After Another Debate

Several presidential debates have gone by without my commenting on them. So here’s what’s been happening: questions are asked of candidates who agree almost entirely that Obamacare must be repealed, economic policies must return to free market, government needs to be smaller, spending and the deficit need real cuts, and faith and integrity are essential. There is no point in debating those ideas; we can save that for debates with the sitting president who disagrees on every point.  

So the debates tend to concentrate on separating these very good alternatives to the status quo from one another. Where there are differences in specifics, I find that I always understand better when the candidate has a forum where he/she can express the thought process more fully. The sound bites that come in short debate answers offer this differentiation very poorly. People who agree that we need to protect our sovereign border shouldn’t be accused of being against that idea because of a specific that requires further explanation. People who all agree that nationalizing health care is an abomination (“Obamanation”) should not be accused by their colleagues, again and again, of lying about their views. Having a colleague turn to you and say, “No, that’s not what you believe; you believe this and this” is not only a ridiculous waste of time, it’s offensive.  

In just about every debate, Newt Gingrich has reminded us that we don’t really disagree with each other; we disagree with the current administration and its direction. If he’s in the race for no other reason, I appreciate that. 

Nevertheless, there were a few gems from last night’s debate that I’d like to share. Some for entertainment; some for enlightenment. 

This first is an exchange between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. Some day maybe I’ll take a closer look at Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I have many reservations, but I also like the idea of simplifying and flattening the tax system. (Michelle Bachman pointed out that that concept was something all agreed on.) So the exchange here is only entertaining. Cain is talking about only changing the federal tax system, doing nothing to individual state plans. And Romney is pointing out that the complaint is the discomfort people have adding 9% sales tax on top of something like an 8% state and/or local sales tax. They don’t really disagree. But the apples and oranges thing is funny.  

Romney (to Cain): Are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?

Cain: No. That’s an apple. We’re replacing a bunch of oranges.

Romney: So, then, Governor Perry was right.

Cain: No, he wasn’t. He was mixing apples and oranges.

Romney: Well, but, will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax, and in addition pay the 9% sales tax?

Cain: Governor Romney, you’re doing the same thing that they’re doing; you’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re gonna pay the state sales tax no matter what.

Romney: Right.

Cain: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you’re still gonna pay that. That’s apples and oranges.

Romney: Fine. And I’m gonna be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it, ‘cause I’m gonna pay both taxes. And the people of Nevada don’t want to pay both taxes. 

If there ever were a national sales tax on top of state and local sales tax, I think the item should be marked to show the retail cost, plust the cost with each of the taxes, so there's an awareness of the taxes being paid, and no sudden shock at checkout.

Newt Gingrich followed up with a concern I have about Cain’s plan. He credits Cain with opening up the conversation on a major reworking of the tax system. But he says there are a lot of details that need to be handled; it’s not as simple as Cain describes. And something that complex takes time. 

Gingrich: I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100% expensing, because, I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge over the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through, if you’re gonna do it right. 

Rick Perry made a good case for using our own resources for energy independence, and since he’s from Texas, where energy is a major industry, I believe he could do it. 

Perry: We’ve got 300 years of resources right under our feet. Yet we’ve got an administration blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it’s our petroleum or our natural gas or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work, Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say, “Listen, we’ve got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job.” And that’s exactly what I did with my plan—laid it out where Americans understand, we don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence. 

Romney didn’t disagree, but extended energy policy to the larger economy, in a way that, if you don’t see them as rivals, but as allies on the same side, would be very positive. 

Romney: He’s absolutely right about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We’re an energy rich nation that’s acting like an energy poor nation…. But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing and high tech jobs, and good service jobs, and technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that’s very very broad, and that’s why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training, and balancing the federal budget. And that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy. 

Ron Paul is generally good on economic issues—and just about as out of the mainstream on foreign policy. But I liked his discussion about getting medicine back to free market choices. 

Paul: There’s been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be which kind of government management is best. But our problem is we have too much. We’ve had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid. And what we need, I mean, there’s pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare because it’s a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we’d all agree on this. But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine…. Let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship…. When the government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine. But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and get it out of the hands of the third party. 

