Reading Rick Perry

National Review Online ^ | August 22, 2011 | Stanley Kurtz, The Corner

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I’ve been reading Rick Perry’s book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. You should read it too. A thoughtful argument for reviving federalism and taming our out-of-control welfare state, Fed Up! also helps makes sense of Perry the man and the phenomenon. The book provides enough context to defuse what are sure to be a long line of bogus attacks on Perry, while also setting up a legitimate argument about the size and purpose of government. Fed Up! is going to help build Perry a mass following. It’s certain to ignite a series of bitter anti-Perry attacks as well. More than your typical campaign book, Fed Up! is going to play a role in the 2012 presidential election.

Too Texas — that’s the political knock on Perry. Will a gun-toting evangelical with a Texas drawl be able to reach suburban soccer-moms in the Midwest? Far from being naive on this point, Perry places it at the center of his philosophy. He rests much of his argument for federalism on America’s diverse local cultures. For a country forged from ethnically and religiously varied immigrant communities, federalism was the solution, Perry reminds us. With religious and cultural variety on the increase, Perry argues, federalism — not racial or ethnic bean-counting — remains the way.

So while Perry may want to be the president of us all, his real goal is to let Midwesterners and New Englanders develop, say, local K-12 curriculum standards or energy regulations with as little interference from Washington as possible. Since Californians want to legalize medical marijuana, says Perry, the Supreme Court ought not to have allowed Congress to override that state law — even though California’s policy was not to his personal liking. Perry, in other words, isn’t trying to remake the country in the image of Texas. His real argument is that federal efforts to press Texas into a single, national cultural and economic mold have deepened his respect for local differences — and for the Founders’ system of protecting those differences. If Perry can make that point to Midwestern soccer-moms, he can win.

Perry’s support for constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion doesn’t contradict his basic federalist stance, since the Founders allowed for the adoption of such national policies in cases where a very high bar of multi-state approval could be met. Even so, the fact that the political parties now differ so profoundly on some key cultural issues means that almost any possible presidential match-up is going to have an element of cultural either/or. Still, if Perry can bring across the cultural rationale of his broader federalist stance, he may be able to flip the Texas issue into a positive with many skeptical voters.

Perry’s case for federalism goes hand in hand with his argument for paring back what has become an unaffordable welfare state. Federal taxes siphon off resources from the states, says Perry, only to turn that money into a de facto system of bribery for enforcing national standards on reluctant localities. You can have your tax money back, say the feds — for education, health, etc. — but only if you play it our way. What’s a governor to do? Turn down the money and you’re excoriated as heartless. Accept the funding and you’ve swallowed curriculum guidelines or regulatory policies your state doesn’t want. So, Perry asks, why not cut federal taxes and let the states work things out on their own?

The real controversy comes when Perry suggests that, in an ideal world, even sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare might have been better run by the states. In any case, says Perry, we have to recognize that our entitlement system is headed for bankruptcy, and will therefore have to be reformed in substantial ways.

So what’s the big deal? Aren’t most conservatives and Republicans talking like that nowadays? Absolutely. But Perry’s critique of our entitlement system is very sharp — in a couple senses of that word — and is part of a systematic attack on the welfare state that runs all the way back to Roosevelt’s New Deal. Perry may feel freer to speak boldly because he grew up as a New Deal Democrat himself. Like many contemporary conservatives, Perry is out to puncture the myth that the New Deal saved America from the Depression. Recognizing that the roots of the modern welfare state were flawed, says Perry, opens our eyes to the need for reform today.

All this will be loudly excoriated by Democrats. Perry is going to be portrayed as an extremist who wants to kill Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Perry doesn’t call for that. What he does say is that we’ve got to face up to the fact that our entitlements are headed off a financial cliff, and will therefore have to be substantially reformed. Perry sees Fed Up! as a wake-up call, part of a national conversation about entitlements we now have to undertake.

But let’s meet the “extremist who wants to kill entitlements” charge more directly. The truth is, Perry’s stance on the need for significant entitlement reform isn’t fundamentally different from the position of Republicans generally– witness the Ryan plan. If anything, Paul Ryan is more explicit about what actually needs to be done than Perry. Of course, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to portray Perry, Ryan, and the entire Republican party as a bunch of crazy extremists for wanting to reform entitlements at all.

You can argue that the history of the New Deal is best left in peace, since those old battles have long been resolved. The problem is that new demographic realities are forcing us to reopen seemingly settled questions. The smaller size of the post-baby-boom generations mean that the current welfare state can only be sustained by huge tax increases, and the expansion of the federal role in our lives that is sure to follow.

