Posted on 09/05/2011 6:31:29 AM PDT by Students4Palin
In Governor Palin’s speech in Iowa on Saturday, she spoke about crony capitalism and about the importance of vetting a candidate based on his or her record:
“So, please, you must vet a candidate’s record. You must know their ability to successfully reform and actually fix problems that they’re going to claim they inherited. Real reform never sits well with the entrenched special interests, and that’s why the true voices of reform are so quickly demonized.”
These words really stuck out to me. Since Governor Perry entered the presidential race a couple weeks ago, I have spoken with many conservatives inclined to throw their support behind him with little genuine examination of his record. S4P contributor Hank Piasecki (Rick Perry: Called Into Question) and Freeper Brices Crossroads (“Rick Perry: Rhinestone Cowboy”; “Perry’s Twin Mandates for Kids–Gardasil for the Veins; Islamopropaganda for the Brains”) have already skillfully addressed some of the major blemishes on Governor Perry’s record. The other day, however, a post on TheRightScoop piqued my interest. In this piece, TheRightScoop posted an ad about Governor Perry aired on behalf of Michele Bachmann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KxyVMi-eOeA
TheRightScoop went on to give what it described as Governor Perry’s “thorough debunking” of the charges leveled against him in this ad:
FALSE CLAIM: “Rick Perry doubled spending in a decade.”
TRUTH: State spending – the non-federal dollars state lawmakers can control – is six percent lower under Gov. Perry than it was under the two-year budget in effect when he took office, adjusting for population growth and inflation. In unadjusted amounts, state spending is $80.5 billion for the 2012-13 biennium compared to $55.7 billion for the 2000-01 biennium. Texas’ population growth plus inflation since 2001 is 54 percent. The current Texas budget funds the state’s vital needs by operating within available revenues and providing tax cuts for small businesses. Gov. Perry is the only Texas governor since World War II to cut state (general revenue) spending.
FALSE CLAIM: “This year, Rick Perry is spending more money than the state takes in.”
TRUTH: Texas’ budget has been certified as balanced by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, with an estimated $6.5 billion remaining unspent in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. Every budget Gov. Perry has signed has been balanced.
FALSE CLAIM: “Covering his deficits with record borrowing.”
TRUTH: Texas does not have a deficit. The state’s recent sale of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs) is cash-flow management tool that dates back to 1987. These notes are sold every fiscal year to manage cash flow and to provide up-front payments to public schools. They are repaid within the fiscal year with tax revenue that comes in after the upfront school payments are made. Texas earned the highest possible ratings in anticipation of this offering, receiving a rating of SP-1+ by Standard & Poor’s, MIG 1 by Moody’s Investors Service and F1+ by Fitch Inc. Texas’ net interest rate of .27 percent is down from last year’s rate of .34 percent, representing the state’s lowest net rate ever for these notes.
I’m certainly no expert on the intricacies of the Texas state budget, but I’m learning a thing or two about the Constitution and about federalism this semester in my law school classes. Governor Perry bases his “debunking” on a single premise–that is, that he is only responsible for state spending, which he defines as “the non-federal dollars that state lawmakers can control.” The corollary to that is that he is not responsible for federal dollars spent in his state because he cannot control this money.
This premise is fundamentally dishonest. Governors have long exercised their constitutional power to refuse funds appropriated to their states by the Federal government. Earlier this year, Governor Rick Scott of Florida famously derailed President Obama’s plan to build “really fast trains” by refusing federal funds allocated to his state for this purpose. Following the stimulus in 2009, many governors refused to accept federal stimulus dollars. Governor Palin, for instance, accepted only 55% of the stimulus money offered to Alaska. Rejected over $400 million in federal money, Governor Palin asserted,
“We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government. We are not requesting more money for normal day-to-day operations of government as part of this economic stimulus package. In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government.”
Governor Palin was clear; the expansion of government, at any level, conflicts with her conservative principles. Practically, she argued it would be patently unwise to expand government and to accept money now, only to be left floundering when those funds are no longer available–to “dig ourselves a deeper hole in two years when these federal funds are gone.” Instead of accepting these federal appropriations to close budget gaps, she made real cuts to the Alaska budget. In her FY 2010 budget, she excised more than $1 billion from the previous governor’s FY 2007 budget–a 9.5% real reduction in spending. These were “real cuts”–none of this “slowing the rate of growth” nonsense. Instead of continuing to feed the state’s addiction to spending, Governor Palin conducted an intervention and sent the budget to rehab.
