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.
LLS
Now if students are finding this discrepancy, how long before Romney and the MSM do?
Either this post was not directed at me or you're not too bright.
Good day to you.
please put me on the ping list
Perry should be “vetted” until he thinks he’s a dog.
Um, it seems Palin took stimulus cash in Alaska. I posted an excerpt from the Alaska budget stating how crucial it was.
Oops.
Some here should learn more about Palin’s governorship and compare that to Perry’s governorship.
As to federal dollars...
They come with many thick ropes.
Perry does need to be vetted more, regardless of the objections of his supporters. Reason being that the Democrats will uncover and question everything anyway. May as well find out now and figure out how to defend it all, or find out whether Perry should be defended.
As to Palin not running — yet.
Remember that Reagan did not announce until November 13, 1979.
On that schedule, Palin has two more months.
The same power one has on whether to do drugs or not... they can just say NO.
“2) Why would a governor fight against receiving Federal dollars?”
I don't know... maybe for the same reasons that Federal Dollars have destroyed the education system in this country.
LLS
Thank you for giving direct answers and congratulations on actually understanding the questions in context.
Anytime my FRiend.
LLS
Hyperbole much?
IMHO, believing that this "gifted writer" is actually a "student" somewhere just coming up with this all by their lonesome requires ... a willing suspension of disbelief.
Anything called "________4Palin" is from the campaign (hopefully official soon) and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Um, it seems Palin took stimulus cash in Alaska. I posted an excerpt from the Alaska budget stating how crucial it was.
Oops.
Ahhhh, she vetoed it but her veto was overidden by the legislature. There was even a protest in support of the governor. The “corrupt bastards club” is at it again.
August 10th 2009
Anchorage Daily News
((((”The Alaska Legislature voted Monday to override former Gov. Sarah Palin’s veto of $28 million in federal stimulus money for energy cost relief. But it was as close as a vote can get.))))”
((((”About 150 anti-stimulus protesters showed up to try to convince the Legislature not to override Palin’s stimulus veto. They rallied across the street from the Egan Center —with signs like “Fed $=Tyranny” and “Override=You’re fired.” Others urging legislators to override the veto mixed in with their own signs like “Efficiency Makes Cents.” There was arguing between the two camps and legislators had to walk a gantlet through the protesters to get into the Egan Center, where the special session was being held.))))”
http://www.adn.com/2009/08/10/893955/legislature-overrides-palins-stimulus.html
I may be wrong about that or you may just see it differently.
I prefer the tearm “PerryKrishnas”
Nicely supporting my point in post #56.
She vetoed $24 million out of $850 million.
You make me laugh.
“Perry isn’t perfect, but at least he has been able to handle the job of governor of a large state for 10 years. Palin couldn’t handle a really small state for half her term.”
****************************
Not perfect? He has taken a state that has everything and through his overspending, reliance on the federal government and crony capitalism, it is now facing a $31 billion deficit. He has doubled state spending and tripled the debt. Not perfect?
Palin’s state is awash in cash, with a $3.4 billion dollar surplus and $12 billion in reserves (larger than Texas’ nine billion dollar fund, which will be exhausted to plug the current hole, since there are no more federal funds) Alaska’s unemployment rate is 7.7%, well below the national average, and well below Texas’ 8.4% unemployment.
Palin did more in 31 months as Alaska governor than Perry has done in a decade, passing ACES to force the oil companies to drill the state leases and to pay the owners (under the Alaska constitution, that would be the people) their royalties. Now the oil companies are awash in profits as well. She got the natural gas pipeline started, a project that was stalled for 20 years before she got there, by passing AGIA. This will be yet another boon for the state. And she cut spending in actual dollars from 11.7 billion (Murkowski’s 2007 budget) to 10.57 billion ( her last 2010 budget), a reduction of 9.5%. In 31 months. She did everything she promised in her 2006 campaign and probably put in more hours working in 31 months than has Rick Perry during his decade in the governor’s mansion.
Rather than take a pay check to bat down ethics charges fueled by the Obama administrations’s fear of her, she resigned, went south and was the driving force behind the TEA party’s smashing victory, the largest in 75 years...63 House seats, six senate seats, numerous governors (including your boy)
Perry continues to collect his 150K year salary and all the fringe benefits which he runs around the country campaigning as Texas’s budget crisis hits home.
Not perfect? Yes he is...perfectly deplorable.
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.