The problem here for Perry, is that this is “business as usual” in Texas, so it was never a major campaign issue when he ran there, because the RATs would be the first ones to do this as well, and the people basically accepted this as normal. How this method of operating contrasts now with the national political climate (i.e. Palin and “Crony Capitalism”), is a political dynamic that has not even begun to play out (since she’s not even a candidate yet).
None of the current candidates can make this a successful campaign issue, because none of them has fought or taken-on this way of doing business in their political (or non-political) career.
Forget about Obama raising this as an issue. He’s the one who could write the text book on it.
If Palin does get in, then it could be for an interesting campaign, since it would be one of her main campaign points, and she’s got the track record and political scalps to prove it.
Your post should be memorized and accepted by all on this thread! Amen, my friend!
The only clarification I would make is, “when” she gets in. We ARE storming the beaches of Normandy in 2012. Timing of when the invasion is launched is the only question. No good General reveals her offensive campaign strategy in advance.
She is driving the main stream media and RINO lovers totally crazy. Love. It.
This is business as usual everywhere. Not just in Texas, but everywhere that you have a good conservative legislature which knows that sometimes all it takes to spur job growth is to provide a little help and get out of the way.
Virginia has similar arrangements, and makes us very business-friendly. My county actually bought up some useless farmland, did the prep work, got it wired up, and now it’s a thriving high-tech employment center for us, and includes a major university campus.
In Texas, the fund is a joint venture of the executive and legislative branches. It lends out money and expects to get paid back. IT was funded one time, and lives off the payback from previous loans.
I guess we could question whether it is better to have the fund run by elected officials from the two branches of government, or by an independent commission. If it was independent, nobody could attack Perry for it.
But on the other hand, taxpayers would have no say over it, if it was run by some anonymous independent group. I prefer this — if anybody had real evidence of malfeasance, the voters could replace the people running the fund, simply by voting a different governor and legislator.
So it’s very accountable to the people. And it has spurred job creation, in many cases. With the economic downturn, the focus apparently has been on not losing the money, so it will be there for the next up-and-coming businesses.