Huckabee the anit-federalist
This is exactly why we can't support this man. Bear in mind that it's not so much the plan he advocates, but rather how he would go about instituting it. The following portion on this interview was conducted on Wednesday, and I needed a couple of days to wrap my head around this one. I'd also like to note here for Huckabee supporters that we don't personally dislike him. He's a good guy, but with this statement, we question his conservative credentials:
HH: And the last question is do you support a federal ban on smoking as has been alleged?
MH: No, I don’t. I support workplace clean air. But a federal ban on smoking would mean that you couldn’t smoke in your own home. I don’t care what people do in their home. But in a workplace, in our state, we passed a law which I’m very proud of, and that said that people have a right to have clean air at the workplace. I did not support a ban just in restaurants and bars because frankly, I think that the problem with that is that you’re punishing the customers. But what you have a right to do is to protect the workers in the same was you do from radon gas and a host of other carcinogens and toxic fumes, which is exactly what tobacco smoke is.
HH: Well, I understand that from the state side, but I’m talking about the federal lawmakers getting involved in this and imposing on states a uniform standard. Do you…just for the workplace. Do you support federal laws mandating standards for workplace non-smoke environments?
MH: I personally would on the workplace issue. If there are two or more people, and as long as anyone under the age of 21 worked in that place, there ought to be some protections for them.
Before people go off half-cocked, pay close attention to what I have to say ...
If you reside in a state, say like Arizona, and the voters put forth a ballot initiative to ban smoking in public places, that's fine. I, personally, don't agree with it, but I have no problem with residents of a state making that decision. And such a move falls well under the purview of the Tenth Amendment.
But that isn't what Mike Huckabee has advocated above. He would support a FEDERAL ban on it. That goes directly against the idea of federalism, in the first place. And as Hugh noted on the phone with me on Wednesday, if he's willing to do it to "protect" the hypothesized workers, would he be willing to do the same on an issue like national health care? This is the proverbial slippery slope.
For the last sixty or so years we have seen the government creep into our lives over issues of protection. Let's face facts, folks. there are quite a few stupid people in this nation that do a lot of dumb and dangerous things. But does that give the federal government the right to step in and quash a State's right to enact laws to govern their citizens? Think about it. If the federal government passes legislation outlawing smoking in ALL fifty states in public they are, in essence, trumping any and all state laws that have been enacted addressing the issue.
One of our biggest gripes with President Bush was his "compassionate conservatism." This has been translated to big-government conservatism, which is anathema to the ideals of conservatism itself. It's not the government's job to fix all of our problems and the answer to fixing those problems isn't to spend money unwisely. We have seen such things occur during his tenure in office. No Child Left Behind is a prime example of spending taxpayers dollars poorly. (For the record, the average amount of dollars spent per child in school for 2007 is about $11,000, and the kids aren't turning out any better. Money isn't the solution to the problem.)
Mike Huckabee's heart may be in the right place, but his brain isn't. We, the people, are sick of having the government stick it's nose in our lives. This isn't the conservatism we embraced and hold dear. We wanted the rugged individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that made conservatism great. We don't need Uncle Sugar watching over our shoulder or the nanny state politics advocated by the Democrats. We want the government to let us do what we can, and focus on it's primary duties.
Publius II
HH: And the last question is do you support a federal ban on smoking as has been alleged?
MH: No, I don’t. I support workplace clean air. But a federal ban on smoking would mean that you couldn’t smoke in your own home. I don’t care what people do in their home. But in a workplace, in our state, we passed a law which I’m very proud of, and that said that people have a right to have clean air at the workplace. I did not support a ban just in restaurants and bars because frankly, I think that the problem with that is that you’re punishing the customers. But what you have a right to do is to protect the workers in the same was you do from radon gas and a host of other carcinogens and toxic fumes, which is exactly what tobacco smoke is.
HH: Well, I understand that from the state side, but I’m talking about the federal lawmakers getting involved in this and imposing on states a uniform standard. Do you…just for the workplace. Do you support federal laws mandating standards for workplace non-smoke environments?
MH: I personally would on the workplace issue. If there are two or more people, and as long as anyone under the age of 21 worked in that place, there ought to be some protections for them.
Before people go off half-cocked, pay close attention to what I have to say ...
If you reside in a state, say like Arizona, and the voters put forth a ballot initiative to ban smoking in public places, that's fine. I, personally, don't agree with it, but I have no problem with residents of a state making that decision. And such a move falls well under the purview of the Tenth Amendment.
But that isn't what Mike Huckabee has advocated above. He would support a FEDERAL ban on it. That goes directly against the idea of federalism, in the first place. And as Hugh noted on the phone with me on Wednesday, if he's willing to do it to "protect" the hypothesized workers, would he be willing to do the same on an issue like national health care? This is the proverbial slippery slope.
For the last sixty or so years we have seen the government creep into our lives over issues of protection. Let's face facts, folks. there are quite a few stupid people in this nation that do a lot of dumb and dangerous things. But does that give the federal government the right to step in and quash a State's right to enact laws to govern their citizens? Think about it. If the federal government passes legislation outlawing smoking in ALL fifty states in public they are, in essence, trumping any and all state laws that have been enacted addressing the issue.
One of our biggest gripes with President Bush was his "compassionate conservatism." This has been translated to big-government conservatism, which is anathema to the ideals of conservatism itself. It's not the government's job to fix all of our problems and the answer to fixing those problems isn't to spend money unwisely. We have seen such things occur during his tenure in office. No Child Left Behind is a prime example of spending taxpayers dollars poorly. (For the record, the average amount of dollars spent per child in school for 2007 is about $11,000, and the kids aren't turning out any better. Money isn't the solution to the problem.)
Mike Huckabee's heart may be in the right place, but his brain isn't. We, the people, are sick of having the government stick it's nose in our lives. This isn't the conservatism we embraced and hold dear. We wanted the rugged individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that made conservatism great. We don't need Uncle Sugar watching over our shoulder or the nanny state politics advocated by the Democrats. We want the government to let us do what we can, and focus on it's primary duties.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:19 PM
1 Comments:
Well said! I cannot support him for the same reason. Rawriter
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home