Social Issues

Rick Perry Defends 10th Amendment, Makes SocialCons Uneasy

|

…or new york

Real Clear Politics reports on the inevitable blowback to Texas Governor Rick Perry's refusal to condemn the new gay marriage law in New York:

At an event in Aspen, Perry said, "Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me." He continued, "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."

And so now there are the makings of an uncomfortable clash between the federalists and the social conservatives within the party about how the issue should be addressed going forward, and potential candidate Perry has found himself right in the middle of it.

Enter Oran Smith, the president of the Palmetto Family Council, a conservative, family-values organization in South Carolina, which carries weight among conservatives who vote in the early Republican primary there. Smith said he has been bombarded with emails from activists over the past 48 hours about Perry's comments—with mixed responses.

"I've gotten everything from people saying how horrible it was to how it was the right thing to do," he said.

"It's the way he said it," Smith said, noting that Perry said he was "fine" with New York's new law. He explained that if by "fine" he means he's happy about it, that won't sit well with evangelical voters, but if he's approaching it as a constitutional lawyer would, it may not be so bad.

At the same time, Smith said he's concerned that Perry's comments suggest he could be "slippery" on other issues. "And he may be perceived as stumbling out of the gate because of a poor choice of words," he said, indicating that such a stumble could hurt Perry in the early voting states of Iowa and South Carolina, where he would need to do well.

You'd think primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina would place more weight on, oh, I don't know, stellar job creation in Perry's Texas, rather than his reluctance to weild the presidency like a theocratic sledgehammer. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

119 responses to “Rick Perry Defends 10th Amendment, Makes SocialCons Uneasy

  1. You’d think primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina would should place more weight on, oh, I don’t know, stellar job creation in Perry’s Texas, rather than his reluctance to weild the presidency like a theocratic sledgehammer, [but they don’t].

  2. Tell the socons to go fuck themselves. It amazes me how short sighted these dimwits are. The last thing a SOCON should want is powerful national institutions. Liberals will use those institutions to shove their world view down everyone’s throat. Let New York or California do whatever they want to do and in return get the safety of knowing Texas and Oklahoma can do the same.

    These idiots just can’t leave people alone. Yesterday they had their panties in a wad over some NYT article recommending that parents let their teenagers have sex in their homes. I don’t know if that is the best idea. But I have also known people whose parents let them do that when they were teenagers. And they didn’t turn out to be wife swapping virgin sacrificing Satan worshipers. I would say there is no perfect way to deal with teenagers and sex and if some parents want to try dealing with it that way, that is their business. But noo, the busy body so cons can’t do that. It is their way or the highway.

    1. Say it with me now: It’s different when our guy is in charge.

      1. so a liberal is in charge of the socons?

        1. They are just two sides of the same coin. The socons worship God. The liberals are the modern day decedents of the worst sorts of New England Puritans only they traded God for Government as their object of worship.

          1. too much beck. next tell us all about the union/islamic caliphate

            1. I never watch Beck so I don’t know. Apparently you do. Tell us more. If maybe you got out a bit more and read someone besides Beck, you would know that the idea that modern progressives are the decedents of the religious progressives of the 18th and 19th Centuries is hardly a new or even controversial idea.

              I don’t interact with liberals very much. But are liberals really generally this poorly read and uninformed?

              1. I don’t interact with liberals very much. But are liberals really generally this poorly read and uninformed?
                Why yes, yes we are.

              2. so atheist, gay, & marxist progressives are decended fm “religious progressives”?

                1. so atheist, gay, & marxist progressives are decended fm “religious progressives”?

                  Yes. I don’t write the history books. I just read them.

                  1. reading history books is stupid herp!

            2. Re: O2,

              too much beck.

              Not Beck. Murray Rothbard had already made that case 20 years ago, and I trust Rothbard much more that I would trust Beck… or you.

    2. Yes, governemnt power is the ultimate siren – we’ll only use the power for (what we consider to be) good purposes!

      All you end up with in the end is tyranny. This is why The Founders created the Republic the way they did – with a very keen eye on the abuses that can be heaped upon the citizenry by any concentration of power.

    3. If Rick Perry were to greet Oran [WTF?] Smith with a swift kick to the arse I might just have to vote for him.

  3. Perry just went up a couple of notches in my mind.

    1. Perry’s a consumate politicians and always checks to see which way the wind is blowing. For the socons, he just realized that they are upwind now. Now ask him how many centuries we should stay in Iraq…

      1. Until Jesus tells us we’ve been there long enough.

    2. Perry will read any lines his handlers prepare for him and take any position that shows well in the focus group.

      He’s a fraud!

      1. Okay, my opinion of Perry’s handlers just went up. As long as they are still handling him while President and making decisions based on the Bill of Rights, I’m good.

        1. Well you are free to believe in any manufactured yahoo you want to! What’s Texan for “Hope and Change”?

          1. Obama?

  4. Surprise! A governor of a state likes the 10th amendment, especially with Obama in charge. I’m sure his tune would change if he makes president.

