Rick Perry: Business As Usual

Rick Perry upended the Republican presidential race last week as a new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters has Perry in the lead with 29% of the vote; this just after 72 hours of his announcement in Charleston, SC. Perry, touting himself as a fiscal and social conservative hopes to capture the attention and support of the vast Tea Party movement that has swept the nation in response to Washington's endless tax, spend and borrow agenda.

The three-time Texas Governor joins a host of presidential hopefuls looking to tap into the bloodline of the American electorate as activists throughout the country fight for the soul of the Republican party to restore it to its roots. While his campaign has seemingly achieved Tea Party status with little to no effort, there are many among grassroots conservatives who claim the former Democrat and Al Gore supporter is not at all who he seems.

Particularly among Texans, Perry hasn't polled very well as of late. Earlier this year, he received only 4% of the vote in a Texas Tribune poll of potential GOP presidential candidates. In a more recent finding, the governor finds himself trailing against his fellow Texan, Congressman Ron Paul. For someone who's already being ordained as a Republican and Tea Party heavyweight, there seems to be strong reservations among his fellow Texans. Over the years many have grown dissatisfied and some even angry at "Slick Rick's" expanding gubernatorial powers. From a NAFTA Superhighway to violating parental rights and possibly a lesser known dispute, a taxpayer funded mansion, the American people, (and in particular the Tea Party) have a lot to learn from native Texans.



Dave Nalle of the Texas Republican Liberty Caucus issued warnings of Perry's tendency to mask his true intentions under the guise of conservatism. Nalle writes, "Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies. His suppposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves."

Writes The New Republic's Dave Mann, "Indeed, for anyone who’s closely followed Perry’s tenure in Texas—as I have, covering the governor for The Texas Observer,  since 2003—it’s no secret that some of the state’s conservatives and libertarians dispute his conservative credentials. It’s true that Perry has trafficked heavily in anti-Washington rhetoric, especially in the run-up to his candidacy to become president. But the closer you look at Perry’s record in Texas, the harder it is to discern any coherent ideology at all. When GOP primary voters in other parts of the country examine his signature legislative accomplishments and policy stances, some won’t like what they find."


To say the least, the Paint Creek-native's political career is filled with more contradictions and conundrums than conservative credentials. Three years after being elected in 1984 as a Democrat to the Texas House of Representatives, Perry voted for the largest tax hike in Texas history amounting to $5.7 billion proposed by then Republican governor Bill Clements.  In an interview last October with Texas Tribune, Perry remarked he has a long history of not raising taxes."We don't raise taxes, " he told the Tribune's Evan Smith. But according to PolitiFact.com Perry's statements don't hold up to their records. The site reports Perry raising taxes on fireworks, cigarettes and implenting a franchise tax that has been criticized by some conservatives for being a "job killer" and giving unfair advantages to large companies over smaller competitors.

Upon the surface, Perry comes across a very charismatic man of the people, longing to reign in the out-of-control spending and hold the disconnected politicians in Washington accountable; but some digging reveals the so-called champion of small government and low taxes to be merely a continuation of the status quo he so heartily denounces in front of voters and the press.
On Perry's fiscal record, Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal.com notes:

 "While not raising the sales tax in Texas, (Texas has no income tax) he [Perry] raised just about every other fee and tax he could think of, including a surcharge on traffic violations. He also borrowed money from road bonds and borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund.

In 2003, he launched the Texas Enterprise Fund, he quickly in 2004, gave $20 million to Countrywide Financial, the mortgage creating machine that was a major player in subprime, no docs mortgages."

Concluded Wenzel, "Depending on how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 citizen debt in the state of California. In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010 it was $90 billion."

While Perry has hit the campaign trail with a rallying cry of fiscal sanity and honest, limited government his record doesn't live up to his rhetoric.  The aforementioned Texas Enterprise Fund has been a point of contention with Texas voters for quite some time as more and more citizens of the Lone Star State condemn the actions of their governor for his blatant intervention of the free market and his corporate welfare schemes. Perhaps the most glaring of these, (and one you can bet Perry hopes voters disregard) was his staunch support for the TARP bailouts. At the time the Texas governor felt so strongly that Congress must intervene that he joined with then chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, (Perry was chairman of the Republican Governors Association at the time, and still holds that position) Joe Manchin in writing a letter to then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi saying:

"...There is a time for partisanship and there is a time for getting things done...and now is not the time to assign blame. It is time for D.C. to step up and be responsible and do what's in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy...It's time for leadership. Congress needs to act now."

