The Goat Pen

Decent article. May turn into a campaign strategy:

Rick Perry Keeps It Simple

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 11037.html

Excerpts:

For generations now, governments not only in the United States have eased their way out of solvency crises by stoking inflation, and by some plausible mixture of cosmetic budget cuts and real tax increases. To do otherwise, as even the Economist now says, is to display "economic illiteracy." Sophisticated people play with all the dials, on the economy machine, and those who refuse to touch certain dials are unsophisticated.

Observe, where all this sophistication has got us.

So let us return to simplisme. If what we want is a functioning, even flourishing economy, and therefore jobs, jobs, jobs, then the policies of Texas make sense. They are, as Rick Perry says, low taxes, minimal regulation, the avoidance of debt, and business-friendly attitudes. It is a political culture which at least tries to focus on the political questions (law, order, and so forth), and leave economic questions to the free market (with its inevitable bulls and bears).

If what we want instead is a dysfunctional and stagnant or shrinking economy, and therefore spreading unemployment, then California's policies are just the ticket. They are: high taxes, maximal regulation, and excruciating debt. Also, a political culture that belittles and despises business, almost as much as it belittles and despises law and order; one not merely addicted to "fine tuning" things utterly beyond anyone's comprehension, but earnestly trying to replace the free market with a "political market" for goods and services - whenever opportunity calls. ("Never waste a crisis.")

If you want to keep it simple...Rick Perry is your man.

That California vs. Texas comparison would be a simple, completely understandable, and very effective message for Perry to use. Maybe he could modify it to include a "Massachusetts vs. Texas." Maybe check in with MA and see how well Romneycare is working (increased cost and loss of choice to the consumer, cost overruns to the state budget, etc.)

Another article says that the Obama camp would rather run against Perry than Romney in a general election. They believe (accurately) that it will be much easier to portray Perry as a right wing extremist than the moderate Romney. So they will soon dip into their huge war chest and run a series of ads giving rave reviews to Romneycare. They will (accurately) extol it as a wonderful milestone in liberal government-run health care, and the paradigm for Obamacare. They will gush with praise for Romney because Willard isn't one of "those" conservatives. They will say that Romney is precisely the kind of Republican that Obama can work with.

Nothing will turn the R base against Romney quicker than having their devil-in-chief campaigning with Willard as his unwilling running mate.

heh @ Sardis.

The Texas model works, and the California model fails. Quite apart from whether anyone in the States should vote for Rick Perry, they must choose between those models.


Good Lord. Texas's energy boom has been going on for a hundred years, and CA's government over-reach woes go back at least 2 generations. All of that IS quite apart from Rick Perry. Unless you are a total idiot who thinks Perry's brainpower has something to do with low unemployment in the Lone Star State.

But hey, if you follow the premise that it's either TX or CA - and no in-between - then this article could have been published in 2000. Thank God the Texas model won out back then, right? Because "it works" you see.. laissez-faire all the way...free markets rule, just send out the battleships and keep the shipping lanes open. Simplisme!

Well, I guess we know where many of the regular Puterbac Political Thread denizens are today.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... c=fb&cc=fp

They're busy building a fully armed and operational James Earl Ray memorial on top of the Lincoln Memorial.

Texas's energy boom has been going on for a hundred years

I agree with all this part. Texas has lots of oil, which has long been purchasing a lot of stetsons, nocona's and cadillacs with longhorns on the grill.

CA's government over-reach woes go back at least 2 generations.

Totally disagree with this. California has been a boom state from the Gold Rush until very recently. People have always been moving there because of the vast economic opportunity it offered. The Lone Star state has its oil, but the Golden State leads the nation in agricultural production (Joaquin Valley), high tech (Silicon Valley), and entertainment (Hollywood). It wasn't until the 70's that they started committing economic suicide with ridiculous (especially environmental) regulations, rising taxes and a huge public sector. All of CA's wounds are self-inflicted.