    1. Sad but probably true.

  5. The SoCons of the variety who want to wield a government run theocratic sledgehammer seem to be losing influence in the Republican Party. I am glad. I think that George W. Bush had the unintended effect of rearanging the power structure within the GOP to the point that unexpected alliances are emerging. The theocrats are now largely on the outside looking in.

    1. In other words they have as much influence as libertarians do.

      1. Perhaps at the moment, but I think that libertarian influence is growing within the GOP while SoCon influence is waning.

        Ron Paul has a great deal to do with this trend.

  6. The SoCons are a small part of the Iowa population, but a huge influence in the nominating process. It frustrates the hell out of me.

    1. The fact that we have to give a fuck what Iowans think frustrates the hell out of me.

      1. You could move to Iowa and work to change that States election laws.

  7. Perry’s comments suggest he could be “slippery” on other issues.

    Oh, really? You just now figured this out? Where the fuck have you been for the past decade? Oh, yeah, not having to live with Aggie hair helmet as Governor.

    Goddamn, but all these out-of-state people need to quit sucking Perry’s dick. He’s not the last great hope of conservatism. The only thing that moderates his big government impulses is the fact that as Texas governor, he really doesn’t have that much power.

    1. And he didn’t help Texas as much as people claim. He’s been as bad of a don’t tax and do spend conservative as Bush the lesser was with the result that now Texas too is digging itself out of a multi-billion dollar deficit.

      1. Texas is set up to where the governor can’t do much damage. Ann Richards, who had an IQ of about 20, was a marginally acceptable governor. You really can’t fuck up being governor of Texas.

        1. he still managed to guide us into $25 billion dollar deficit.

          1. Think how bad it would be if the lege was allowed to meet in even numbered years, too.

            1. I consider this to be one of the greatest structural limits on any government anywhere. You’ve got 140 days every two years to get your asinine legislation done. Can’t get it done? Come back in 2. I would be thrilled if we could limit Congress similarly.

          2. Which, on a per-capita basis is one of the lower deficits and total debt load in the country.

    2. I think he is going to fall on his ass. He is a real deal moron. People are building him up because they don’t know him, don’t like Romney and hate Bachaman. I think once he starts talking people are going to lose interest real quickly.

      1. He and Bush II have alot in common.

        1. Bush II is Abraham Lincoln compared to Perry.

          1. Wait, we’re libertarians here. Considering the potential Lincolnhate, you need to tell us if that’s a good comparison or a bad one.

            1. The neo confederate Lincoln haters are not libertarians. Sorry, but thinking states rights is more important the bondage of an entire race is not particularly libertarian.

              1. You’re an idiot.

                First, why don’t you go ahead and read about how your hero, the jug-eared jackass Lincoln, treated the slaves he actually had jurisdiction over – in the loyalist border states.

                Second, why don’t you try and look at some dates. Start with when the war began, and when the CSA slaves were allegedly “freed”.

                Third, crack a book to learn the meaning of “entire”. There were a number of so-called free blacks in both the Union and the CSA. Some even owned slaves. The ones in the Union were well discriminated against, including by your hero, the unrepentant racist Lincoln himself, and he demonstrated as much many times.

                Stop sucking Marfan Freak’s dick and crack open a history book. Both the Union and the CSA were scum, and the fact that the latter was doesn’t forgive the fact that Lincoln was the first tyrant president the country had.

                1. Lincoln never claimed the power to end slavery in the Union. He fully agreed it would take a Constitutional Amendment. That is why he did not end it in the border states.

                  All Lincoln was going to do was end the fugitive slave act and stop the spread of slavery. and for that the South started a war. Anyone who defends the South is either ignorant or not a libertarian.

                  1. Lincoln did, indeed, want to keep slavery out of the federal territories (future states), and limit it to the places where it already existed.

                    As to fugitive slaves, Lincoln conceded the slaveowners’ point that they had the right to reclaim their fugitives, but he (Lincoln) also said that alleged fugitives should have a fairer procedure to decide if they were, in fact, fugitives. That’s not the same as “end[ing] the fugitive slave act.”

              2. Re: John,

                The neo confederate Lincoln haters are not libertarians.

                Absolutely right. Pointing out Lincoln’s trashing of the Constitution, how he paid lip service to abolitionism, his amoral real politik, how he provoked the death of more Americans than anybody else before OR SINCE – that’s being a “neo-confederate.”

                1. OM,

                  The South started the war not Lincoln. Lincoln was not going to end slavery. He was going to end the fugitive slave act and stop the spread of slavery to the West. For that the South went crazy and started shooting.

                  The Confederacy was the worst feature of all American history. It was the most undemocratic and shameful thing we have ever been responsible for. And Lincoln ended it.

                  1. And the Soviets ended Hitler. I guess that makes Stalin a bonified hero in your eyes.

                    Nobody denies the CSA was WRONG WRONG WRONG in their attitudes towards slavery. But Shithead Lincoln was no saint. He was a low-down lying, tyrannical, anti-constitutional uglyass piece of shit. In no way whatsoever do you have to be a “neo confederate” to despise him. In fact any libertarian, by definition, will despise him. And that’s why you’re an idiot.