Of course, shortly thereafter Perry would call TARP a "mistake"; no doubt in part due to the overwhelming response from the enraged taxpayers who rightfully declared war on the Washington establishment that sold out to Wall Street. Despite the fact that Perry seems to have dodged a bullet with the bailouts, his constant pandering to special interests at the expense of his constiuents has made some headlines, and one of the most notably among these is the Trans Texas Corridor.

The Trans Texas Corrider (TTC) was a plan to cover a large part of the state with toll roads. In order to do this, the state of Texas would have used eminent domain to seize large portions of farmland for the use of the roads as well as rail lines. Terri Hall of Texans United for Reform and Freedom, (TURF) says the toll road project would have been the "biggest land grab in Texas history" that sought to seize 580,000 acres of private land and as Hall puts it, transfer it "to a foreign company in one of these PPPs for half a century."

As Hall explains,

"PPPs[public private partnerships] are sweetheart deals with massive taxpayer subsidies (that socialize losses and privatize profits)..."

Naturally, conservatives throughout the state were outraged, (particularly rural landowners) and the measure eventually was repealed. But despite the public outcry Perry still defends the abuse of eminent domain to steal the property of private citizens for the benefit of special interests.


If the notion that government truly owns your property and thus can seize it by force at will doesn't disturb you, would being mandated to purchase a vaccine and administer it to your young daughter change your mind? In 2007, Rick Perry left no doubt that in his mind the government has the authority to do whatever it feels it must, the rights of parents be damned.

It's hard to imagine in the current political climate a more damaging proposal than a government mandate to purchase a product for your "health". That is precisely why Perry's executive order to have every girl in the 6th grade in Texas subjected to three shots of the Gardasil Vaccine, is yet another story the Perry campaign hopes is overlooked. The vaccine (developed by Merck) that had only been approved by the FDA for eight months at the time was said to be effective at preventing the spread of the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. While the governor's administration would push the measure as a heartfelt endeavor to protect the children, many conservative parents rightfully opposed such intrusions into the private lives of their families.

Michelle Malkin gives her thoughts on the dictatorial powers of the governor:

 "Perry defenders pointed to a bogus 'opt out' provision of his mandate 'to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's healthcare'. But requiring parents to seek the government's permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids' veins, is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.

"...Most noxious of all, Perry wraps his big government health mandate in the 'pro-life' mantle. But the do-gooder theater is a distratction from the business-as-usual back-scratching and astro-turfing that are Obama hallmarks. Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey is a top Merck lobbyist. Toomey's mother-in-law headed a Merck-funded front group pushing vaccination mandates. And Merck's political action committee pitched in $6,000 to Perry's re-election campaign in 2007."

Perry, seemingly without limits to his desire for government meddling in the lives of private indivdiuals was also a major player in former president George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" that nationalized education and instituted unprecedented federal supervision over state and local school districts. A 2002 article published on Perry's gubernatorial homepage boasts of the Texas precursor to the Bush's education overhaul gaining federal support. In the article Perry is quoted as saying,

"Texas was a model for president Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation and we continue to lead the nation in innovative solutions to improve our schools...The U.S. Department of Education's stamp of approval means we can move forward with our plan to improve early childhood education, dropout prevention, teaching excellence, science education and schools' use of technology."


NCLB, the vaccine mandate and TTC are but a few glimpses into what a Perry presidency might look like. While the southern drawl and nice hair have helped catapult  Perry into the spotlight, he no doubt needs any help making himself at home among the GOP establishment. In a Republican presidential field littered with flip-floppers and Johnny-come latelys, Governor Perry should fit right in with the status quo and "central planners" he so passionately demonizes as history has proven him to possess the same disconnect and self-absorbed mentality typical of Washington.

The lengths to which Governor Perry has encroached upon the property and liberties of the people of Texas fly in the face of his most noble promises to restore limited government and force the behomoth of D.C. to relenquish its clutches on the lives and wealth of private citizens. As Americans across the country look to send a message that an unchecked leviathan will no longer be tolerated and that the rule of law and sovereignty of the individual will be restored, Perry leaves them with nothing more than bumper sticker rhetoric and empty campaign slogans taken from Bush and Obama's playbooks.