The issue of attracting Latino voters came up. I liked Gingrich’s comments, and I think this is yet another idea all of the candidates agree on. 

Gingrich: There are hundreds of different groups that come to America. As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration. But the truth is most Latinos in the United States aren’t immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants. They want an economy that’s growing…. And they want to have a chance that their country is going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future. I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background—that we want to make America work again. And you’ll know it’s working because you will have a job, and you’ll have a chance to take care of your family. 

I want to like Rick Santorum. I think he’s at a disadvantage in this strong field, but he often speaks well on the values that contribute to civilization. He tends to try to make it a contrast between himself and the others, and I think that’s a mistake, because there is so little actual disagreement; it makes him look petty. But when he actually speaks on family and faith, he says it well. This comment was following up about attracting the Latino community, which he pointed out is very interested in strong families. 

Santorum: The basic building block of society is not the individual; it’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society. And the Latino community understands. They understand the importance of faith and marriage. They understand that bond that builds that solid foundation, and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom. And I think the Latino community knows what’s at stake in this country. There’s a lot going on right now that’s eroding our religious freedom, that’s eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. And there’s one candidate up here that consistently sounds that theme. Look, I’m for jobs too. I’ve got an economic plan; I agree with everything that’s been said. But we keep running roughshod over the fact that family in America, and faith in America, is being crushed by the courts and by our government, and someone has to stand up and fight for those institutions. 

Have the debates convinced me yet who to vote for? No. I’m not fully decided. But I’m getting closer, I think. I’ve written off Paul and Huntsman (didn’t miss him last night). And I don’t think there’s much hope for Santorum or Bachman this time around, or Gingrich ever again (although I’m still glad he’s there saying what he’s saying). I think I could live with any of the top three as a candidate. But doing the research away from the debates is a better way to find out who they really are and who is worth getting behind.

Perry--Not Totally Honored in His Own Texas



In the New Testament there’s the saying, “A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country” (Mark 6:4). I thought of that as I began writing about Governor Rick Perry. He is not hated here in Texas; I’d say he is mostly appreciated. But he is not every conservative’s favorite. We know too much to give a resounding endorsement. (For mostly good words about him, look at yesterday's post. Today is the follow-up.) 

Baby Political Sphere gets to know Governor Perry

It may be that it is necessary for any elected executive leader to be checked by constituents who don’t totally trust him. Maybe that mix makes for the generally conservative principles at play in the Texas economy. 

Lest we make the rest of the US too envious, Texas’s unemployment hangs steady at around 8%. That’s a lot less than the national rate of 9.1%, but it’s not exactly full employment either. There are plenty of us who feel the difficulty of job hunting and underemployment. So, while a lot is going comparatively right, we’re not what I’d call booming right now either. (Not necessarily Texas’s fault—probably more federal policy affecting everyone.) Overall, though, the Texas economy is a plus that Perry, as governor, has not ruined—which is a lot to say for any politician. 

As I said yesterday, every time I hear Perry talk, it’s all conservative. I was excited to have him as governor when he replaced George W. Bush at the end of 2000. I even thought, maybe down the line he will become a viable presidential candidate. Then somewhere around 2003-2005, the VLT issue came up (I wrote about video lottery terminals on March 22^nd). It may be that his position was actually just exploring what the people felt about the issue. But it appeared that the lobbying of the gambling industry was persuading him to support this plague. People uprising against the issue took it off the table—which happened again this legislative session as it has every two years since. But that was the first time I felt I couldn’t quite trust Perry. 

The Trans-Texas Corridor is an issue where many people part ways with Perry. This was to be a network of 4000 miles connecting major metro centers of the state (and in some views attempting to make easy access from Mexico to Canada). Lanes were to be extremely wide, including trucking lanes and railway lines. Eminent domain would have seized hundreds of thousands of acres of private land, and rendered within a mile either way uninhabitable because of noise and traffic. Cost was to be partially handled by private investment and partially recouped by making them toll roads. Now, infrastructure does indeed fit into the proper role of government, but the people of Texas did not want this monstrous project. In 2006 both Republican and Democrat party platforms expressed their disapproval of the TTC. Yet Perry still supported it. In 2009 the project was downsized to a simpler road-only network, and in 2011 the project was stopped for good by the legislature—against Perry’s will. He hasn’t said much about it for some time, but this is another example of the people holding Perry to do their will. 