All of that IS quite apart from Rick Perry. Unless you are a total idiot who thinks Perry's brainpower has something to do with low unemployment in the Lone Star State.

Heh. You will never hear me extolling Perry's brainpower. He strikes me as being dumb as a rock, just like his older brother W. But he does represent a governing economic philosophy that has worked much better in Texas than the governing economic philosophy that has been practiced in CA. If Texas leaders had done what their counterparts in California have been doing, then Texas would now be a basket case like California.

They're busy building a fully armed and operational James Earl Ray memorial on top of the Lincoln Memorial.

That's funny right there.

I totally disagree with this.

Wait. Prof - you said you disagree with my statement that CA's gubmint over-reach goes back 2 generations...and then you proceed to make the claim that CA's gubmint over-reach began in the 70s.

Conventional wisdom used to say a generation was approximately 16 years - the typical span of years necessary for a woman to be born and then procreat on her own. Many people nowadays have adjusted that number upwards to 20 years.

2 x 20 = 40

2011 - 40 = 1971

comrade!

Sweet jeebus, puter, you'd better get back here. Rick Perry is taking over pnn in a fashion that is almost beiber-esque.

I like Rick Perry. In fact, I think Journey went to shit when he left.

I come to you with open primaries....

Conventional wisdom used to say a generation was approximately 16 years - the typical span of years necessary for a woman to be born and then procreat on her own. Many people nowadays have adjusted that number upwards to 20 years.

2 x 20 = 40

2011 - 40 = 1971

So, despite your AA-like semantic pedantry, we seem to agree with the general time frame where CA went awry. The Economist had a good article on that subject too.

But we probably disagree on why, of the two richest states in America, one is doing reasonably well despite the recession, and the other is an economic disaster area.

I like Rick Perry. In fact, I think Journey went to shit when he left.

I thought he was the lead guitarist for Aerosmith.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Conventional wisdom used to say a generation was approximately 16 years - the typical span of years necessary for a woman to be born and then procreat on her own. Many people nowadays have adjusted that number upwards to 20 years.

2 x 20 = 40

2011 - 40 = 1971

So, despite your AA-like semantic pedantry, we seem to agree with the general time frame where CA went awry. The Economist had a good article on that subject too.

But we probably disagree on why, of the two richest states in America, one is doing reasonably well despite the recession, and the other is an economic disaster area.

It ain't exactly a big mystery. Just using the lifeguard salary scale - 200k/yr at Newport Beach, CA vs 55k/yr Newport Beach, TX - gives you a big leg up cracking that case.

My point - RCP's writer wants to make it sound like the coming election is an either/or proposition between having a TX model government or a CA model government. That's a ridiculous notion on so many levels....but it's really odd that the author totally ignored the fact that a "TX modeler" had the reigns of government between January 2001 and January 2009. Maybe he considered dubya to be the "un-governor" of Texas. Or maybe he just forgot about him altogether (W is keeping a low profile, for sure).

"There's this governor of a prosperous state...Texas!...and his name is Perry, and he could bring Texas-style governance to the WH...it would be..UNPRECEDENTED....one-of-a-kind, even!"

I do not play semantics and I am not a pedant. Classic projection.

California is also an energy state.

As my former roommate said, you can't take anything Texas does and transform it to the federal government. Texas is like it's own country. Plenty of land, not nearly as much people as California, flush energy and oil and most importantly, 11 miles off the coast of oil money. Pride in all things Texas, even things we disagree with, as long as we are number 1. (P.S: Alaska doesn't count)

I've lived in Texas. Twice.

I loved to tell the locals, "If there had been a back door to the Alamo, there wouldn't even be a Texas."

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.


It's never been clearer, has it? No New Taxes applies to corporate cronies and various special interests who bring the cash. It's not any more complicated than that. Simplisme!

Bush tax cuts helped the rich to teh tune of $70 billion a year.

Bush tax cuts helped teh poor to the tune of $130 billion a year.

Why does tick hate the poor?...

Nice dodge, sardis.

totally expected