This is an excerpt from the Club for Growth - check it out yourself. This is the just the Summary on Perry's tenure as Governor. He's done a lot of spending in Texas to draw industries with tax payer dollars. Just lucky there are no Solyndras.
www.clubforgrowth.org
SUMMATION
When evaluating members of congress, it is somewhat informative to look at the partisan nature of their congressional district in the case of a House member or their state in the case of a Senator. When evaluating a Governor, it is even more instructive to judge performance in the context of the political climate of their state and the partisan and ideological composition of their legislature. Working in the environment in which a Governor finds him or herself, the operative question is often whether he or she improved or worsened the climate for economic growth.
The Texas tax and regulatory climate Governor Rick Perry inherited from Governor George W. Bush was already among the best in the nation. Further, during Perry’s entire long tenure as governor, the Texas Legislature has had conservative Republican majorities. So the bar for judging Perry’s performance should be set high.
It is quite clear that Perry did not move his state in reverse, or on the wrong course. In many instances, he merely maintained a positive status quo. In others, such as tort reform and regulations, he improved the Texas economic climate.
Still, his support for taxpayer-subsidized funds to lure jobs away from other states shows he has at times an interventionist streak rather than consistent free-market principles. His semi-apology for the big government interventions of President Bush suggests a similar inclination.
Should Rick Perry become President, he will inherent a far worse economic climate than he has in Texas, as well as a less hospitable Congress than he has in the Texas Legislature. It is quite likely that Perry would seek
Club for growth:
SUMMATION
With very few exceptions, Congresswoman Bachmann has supported pro-growth policies throughout her career. She especially deserves praise for her consistent defense of school choice. After reviewing her record, we are confident that Congresswoman Bachmann would be a pro-growth President.
************************************
SUMMATION
Because of his long tenure in public life, especially his presidential run in 2008, Mitt Romney is considered a well-vetted candidate by now. Perhaps to his consternation, he has developed an unshakeable reputation as a flip-flopper. He has changed his position on several economic issues, including taxes, education, political free speech, and climate change. And yet the one issue that he doesn’t flip on – RomneyCare – is the one that is causing him the most problems with conservative voters. Nevertheless, he labels himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative, and we have no doubt that Romney would move the country in a pro-growth direction. He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives. How much Romney’s philosophy of governance will affect his policy goals if elected, we leave for the voters to decide.
*********************************
SUMMATION
Herman Cain has generally used pro-growth rhetoric during his time in public life but has not had to serve as an elected official to prove he would govern to match his rhetoric. Aside from his support for TARP, we have very little question, based only on his rhetoric, that Herman Cain would be a pro-growth president. We look forward to seeing more details about his economic policy proposals.
**************************************
SUMMATION
When evaluating members of congress, it is somewhat informative to look at the partisan nature of their congressional district in the case of a House member or their state in the case of a Senator. When evaluating a Governor, it is even more instructive to judge performance in the context of the political climate of their state and the partisan and ideological composition of their legislature. Working in the environment in which a Governor finds him or herself, the operative question is often whether he or she improved or worsened the climate for economic growth.
The Texas tax and regulatory climate Governor Rick Perry inherited from Governor George W. Bush was already among the best in the nation. Further, during Perry’s entire long tenure as governor, the Texas Legislature has had conservative Republican majorities. So the bar for judging Perry’s performance should be set high.
It is quite clear that Perry did not move his state in reverse, or on the wrong course. In many instances, he merely maintained a positive status quo. In others, such as tort reform and regulations, he improved the Texas economic climate.
Still, his support for taxpayer-subsidized funds to lure jobs away from other states shows he has at times an interventionist streak rather than consistent free-market principles. His semi-apology for the big government interventions of President Bush suggests a similar inclination.
Should Rick Perry become President, he will inherent a far worse economic climate than he has in Texas, as well as a less hospitable Congress than he has in the Texas Legislature. It is quite likely that Perry would seek to move the country in a much more pro-growth direction. Almost any movement in the direction of the Texas approach would be welcomed. However, given some actions in his record, it is questionable whether Perry will maintain his steadfast fiscal approach when faced with a less favorably inclined legislature than he is accustomed to.
**************************************
SUMMATION
As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.
His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements. His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.
Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.
The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be. Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
************************************************
SUMMATION
On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.
*****************************************************
SUMMATION
When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth, limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=921
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bachmann would be the winner from their summations.
The Texas tax and regulatory climate Governor Rick Perry inherited from Governor George W. Bush was already among the best in the nation
****************************
Yes but he made it better and pushed for tort reform and loser pays.
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-slashed-environmental-enforcement-texas-080755432.html
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/dim-bulb/2011/09/rick-perry-s-loser-pays-reform
For GOP pols, tort reform is a stump speech perennial. Yet, like the weather, Republicans always talk about tort reform but never do anything about it.
But lawyers who annually siphon billions from the economy know that Perry is just crazy enough to actually push it through, because he already has.
Perry enacted medical malpractice reform in Texas, slashing payouts from bogus lawsuits. As a result, the doctors who left after being fleeced in the Lone Star state are flooding back by the thousands.
Then he signed a “loser pays” law letting prevailing parties recover their attorneys’ fees. “Loser pays” rips the guts out of the extortion model of litigation that has made trial lawyers so rich.
********************************
And if it was just existing tax and regulatory climate that he inherited—there are states who are better on taxes than Texas and had been equal on regulatory laws.
Perry may be a bad debater amongst other things but Perry has worked to bring business to Texas and he has. Bush does NOT get that credit.