There was a problem with the business franchise tax in 2006. Granted, Texas is a state with no income tax (one of our best features), so that means other means must be used to raise revenue for government use. We understand that, but we’re not going to give in to any tax without a fight. This tax was a change that was intended to stop businesses from forming as various types of limited partnerships that weren’t subject to the tax—it now included LLCs, and also changed the structure. There were dire predictions about the huge burden this placed on some businesses, but since 2007 I have heard very little about it. I was at the state convention the year this was an issue, and there was a huge backlash against the governor and those in the legislature who supported this bill. I would have preferred that it had not passed, or that it had been immediately repealed. Still, it’s hard for someone like me to know just how wrong (or right) this tax change was. But it is one of the items often listed along with accusations that Governor Perry is a RINO. 

The biggest issue marking him as a big-government interferer was the mandate to vaccinate all girls 12 and up with Gardasil, for HPV (human papilloma virus). He had listened to the pharmaceutical lobby. They essentially convinced him this was the way to protect young women from cervical cancer. Making such a vaccine available, maybe with discounts for the indigent, might have been a tolerable approach—mandate was not. The drug only deals with a couple of the various viruses that cause HPV (a couple of the most common ones, but certainly not all of them), so there was no guarantee that the drug would fully protect young women as ads often implied. Also, the drug had been tested on 16-26-year-olds, so there was question about the safety for 12-year-olds. In addition, this is a sexually transmitted disease—so a young woman who is not sexually active is simply not at risk. Plenty of mothers would opt to keep their daughters safe from the disease by teaching them sexual purity before marriage, rather than risking the side effects (which had included a few deaths) of a drug that would only give partial protection and would do nothing about the disease in the males who were spreading it. In addition, the disease is easily prevented with an annual pap smear with follow-up for any positive result. So the state mandate was a huge overreach of intrusive government. The people of Texas spoke up—in loud voice. And the governor removed the mandate pretty quickly. 

Do I think Governor Perry is a RINO? No, I think he believes he is truly conservative. And here in Texas, where we have large numbers of vocal conservatives, we have been able to keep him in check. 

Perry has been a good friend to homeschoolers. He has been a friend of social conservatives—those of us against abortion and in favor of protecting marriage. And he understands states rights enough that nullification of ObamaCare is a possibility here. He has put an anti-groping bill (against TSA intrusive airport screenings) and a freedom of lightbulb choice bill on the agenda for the current special session—where nothing but the budget and anything the governor insists on gets put on the agenda.  

I don’t know yet whether he will run. If he does, he’s still on my list of possibles (the long list all of whom pretty much entirely outshine the Obama/Biden ticket in every way). Perry isn’t perfect, and I have reservations. But the flaws aren’t what I call disqualifying. You can decide for yourself.

Governor Perry Speaks

The first time I heard that Texas Governor Rick Perry was considering a run for the White House, my gut reaction was—NO! But after that, I have moderated somewhat and have allowed him onto the list of possibles. 

The thing is, I live in Texas, so I know the flaws. But if I were from some other state, and I looked at the comparative success of Texas, and I heard him talk the way he does about conservative principles, I’d be hoping he’d run. 

There is a list of questionable actions that I wish he hadn’t done. But I think I’ll save that list for another day and let this post just be an introduction of the good side. (And I'd like to add, yesterday he placed the TSA anti-groping bill on the agenda for the special session of the legislature now underway. I may be able to fly again. I wrote about this on May 13th.)

I have heard Rick Perry speak many times. I met him in person once as a guest at the capitol along with a busload invited by my state representative. So we got to shake hands and get our photos taken. Another time we were doing a lobbying day at the capitol for homeschoolers, and my daughter, Social Sphere, got her picture taken with him. I’ve heard him speak at state GOP conventions all four times I’ve been a delegate. And once, as a field trip, I took my daughter to hear him on a nearby campaign stop. Always his language is conservative. And I very much like his Texas straight-shooting style.  