So we increasingly face a fundamental societal choice. Either we try to sustain our soon-to-be-bankrupt entitlements by transforming ourselves into a European-style welfare state, or we pare back the New Deal/Great Society system and re-invigorate traditional free-enterprise and/or federalist solutions. Perry, Ryan, and the Republican party as a whole are simply recognizing and responding to that fundamental choice. Standing still is no longer an option. Even Pres. George W. Bush, supposedly more moderate than Perry, ran on fundamental Social Security reform — including privatization — in 2004.

I agree with Avik Roy that Perry’s best move would be to get more explicit, not less, about how he might reform entitlements. That would put unfounded charges of extremism to rest. The truth is that Perry’s concerns about entitlements are well within the Republican mainstream, and have been for some time. What Perry adds to the mix is clarity, passion, and years of on-the-ground experience with a system that badly needs fixing.

Fed Up! is going to be a factor in the 2012 election campaign. It crystallizes and deepens Perry’s appeal, explodes silly caricatures and, like it or not, is about to take our already super-hot national debate on the fate of the welfare state to the next level.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

An example:

Gov. Rick Perry said "no" to competing in "Race to the Top." Texas Knows Best How to Educate Our Students

But Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee and her Democratic Party wanted Perry's signature so the "money would flow to our schools within days."

Gov. Perry sued for Texas' money (without Washington telling us how to spend it) -- And won! Promise Kept.

Mona Charen: NRO Beware those 'radical' ideas -- Good opinion piece on Perry and education – Reagan simplicity that works

[MtnClimber]

I was not aware Perry had a book out. Will look forward to reading it. Thanks for posting!

[NC28203]

>>>Fed Up! is going to be a factor in the 2012 election campaign. It crystallizes and deepens Perry’s appeal, explodes silly caricatures and, like it or not, is about to take our already super-hot national debate on the fate of the welfare state to the next level.

Or not: From a WSj article, “Perry Is Suddenly Less ‘Fed Up’ Over Social Security”

“But since jumping into the 2012 GOP nomination race on Saturday, Mr. Perry has tempered his Social Security views. His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said Thursday that he had “never heard” the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but “Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.”

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Besides “Fed Up!” he wrote a book on the Boy Scouts (Perry and his son are Eagle Scouts) titled: “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for.”

And a new book is coming out on Kindle (saw the author on Fox and Friends this morning) titled: “Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America, A Sneak Preview from The Victory Lab.”

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Something current:

July 18, 2011: Gov. Rick Perry signs health care reform bill into law; Texas fourth state to pass health care compacts bill

"With the signature of Gov. Rick Perry today, Texas has joined three other states stating their intention to enter into a health care compact.

The compact, which would challenge the authority of the federal government to dictate the terms of the federally and state funded Medicaid program, was part of a wide-ranging health care reform bill, Senate Bill 7, passed by the Texas Legislature in its recently concluded special session.

Georgia, Oklahoma and Missouri have already signed onto the compacts movement, with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signing a bill into law on Thursday.

The law establishes Texas, along with the other three states, as pioneers in an uncharted use of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which allows states to enter into agreements that, with the approval of Congress, cannot be abridged by the federal government. There are more than 200 state compacts currently in effect, nearly all of them related to commerce.”…..

[The Bronze Titan]

Hold your horses! Looks like Perry might already be fed up with ... "Fed Up"!

[10thAmendmentGuy]

How can he say that it is not unconstitutional? Social Security is blatantly unconstitutional. I hope he really believes it is unconstitutional but is just saying this to appeal to the mushy middle.

[smoothsailing]

Quotes from “Fed Up,” by Rick Perry:

“The truth is, I don’t care what party the statist is in. The fact of the matter is, it is the statist, and those who support or enable him, who is the problem. For too long he has undermined this country by empowering the national government at the expense of liberty. An America defined by the statist in Washington is an America doomed to fail.” (location 338 Kindle)

“Our cause is simple: to restore the balance of power intended by our Founders but forsaken by secular progressives determined to say what government will do for the people rather than allowing people to do what they can do for themselves. Our goal is to take power away from Washington and instead empower states, communities, and individuals, because America’s future greatness is inextricably intertwined with states pushing back.” (location355 /3637 Kindle)

Hat Tip to hocndoc for quotes and Kindle sources.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The book, Mr. Sullivan said, “is a look back, not a path forward.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/275075/dont-look-perrys-book-his-social-security-solutions-katrina-trinko

Above article quote: “The real controversy comes when Perry suggests that, in an ideal world, even sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare might have been better run by the states. In any case, says Perry, we have to recognize that our entitlement system is headed for bankruptcy, and will therefore have to be reformed in substantial ways.”

