What does Rick Perry have against American Democracy?

Someone asked why “the lefties” are so afraid of a Rick Perry presidential candidacy.

A recent Ben Sargent editorial cartoon as published in the Austin American-Statesman.

Well, from a Texan’s standpoint, I have to reply that I’m not really afraid of what might happen when reasonable people have the opportunity to weigh well-vetted candidates. I AM a bit concerned that national media will get all caught up in the hoopla and forget that the man presided over a debacle. If the last 10 years isn’t a textbook on “pay-to-play” politics, I don’t know what is!

One of our activists penned this missive against Gov. Goodhair. As if you really need more talking points … but if you do, here are some very good ones. Thanks, Tommy!

What does Rick Perry have against American Democracy?

I hear Rick Perry wrote a book “Fed up! Our fight to save America from Washington”, but then why is he so hell-bent on spending at least four years there?

Rick has certain ideas he covets. Rick wants to do away with life-time tenure of federal judges. People a lot smarter than Rick understood that judges should be independent of political pressure from the next administration or the next. They understood that to subject the judge to political pressure would over time erode his/her ability to render just opinions from the bench.

Those people in the past understood that a judge opinion could be wrong at the lower court level so they developed a system of review by the higher courts and if needed correcting by the higher courts. The system has worked well since it was set in motion.

Rick at the same time wants the Congress to have the power to override the Supreme Court decisions. Wow! Rick, the founding fathers of this nation understood that separate and equal powers in the hands of the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies was the only sane way to proceed. Rick, have you been looking at Congress lately? They can’t even agree on passing legislation and you want them to also rule on the Supreme Court decisions. How silly is that?

Now Rick’s next two ideas are tied together. He wants a balanced budget amendment while at the same time he wants to repeal the 16th amendment, which allows the federal government the ability to collect federal income tax.

Now 43 states have state income tax laws modeled after the federal law so I assume that he would want them repealed as well … but maybe not since no one will argue the fact that Rick is a states rights kind of guy. If Rick repeals the federal income tax amendment there would be no need for a balance budget amendment. You see while Rick was making a “D” in economics he missed the equation (Taxes less Expenses equals a surplus — like Clinton left us — or a deficit — like W left us — or a zero balance). Without federal revenue the only way to balance a budget thus is to eliminate all expenses (maybe Rick’s real objective).

I however would caution Rick that he would then be in the White House with no servants, no running water and no electricity. Never mind flying in Air Force One, Rick, there will be fuel, no pilots no maintenance, no hanger, no airport … well, you get the picture.

Rick, you want a job as president but there will be no salary, salary is an expense too. Oh by the way, Rick, no expense means no military expenditures. Last years federal budget had $850 billion earmarked for defense. With no federal income tax there would be no military expenditures. I guess you could try to hide federal revenue as fees for the military expense but I think the American public is wise enough to know a fee is the same as a tax and you have pledged no new taxes right?

As I said no one denies that Rick is a states right kind of guy and no one will deny that he wants limited federal government.  But, his next two proposals don’t fit the mold. He wants a federal amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman and he wants a federal amendment to end all abortions. Where I might agree with his premises on marriage and abortion, I ask: where is small government and states rights?

These two amendments that he is calling for would expand the scope of the federal government into the private lives of all Americans. Wait a minute, Rick, you can’t have it both ways.

I started by asking the question, what does Rick Perry have against American Democracy, so I have saved the worst for last. Rick wants to repeal the 17th amendment to the constitution, which gave the power to elect senators to the citizens of the state that they reside in. S,o Rick, you don’t believe in democracy, in the right for citizens to select their representatives? That is truly unbelievable. You would have us go back to the smoke-filled back rooms where the corporate fat cats chose our leaders since back then our leaders believed that the populace wasn’t smart enough for the job.

Well having taken a good look at what Rick wants, I can tell you these two facts. Rick believes in an American society of the 1800’s and wants to go back there. The second fact is that I will do everything in my power as a voter in this nation to see that you never get the chance.

~ Tommy Grimes

Advertisements

About Richard Stone

... is a husband, a father, a writer, a journalist, an activist, an avid reader of trash science fiction and an occasional folk/bluegrass guitar player. He loves to travel, UT sports, community theater and sharing a good bottle of wine with good friends.
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to What does Rick Perry have against American Democracy?

