Will Iowa heart Huckabee?
David Yepsen, political editor of the Des Moines Register, offers this interesting piece on Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee- a column which does a good job of explaining why Huckabee is on my short list for 2008.
It's about time traditional Christians recognized that social justice for all Americans, and not only for the unborn, is an ethical concern we are obliged to carry with us into the public square.
HT: Real Clear Politics
It's about time traditional Christians recognized that social justice for all Americans, and not only for the unborn, is an ethical concern we are obliged to carry with us into the public square.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
However, this is difficult to legislate and often turns out into entitlement programs and handouts which often degrade the receipient . . . limiting their self worth and potential (despite their initial gratitude).
I'm more apt to want government dollars for these programs to go through private charities and faith-based initiatives. There's a reason that Warren Buffett decided to give all that money to the Gates Foundation rather than to the government. One reporter asked Buffett why he didn't donate that money to help pay down the national deficit or to help people through the government. He said that he had no faith in the dollar/public service ratio that the government could provide in comparison to the Gates foundation.
Ideally , we should seek out the poor and needy among us, encourage family members to support there own, and help bridge the gap when responsible parties cannot/willnot. Most people that need help just need it temporarily. The vast majority of people who live below the poverty level are just there temporarily (job loss, schooling/training, etc . . .)
The idea of the "nanny-state" is not one that sits too well with me.
But I do like Huckabee so far and think he might make a great VP for a Romney/Giuliani/McCain GOP nominee to help capture the religious right more forcefully.
private sources wherever possible. Trouble is, there are areas in which the resources available from these are wholly inadequate. In those cases, government may be the only option.
The idea, as I understand it, is to keep government as small as possible- not to let problems go unresolved lest government be the one to provide the solution in those cases where it alone can do so.
My view is that where some other agency can address a problem, it should. Government should step in when no other agency is competent to do so, or simply lacks the resources.
"The Nanny State" is something to be avoided. But there are areas- education, social security, the postal system, and- to all appearances- health care in which the Federal government may have to get far more involved than, ideally, we'd like.
Have to hear Huckabee out on this one