While communities long for the freedom to educate their children how they see fit, Perry helped faceless bureaucrats impose their will in a gamble on America's future generations, as Americans of all political backgrounds continue to oppose government mandated healthcare services, Perry defends the status quo's authority to say what's best for you, and in the midst of a nationwide movement of resisting the institution of legal plunder by the state, Perry time and again goes to the aid of special interests.

  The fact that so many in the mainstream media and Washington bureaucracy have flocked to the likes of Perry and the usual suspects is only indicative of the massive gap between the ruling class and the average American citizen; D.C. not only misunderstands our way of thinking, but they underestimate our resolve.
The gimmicks of stuffed suits and pundit soundbytes are losing credibilty by the day and as D.C. scrambles to stifle the pending revolution, their tired top-down approach will be their undoing, because you cannot kill a headless snake and you cannot silence an idea.

"Nanny-State" is too Kind

In most political circles there is at one point or another a mention of the "Nanny-State". Whether it be among liberals for drug legalization or the conservatives criticizing welfare, on some level there is widespread understanding that the tendency of government to tell the American people "what's best for them" is over-bearing, if not criminal.

Today we live in a world where consuming too much salt or God-forbid you sell or purchase lemonade without a permit, and you could be facing fines or even arrest. Were you aware the State has the authority to force you to eat vegetables every day? According to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, it does.

From this it's clear  "Nanny-State" is too kind a term, as it implies there is some relief if society would just "grow up". You can outgrow a pesky and obnoxious babysitter and for the most part go on with your life without any longterm effects; this is not the case with government. It's far more difficult to expunge criminal charges for the so-called crimes of "tax evasion", drinking raw-milk, or for refusing to be molested by the TSA; and there is no relief for grieving families who've seen their loved ones gunned-down by government thugs and left bleeding to death. All in the name of "keeping us safe". Perhaps "abusive step-father" is a more accurate description of the nature of the State.

While the left/right narrative may continue to entertain the absurd notion that there is a difference between dictating one's personal habits or controlling one's economic liberty, there is a pervasive underlying mentality to all of it: serfdom. For a nation that is allegedly based on self-determination and the "consent of the governed", we are becoming more and more apathetic and subservient to our wise and benevolent overlords by the day. If this sounds hyperbolic, then what is serfdom?

Generally speaking, the average American would agree that individuals own their bodies and are not beholden to a master. But do we really believe that? If you own your body, does it not follow that you and you alone are responsible for your actions? If you own your body and use your time and energy to provide a good or service, do you not also own the fruits of your labor? The idea that a small portion of the population, (namely the ruling class) have the authority to determine what you consume, do in the privacy of your home or how you spend your money ultimately comes down to this: the State owns you. In a free society, not only are individuals left alone to take responsibility for their own actions, but it is also recognized badges and government titles do not grant extra rights.

Whether you view the state as a domineering battle-ax that makes you eat your broccoli, a drunken and violent parent or a "gang of thieves-writ large", the truth is overwhelming: this relationship has run its course.

What's Wrong with the Right?

The events of last month's CPAC, (Conservative Political Action Conference) were but another battle in the long war between the Republican Party and true conservatives. While Congressman Ron Paul won the annual presidential straw poll for the second consecutive year with 30% of the vote, much of the GOP, Fox News, (the purportedly bastion of small government) and even the administrators of the poll itself were less than enthusiastic about the results. Rush Limbaugh's dismissal of the poll last year saying, "CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian won" seemed to echo among the establishment in attendance.

But what of the Tea Party movement? The countless speakers at CPAC almost unanimously touted the Tea Party as the vindication of conservatism itself, and as a mandate to address the out-of-control spending and restore adherence to the Constitution. Writes the Huffington Post:

Not so long ago, the Republican Party and its conservative base weren't sure what to make of – or how to treat – the emerging rabble-rousing ranks of the latest political phenomenon.

No more.  Everyone from House Speaker John Boehner to the decades-old Conservative Political Action Conference is embracing, if not celebrating, the libertarian-leaning activists who upended the Republican establishment and helped the GOP post huge congressional gains last fall.

Celebrating indeed.

But despite the apparent new-found devotion to the Constitution and 'limited government', the Republican Party continues to disregard and even insult the one man who was "Tea Party" before the Tea Party was cool.

Just a few weeks later, Austrian economist and Euro Pacific president Peter Schiff had Fox News contributor, (and former Bill Clinton aide) Dick Morris on his radio show  to promote Morris' new book, Revolt!: How to defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. But Morris wouldn't be on the air long, as Schiff began to look further into Morris' supposedly anti-socialist view of government.