[The Bronze Titan]

The book is a look back, not a path forward!

So, there’s nothing new there that we (”conservatives”) didn’t already know.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Ping to #10.

I sounds to me like a lot of quotes are being bandied around to make mischief.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

How did you like the long reply I wrote you yesterday? You never got back to me. It was in response to your post describing Perry as not having fought both sides like Palin -- that he didn't have conservative credentials. Since you were mistaken, I'll add my reply here for your information.

Rick Perry started as a Democrat in West Texas (that was THE only party). He served in the Texas legislature - was known as one of the "pit bulls," conservative members who sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee and bitterly fought spending increases.

Perry changed parties in 1989, joining Phil Gramm and other conservative Texas Democrats, who now had a true ideological party with a burgeoning Texas GOP.

When Perry campaigned for Lt. Gov. [1998], he and his campaign staff were in it to win and his hard-nosed style was against the "friendly" advice and request of GWB [in re-election bid for Texas Gov] and Rove to run easy against Sharp, a popular democrat (and Aggie friend of Perry's from their A&M years together). Rove wanted to broaden Bush's base for his upcoming White House run. Perry told them where to stick their advice, because he knew the voters would vote for Bush for Gov. and then cross back over and vote for Sharp (D) for Lt. Gov, if he just walked through the motions like the Bush-Rove team asked him to do.

Perry won the seat for Lt. Gov. -- the first Republican elected to that office since reconstruction. Now 13 years later and into his 3rd term as Texas governor, the GOP holds a super majority. So Perry has earned his conservative spurs -- fighting both parties!

[The Bushes and Rove supported Kay Bailey Hutchison's primary challenge against Gov. Perry this last election too]

[smoothsailing]

Hold your horses! Looks like Perry might already be fed up with ... "Fed Up"!

Nope.

On Sunday evening, at Mr. Perry’s first campaign stop in Iowa, a questioner asked the governor to talk about how he would fix the country’s rickety entitlement programs. Mr. Perry shot back: “Have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!’ Get a copy and read it.”

[shield]

Perry Ping

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[tsowellfan]

Thanks for posting the links!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Ha!

“Bronze Titan” can’t even read the posted article.

[MissyMa]

I’m shocked I tell ya, just shocked. ;-)

Ping for reading after work today.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Perry's on EPA's case too:

Perry environmental stance would transform EPA ....>>>>>Perry "approaches the issues from a very libertarian bent," said Jim DiPeso , policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection. "The EPA would be in for some significant budget reduction. There would be no new intiatives, no regulatory programs that would be initated. There'd be litigation from environmental groups that believe he's not enforcing the Clean Air Act and Water Act as robustly as the law provides."

"Any regulatory programs would be really throttled back," he said. "He has shown no interest in climate policy at all. He doesn't accept the science."

With the governor's blessing, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is challenging at least six EPA greenhouse gas-related regulations. The state's underlying argument: The fundamental finding that greenhouse gases are a public health threat is scientifically flawed.

The federal government is pushing "hastily enacted, cascading regulations" on states and businesses, Abbott argued in a June brief filed on behalf of nine states in federal court.

Perry's approach to energy, DiPeso said, "would be to produce more," rather than discourage the development of energy projects, such as coal plants, that emit greenhouse gases associated with global warming.

"In terms of energy, (Perry) would pursue what many Republicans call the 'all of the above' strategy, with more energy development offshore and onshore," DiPeso said. <<<<<

Finding middle ground on EPA-Texas electric squabble [EPA doesn’t do “middle” ground] “Texas' grudge match with the Environmental Protection Agency is getting nastier and riskier, with the fallout threatening to reach the state's power grid. Want another reason to worry about the lights staying on? Or how about another hit to the economy? You've heard lots of political posturing about Texas' way of life being threatened by an overreaching federal government. This time, Gov. Rick Perry has a point. …………..

Don't be surprised if the attorney general jumps in after Perry slammed the rule for threatening Texas jobs and families and putting reliable, affordable electricity at risk. Late last week, 31 members of Congress from Texas, including eight Democrats, signed a letter to the White House asking for relief. The utility commission also filed objections with the EPA.