orthodox Mormon? Are these questions appropriate?

(8) Is Mormonism objectively similar to widely accepted variants of evangelical Christian theology?

Romney up big! First, Zogby:

Romney 35
McCain 17
Giuliani 15
Huckabee 10
Paul 7
Thompson 3

Second, Washington Post/ABC News:

Romney 37
McCain 20
Giuliani 16
Huckabee 9
Paul 8
Thompson 4

There are a couple of items out today about Huckabee’s foreign policy:

From Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff:

My main objection to Huckabee — the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five — is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case. The real problem is that he’s too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee’s exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.

Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

I suspect that Huckabee required little lobbying. Waterboarding and long-term detention aren’t very “Christian”; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we’re going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks. But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he’s even less qualified to be president than I suspect.

Also from Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff:

When it comes to foreign policy, Huckabee more closely resembles another former governor, Jimmy Carter. It was Carter, not Reagan, who viewed foreign policy as an extension of his own character and personal principles. Carter stood for a foreign policy “as decent as the American people.” Reagan stood for defeating our enemies. When Huckabee frets about how Gitmo is making us appear to foreigners, when he asserts that “we broke Iraq,” and when he says he’s qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his character rather than because of his understanding of our enemies, it’s pretty clear that his foreign policy roots extend nowhere near the fertile soil of Reaganism.

This extends on the argument I made here on Monday, making the comparison between Huckabee and Jimmy Carter on domestic issues. In the same Powerline post, Scott Johnson says that Huckabee’s moralistic approach extends to domestic issues also:

Generally speaking, moralism in both foreign and domestic policy is a form of intellectual laziness. Again, “moralism” does not equal “morality.” We can all agree that our government should do what is morally right. But determining what is morally right requires a hard-headed attention to the consequences of any particular policy, and an assessment of those consequences in the context of a coherent philosophy. The moralist, in contrast, doesn’t want to be bothered either with the facts or with philosophic coherence. Instead, he enshrines his own feelings and preferences–or, very likely, prejudices–as public policy. As in, “Smoking is really bad, so let’s ban it.” Mike Huckabee appears to fit squarely within this tradition.

From Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot. Picking up on the Powerline post Geraghty includes specific foreign policy ideas and accompanying quotes supporting Powerline’s assessment:

Beyond Huckabee’s skepticism about the benefits of free trade and the “moralism” discussed at that link, there are a couple other areas where his foreign policy views are unorthodox from mainstream conservative thinking. One can agree with them or disagree with them – I think he makes a stronger case for these policy changes than those who agree with him on the left do – but they are worth noting.

From Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

My colleague David Paul Kuhn attended an on-the-record dinner with Mike Huckabee and a group of reporters tonight in Des Moines.

The transcript speaks for itself:

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday…

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.