Recalling Governor Scott’s and Governor Palin’s rejections of federal funds, I sensed a massive chink in Governor Perry’s “debunking” that evidently evaded the good people at TheRightScoop. Governor Perry is responsible for those federal funds spent in his state because the buck stopped with him…literally. If, for instance, he had wanted to halt federal stimulus spending in his state, then he could have done it. In fact, Governor Perry did halt some stimulus spending in his state. In March 2009, he trumpeted his decision to reject $555 million in stimulus funds. Since February 17, 2009, however, Governor Perry has accepted $17.4 billion in stimulus dollars. Now all that is well and good, but what’s really interesting is what he has done with with this money. As CNN Money reports:
Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Even budget deficits are bigger in Texas Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.
“Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.
Sure, Governor Perry can claim, as he does in his “debunking,” that Texas has no deficit, but the reason it has no deficit is because he has used federal spending to stop up the holes in his budget. Unlike Governor Palin who refused to kick the can down the road and chose to make cuts, Governor Perry availed himself of the federal coffers to delay necessary spending cuts. With stimulus money gone, Texas must now pay the piper:
Unfortunately for Texas, and for most other states in the union, the stimulus safety net has dried up. So they are now facing draconian spending cuts as they try to close yawning budget gaps for fiscal 2012, which starts July 1 in most states.
Texas is in trouble too. State lawmakers last week unveiled an austere budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal years that cuts $31 billion in spending. Schools, colleges, Medicaid and social services for the needy will be hit especially hard.
The state won’t replace any of the federal stimulus funds with its own revenues, said Rep. Jim Pitts, who is writing the budget bill for the Texas House. It doesn’t have the money. The state comptroller estimated that revenues will be $15 billion less in fiscal 2012-2013 than the previous two-year period.
Gone are the $4.3 billion in stimulus funds for Medicaid and $3.25 billion for public education. The resulting cuts outlined in the budget means schools would likely close and class sizes would get bigger. And because the budget proposes a 10% cut in Medicaid reimbursement rates for doctors, physicians will likely leave the system, making it harder for the poor to get health care.
While Governor Perry heralds his federally subsidized “balanced budget,” Texans are just now beginning to feel its effects as the federal well has run dry.
In short, Governor Perry’s reasoning is transparently circular. He says that he is not responsible for the federal spending in his state, when, in fact, that money only gets spent by his executive fiat. Because he washes his hands of responsibility for that spending, he can tout Texas’ budget, even though he balanced that budget on the backs of the rest of the American people. I have heard many conservatives say that they want to elect a President who will run America like a business. If his Texas-sized “book cooking” budget offers any indication of how he would govern as President, then Perry’s America might look a little more like Enron than like Apple.
I love Sarah Palin, but her indecision about getting in while there is a debate coming up this week is a real problem for me. I know that there are those who say that she has been up front about her beliefs, and she has! But the rest of the American people have a skewed view of her, and she is going to need the debates and other venues to fight that slander that the MSM have used against her so effectively. For all their rants against Rick Perry, Sarah supporters should always remember that she campaigned for Rick Perry. I would venture to say that she helped put him in the position of running for president. SO the Perry hate-fest gets a bit thick here.
If she gets in, the the primary gets pretty dicey and interesting...and as long as we don’t go third party, then I say let the best candidate win. Let Sarah show her stuff...but it better be soon or she’ll begin to lose admirers like me.
2) Why would a governor fight against receiving Federal dollars?
Ping to the best dissection I have seen of Rick Perry’s abysmal record in Texas, and a contrast between his over-reliance on Obama stimulus cash and the prudent conservative approach by conservative governors such as Rick Scott and Sarah Palin.
Students4Palin has done a masterful job. Excellent work by a very gifted writer!!!
Like liberals, they believe magic unicorns will save us.
Of course, they support DIFFERENT unicorns!
Great post! And we’re happy to have you aboard! Thanks!
Ask the clown who posted this piece of attack Perry schlock-”journalism.” As far as I know, none whatsoever.
Try again! S4P is still here!!! :)
“Wonder what y’all will do when Palin heartily endorses Gov. Perry?”
She did. Her “endorsement” was delivered Saturday in Indianola. You must have missed it...crony capitalism, permanent political class. Didn’t mention rinoricky by name but even CNN figured it out.
Reminded me of the “endorsement” she gave to [former Alaska Governor and U.S. Senator] Frank Murkowski in 2006....just before she beat the hell out of him in the primary.
Excellent work and thank you for the ping.
LLS
Well, that's a lie and a half!
True - despite the fact tha "Barack the Magic Negro" has done so poorly...
IOWs you can’t support your own contentions. That’s what I thought.
Not this nonsense again. Either stop being ignorant of the facts or stop being intellectually dishonest. I’m just going to be charitable and assume you simply don’t understand the circumstances behind her resignation.
I’d would rather elect someone willing to relinquish power over a title-clinging politician (i.e. Blagovich, Sanford, Chavez) who refuses to surrender power under any circumstances short of being indicted or ousted in a military coup.