  1. Porter Ricco' says:

    A couple of points to consider, from a middle class bubba who will be out of a job in one month…

    – Income tax – the system needs revision. We have a system in place that imposes penalties for improving one’s financial plight, and yet rewards lethargy in the form of Unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps. Taxation based on purchases would apply more equally; those in the upper income brackets would REALLY contribute more….

    – Deficits – while proudly proclaiming the surplus William Jefferson Clinton amassed during his tenure, folks fail to acknowledge why…. the dot com boom!!! (an economic phenomena Washington DC had absolutely nothing to do with) nor will folks admit the economy was beginning its downward spiral in the waning months of Clinton’s administration….. (mendacity by omission)

    – 17th Amendment – why don’t you people tell us why the 17th amendment was made into law? Perhaps with our current crop of politicians it is time to consider returning to the time when Senators were appointed by governor’s represent State interests in Washington…. (more mendacity by omission)

    I find myself sickened by the current political environment. It is about the politicians agendas and not about what the people want….

    Thanks, I feel better….

    pr

    • Sorry to hear that you will be unemployed. Really. I’ve been there and wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

      1. Those who benefit form our financial system should contribute to it at a greater rate than those who do not. The more one benefits, the more one should contribute. A history shows that employment is higher and people make better money during periods when the super wealthy control less of our GNP and pay a larger rata of federal taxes. May be counter intuitive but it’s true. Go look it up.
      2. Consumption taxes penalize those who make less — a pair of blue jeans cost the same, and the same taxes are paid, no matter how much money the purchaser makes.
      3. Studies show that the vast majority of those who use social services do not stay on them very long. Accessing the benefits tend to be degrading, de-humanizing and tedious in the extreme. It ain’t cushy. I hope you don’t have to deal with these services very long but I’m glad they will be around to help you (well, as much as Texas actually helps).
      4. I really don’t understand this sudden opposition to the 17th Amendment. Under it, YOU get to vote for the person you believe will best represent your interests, not some fat-cat politician living in a $10,000 a month rental mansion in the hills west of Austin.

      Again, PR, I wish you the best …

  2. Porter Ricco' says:

    Point 1. I am going to take some editorial license here and thus go out on a limb re-state what you say, as I understand it. Those 50% of the US population that do not pay Federal income tax should not be the recipients of its benefits? (I did not think so)
    So can you cite a period in out nation’s history when the “super wealthy” (please provide a citable definition of that) controlled less of the GNP? If this theory is in the experimental stage since President Obama, took office, when do we get to review the result?

    Point 2. a Pair of blue jeans at “Dollar General” which satisfay the requirement; vs a pair of Levi’s which carry a brand name and higher price; and then there is old Ralph….. the wealthy will continue to purchase that which they want to “represent” and the remainder will but what satisfies the requirement…. materialism is not just for the upper class…. it resides everywhere.

    Point 3. if your assertion is true, why were unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks?

    And speaking of unemployment…. if this new “act” is gonna help rebuild our nation’s infrastructure and the laborers of that endeavor are going to be hired from the ranks of the unemployed, look again. How many caucasians or blacks from the ranks of the unemployed actually apply for those jobs. Sadly those positions are filled by “illegal aliens” (the right rails against) .

    And that then begs the next tough question; if we do grant citizenship to those who are here as “illegal immigrants” and they take all those jobs supposed to be for the unemployed, the unemployed stay that way….

    Point 4. I would hazard to guess every elected official (have you seen their salaries?) can – live in a fat cat pad in the hills west of Austin. My point is two fold; why was the 17th Amendment ratified compared to the original Constitutional provisions and why might it be important to Perry (and other governors)/ This is a double edged sword but do “we” really believe that the Senator we vote into office is going to vote for our interests? Knowing full well we do not pay attention to how they vote? Or has the pendulum swung back the other way so that a “govna'” can call and voice his desires. (“Yo Kay, this is Rick, on Prop 19XX vote Aye”. Bye)

    If you are gonna be a liberal you gotta be able to argue both sides….

    pr

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s