There was a time (before moving to this state) that I thought—“Oh, no! Not another Texas accent!” when some Texan was considering getting into the presidential race. I grew up prejudiced against the Texas twang, because it sounds, well…uneducated. But after more than a decade here, I’m overcoming that prejudice. In this large city, most people speak standard American, like you hear on the news or TV. But the natives are mixed in among us. And I’ve come to find that there’s not much corollary between accent and brains. And some people have a milder accent that isn’t such a strain to listen to; it just sounds straight-forward and honest. Perry has that brand of accent. And as you’ll see below, his style includes some very nice parallel structure, good strong verbs, and a number of other details that let me know he’s thinking clearly about what he’s saying. 

This past Friday Governor Perry spoke, as President of the Republican Governors, at a Conservative Leadership Conference in New Orleans, which got some good reviews. So I listened to it online last night. There were some memorable things in the speech I thought I’d share (times into the video are approximate): 

6:00 in

Will future generations of Americans … wonder, why didn’t somebody do something?

7:00 in

I stand before you today a disciplined, conservative Texan, a committed Republican, and a proud American, united with you in the desire to restore our nation and revive the American Dream.” 

8:00 in

47.8% of all jobs created in American in the last two years were created in Texas. 

I’ve got to brag on Texas conservative values just a bit. We’re the number one exporting state in the nation. We got a balanced budget to boot. And let me tell you that’s what happens when conservative leadership that is willing to take a beating from the liberal left and their friends in the media—we happen to be a bunch of happy warriors. We’ve been working together, we’ve stuck to our guns, and these conservative values.

9:00 in

I distill my economic agenda down to a few guiding principles:

1.      Don’t spend all the money.

2.      Keep the taxes low and under control.

3.      Have regulations that are fair and predictable so that business owners know what to expect from one quarter to the next.

4.      Reform the legal system so that frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers that are trying to create real wealth.

That’s what we’ve done. 

15:00 in

Our loudest opponents on the left are never gonna like us, so let’s stop trying to curry favor with ‘em. Let’s stand up. Let’s speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our efforts to elect more conservative Republicans. Let’s stop this American downward spiral. It’s happening because of too much spending, too much interfering, and too much apologizing. 

There’ve always been two kinds of politicians: those who seek office to gain personal power, and those who seek office to give power back to the people.

16:45 in

They will never willingly give up an ounce of power in Washington, DC, until the American people stand up and demand that we adopt reform. Never will they do that. 

17:00 in

He reminds us that his book, Fed Up, is about the 10^th Amendment, which he quotes, about states rights. Then he says this:

It’s simple, it’s elegant, and to the point. The framers of our Constitution knew all too well what happens when distant, too-powerful governments hold sway over a nation. And that’s why they decentralized power out of Washington, DC, into the hands of the states. 

When states lead the way, and they compete for ideas and resourced and jobs, free-market principles are allowed to act and great things happen. 

The states are proof that the best leadership is closest to the people, not holed up in Washington, DC, using their one-size-fits-all mandates that try to fit the entire country. Our goal is to displace the entrenched power in Washington, restore the rightful balance between state and federal government. 

In November of 2008 there were too many Americans who voted for some vague promises about hope and change. And they ended up with unprecedented deficits, unrestrained spending, and unacceptable unemployment. America voted for hope and got nothing but greater economic misery. 

20:00 in

In November of 2010 Americans expressed their frustration with that misery, and they voted for conservative Republicans. In the United States Congress and state houses all across this country we have seen Republican leaders turning the tide. November 2012 is not very far away. But we’ve got to be ready to elect Republican leaders up and down that ballot who will make government smaller so that opportunity can get bigger. 

I’m preaching to the choir here; I understand that. But America’s greatness in not found in the size of its government. America’s greatness resides in the hearts and the minds of our people, their innovative approaches to solving problems, and their ability to endure even in the toughest times.

I'm considering listing the flaws tomorrow, because there are things about him as a possible candidate that concern me. But whoever we get to replace Obama, I hope it's someone who talks like Perry just did--and means it through and through. Then there's hope that we'll get change.