“Quitting” isn’t inherently bad, if done for the right reasons. In fact, let’s look at her history. Did you know Palin “quit” another six figure job, her oil & gas ethics commissioner job before she became governor? She resigned to protest corruption when the sitting Republican governor wouldn’t investigate the state party chair for sharing confidential state documents with an oil lobbyist. She quit because by law as a commissioner she couldn’t go public with her concerns because of confidentiality rules. So she quit to be able to blow the whistle on collusion knowing it would probably kill any chance she had to succeed in state politics as a Republican. And you know what happened to that state party chair? He was later given the largest ethics fine in Alaska history, largely because Palin had the courage to put pressure on the governor’s office and the Republican party. And what happened to Palin? She became Governor of Alaska.
Now let’s look at her situation as governor.
Palin was paid roughly 337,500 in 32 months as governor. After 19 bogus ethics charges against her, she owed around 500,000 in legal fees to her attorney. The current laws of Alaska required that every single filed ethics complaint to be investigated no matter how ridiculous (being photographed with a fish, wearing a jacket with a logo, receiving choclates and hockey sticks as bribes) and all at the personal cost of the defendant. Had she stayed in office another 16 months, she likely would have been forced into bankruptcy because Alaska law does not automatically cover the legal defense of its governors nor was the Attorney General of the state or someone else designated by the state to defend her like all other states. If you were working in a job that was costing you almost twice as much to go into work everyday than you were making would you stay there?
Even her set up of a legal defense fund like other politicians have was deemed unethical (It was arguably the strictest legal defense fund in history with all the restrictions it had for those who could donate) wherein a politically motivated investigator suggested Palin should just let Alaska taxpayers pay for her legal defense. They wanted Alaskans to take the bullet for the political malice of Palin’s enemies.. In less than a year, she racked up half-a-million (to put this in perspective, her salary as Governor was only 125,000 a year and she had even declined a 25,000 raise by the legislature) in legal charges with much more to come.
Has any politician at the state level attracted the volume of attacks directed at Palin? Is it normal for a governor to go personally bankrupt defending themselves against bogus ethics complaints? Palin incurred almost twice as much legal debt as the salary she drew as governor. Every day she spent in office she was one day closer to personal bankruptcy.
One can argue that she should have just fought her enemies instead of letting them win.
These frivolous lawsuits effectively paralyzed her administration wasting time and money; moreover, her office was bombarded with countless Freedom of Information Act requests.
The research and paperwork needed to address the lawsuits and FOIA requests, had an estimated cost of State time of 2 million and rising.
If you decide to continue fighting your enemies at the expense of the people you serve is that even ethical? If your presence in office is causing heavy collateral damage to your state, is it smart and ethical to remain in office no matter the cost?
By resigning, Palin effectively took the circus out of Alaska.
It is not a defect to relinquish power for the good of all. When politicians or members of the media criticize Governor Palin for resigning office, remember why she did so. Then ask yourselves, who are these people criticizing her for making that move? What would they have done if they were in her shoes, and why? This move on her part was what a good leader and a true public servant should do, given the circumstances. If only all of our elected leaders put the public good above their own ambition, perhaps this country would be better off.
Never entrust power to those unwilling to surrender it.
Excellent post!
“1) What control does a governor have over Federal dollars coming into their state?
2) Why would a governor fight against receiving Federal dollars?”
I know it is asking a lot, and the piece is written well above your grade level, but try reading it slowly and using the dictionary.
Question 1: A governor can refuse federal money. That is the control a governor exercises.
Question 2: Governors (conservative ones at least which excludes your boy)reject federal funds which have strings attached, like unfunded mandates in the out years. Scott did it. Palin did it. Jindal did it. Rick Perry didn’t do it, BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE MONEY TO COVER HIS DEFICITS.
It is clear to me and was clear to the author who, from her writing, appears to be a couple of light years ahead of you two as far as intellectual wattage is concerned.
Good job
And in rehab, what happened to the money for the boondoggle known as the bridge to nowhere? Sent right back to the feds on grounds that Sarah didn't want their stinkin' dollars, right?
Uh, unfortunately, no. Sarah kept the money and simply spent it elsewhere. Then went around bragging that she had said "thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere."
Nice to see you prefer unvetted candidates to be the leader of the free world. BTW, it’s not a hit piece to analyze and debate someone’s record. When someone starts insinuating that Perry faked the birth of one of his kids, then you might have something to complain about.
In FY 2010, the budgeted amount of federal funds is $2.9 billion. In FY 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 played a critical part in the overall level of federal funding in the state budget. Approximately $846.8 million or 24% of all federal funds, came as a result of ARRA. In FY 2010, the overall role of ARRA was signifi cantly reduced, with a total of $174.6 million which represents 6% of all federal funds. Most federal funding requires state matching money. Th e budgeted state match and the top three budgeted categories for federal spending in Alaska for FY 2009 and FY 2010 are included in Figure 6-5.
So, it seems Palin took ARRA funds to plug the budget as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.