 Early in the interview Schiff asked Morris for his thoughts on the results of the CPAC straw poll and what was taking place philosophically within the Republican Party. The former Democrat leaves no doubt in saying, "I strongly oppose Ron Paul. I think he's 'horrific'." Morris elaborated on this by noting Paul's opposition to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" were clearly unacceptable in his mind. Though Morris admitted we were losing the "War on Drugs", he claimed it was because "we aren't fighting it" and that every high school student in America and student-loan recipient should be drug-tested. Clearly, Dick Morris wants smaller government.

As Schiff remarked upon the perpetual police-state his guest seemed to be in favor of and how student-loans themselves were a form of socialism and inevitably lead to higher tuition rates, Morris promptly hung up without bothering to comment.

The opinions of Dick Morris and much of the GOP establishment at CPAC are unfortunately the prevailing sentiments of many "conservative" Americans. While attending the event in D.C. last month, I came across some attendees at the "Reagan-palooza" party being held in honor of the Gipper's 100th birthday in a local bar. It didn't take long for many of the GOP faithful to grow sour in the presence of such "radical" notions as adhering to the entire Constitution.

As such encounters tend to go, myself and my colleagues were frequently dismissed as "isolationists" and "Anti-Israel", (though no one bothered to explain how desiring free trade and friendship with all nations was 'isolationist' or 'Anti-Israel') simply for stating the fact that neither war in Afghanistan or Iraq is constitutional, let alone in the best interests of maintaining our security, liberty and economic prosperity.

Perhaps the most perplexing comment of the evening came from a young man sitting on a bar stool next to mine who claimed, "This isn't the 1700's, the government has to do what's necessary to protect America." Over the course of a bourbon-infused hour, this self-proclaimed "conservative" had agreed with me and my friends on numerous issues such as the skyrocketing debt, the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare and the ever-increasing burdens of regulations and taxes on the private sector, (prior to him realizing we were supporters of Congressman Paul). It was not until we brought up the massive debt, unconstitutionality and burdensome taxation attributed to our foreign policy that he changed his tune.

I had a similar discussion this past weekend via Facebook in a conservative forum known as "ReFounders" in which a lady claimed she didn't dislike Ron Paul,  only that she believed in "pragmatism" rather than "rigid principles". Much like the gentleman in the D.C. bar, she essentially believed the government must do what is "necessary", even if the Constitution doesn't permit it.

My question to both of them is this: How is that mentality and approach to government ANY different than that of Obama and the Democrats that so many "conservatives" claim to oppose? And to the lady's remarks in particular, if one sacrifices principle for the sake of "pragmatism", how does the principle survive?

For too long the grassroots “Right” has betrayed its limited government roots for the sake of pragmatism and bought into what was once considered a foolish argument among conservatives: that the State has our best interests at heart and must do whatever is needed. If Americans ever hope to reduce the size of government, they must first realize standing firm on principle is what is truly necessary.

The First Step to Recovery

While discussing the nature of politics in this country, the typical refrain heard throughout the populace is that nothing seems to ever change. From one election year to the next, regardless of which party wins, what rhetoric was used or which new crop of politicians are ushered into power, the role of government in our lives essentially never wavers from the usual script: the power of the state increases, the debt skyrockets, old wars are continued while new ones are planned and the liberties of the American citizen dwindle away.

 Despite the numerous promises over the years by Republicans to limit government and reign in spending, and Democrats swearing to protect civil liberties and end no-win wars, both parties consistently fail to stay true to their campaign rhetoric. And yet we as citizens continue to buy into the "Go America" pep rally put on by the candidates and wonder why the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I once had a friend describe this endless cycle of changing parties and little to no change in policies as an "addiction"; an addiction to statism. What was once a genuine political spectrum in American political discourse offering varying and opposing ideas on the role of government has devolved into a fallacious, one-dimensional paradigm in which the options are a party of liars promising to limit government while expanding the state more than any administration since LBJ or the "opposing" party that openly admits to having little to no interest in protecting the liberties of individuals by defying an unprecedented grassroots movement throughout the nation and forcing through ObamaCare. Some freedom.

The intention of this blog is to bring to light and expose the lies and misdeeds of our wise overlords in an attempt to rehabilitate the "limited government" movement in America. And while there may not be a 12-step program to alleviate our withdrawals of state dependency, one thing is certain: The first step to recovery is admitting we have a problem.