                  2. Re: John,

                    The South started the war not Lincoln.

                    Uh, yeah. A small local action against Fort Sumter (which was SC territory) “started” the war.

                    It certainly gave Lincoln and the Republican Senate a pretext to declare war.

                    Lincoln was not going to end slavery. He was going to end the fugitive slave act and stop the spread of slavery to the West. For that the South went crazy and started shooting.

                    Wait a second, John – are you rewritting history now???

                    That may have caused the SECESSION, but the war was fought and pursued by the Union because of the tariff. The Senate resolution for the war SAYS SO.

              3. The neo confederate Lincoln haters are not libertarians.

                Fuck. John just kicked me out of the movement. Oh wait, you don’t get to decide, and are just barely more Libertarian than you are Team Blue. Whewwwww.

                I’ll let you stay. But that is 3 demerits right there man.

                1. Team Red. My Bad. I get em confused.

                  1. R=Republican. R=Red. It took me forever to figure that out.

          2. So you’re saying Perry is less likely to get us into a civil war?

            1. Since the South bears the entire responsibility for that war, I would say no.

              1. You’re really stretching with the history rewrites today.

                1. *rolls eyes* some people can’t recognize snark if it hit them in the forehead.

              2. Lincoln certainly didn’t try and bring them back from the brink. It was a terrific game of chicken that they all indulged in, and only cost over half a million lives.

                1. And ended slavery. Had he let things go as they were, slavery would have lasted well into the 20th Century.

                  1. That mitigates his guilt, but make him a saint of a president it doesn’t. Southern states were most concerned about losing their influence in the legislature more than expanding slaveholding. If Lincoln had compromised on the voting equivalancies of slaves so southern states retained their influence, secession wouldn’t have happened and further discussions with border states with less slaveholding (like Texas, Tennessee and Arkansas) could have killed the idea of secession and then if Lincoln had wanted to end slavery he could have piecemealed it to death in the following years. But this is just speculation. Still Lincoln was no Calvin Cooledge.

                  2. That’s bullshit. If Lincoln had let the South go, he could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act with his overwhelming Congressional majority, liberated all the slaves in the North, and then watched as every single slave in the South tried their damnedest to get over the Mason-Dixon. Slavery is not suited for an industrial society, and it would have died a natural death, hastened by the existence of a safe haven for slaves.

      2. I think he is going to win. He knows how to say the right thing to make him self acceptable to the tea party and libertarians. And he’s got good hair, so he’s got the “old school” R vote. The only thing even making it close is that he is from Texas and might remind people too much of W.

        President Perry. Get used to it.

  8. If this is your first time following a Republican Presidential campaign, you’d think primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina would place more weight on, oh, I don’t know, stellar job creation in Perry’s Texas, rather than his reluctance to weild the presidency like a theocratic sledgehammer.

  9. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.” He continued, “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

    And…

    “It’s the way he said it,” Smith said, noting that Perry said he was “fine” with New York’s new law.

    Perry didn’t say he was fine with the new law, you imbecile; he said he was fine with New York issuing it as it is their business. It’s like saying: “I’m fine because it’s New York… I mean, it’s New York for crying out loud! We Texans are different! Uh, except maybe Houstonians, but that’s another whole country in and of itself!”

    What Perry said is perfectly clear. What so-called social conservatives [or theo-cons] read sounds like Emo Phillips when he said that a guy who was hammering at nails in a roof was insulting his manhood – in Morse Code.

    1. Too many sockpuppets!!
      Urge to rage-kill computer rising!!!

  10. Ask Governor Gardasil about the NAFTA Superhighway. Oh wait, Reason thought that was a good idea….

    1. The threat of Eminent Domain for millions of acres of land so mexican trucks can get to the heartland faster. Yeah, it wasn’t a winning argument.

  11. I agree,decide at the local level.Of course,their going to attack the federal tax deductions and employer paid health insurance next.I don’t care who sleeps or lives with who,but,it’s not about that,it’s about moneyIt’s nothing a flat tax and making people pay for their own medical insurance would not cure.

  12. Perry is not “slippery.” He is totally gay! OK, that is only a rumor, surely not true, but it would explain the hair.

    Another reason the “hard” right, whatever that is, will have a problem with Perry is that he’s “soft”, so to speak, on the kids of illegal aliens, thinking it’s OK for them to go to college, even to U Texas!

    And what is the deal with “wield” anyway? Why is it so hard to spell? Why not just “weld a theocratic hammer”? I would be totally OK with that.

    1. on the kids of illegal aliens, thinking it’s OK for them to go to college, even to U Texas

      There’s an Aggie/Longhorn joke I haven’t heard yet.

      1. Except that he got it backwards. Perry is an Aggie, so he probably thinks UT’s academics were improved by allowing illegal aliens in.

  13. I think this is the rout of the socons for the 2012 election. They may be back again some day, but they are officially marginalized in the Red primary.

  14. lol, we all know that dude is about as corrupt as the day is long lol.

    http://www.web-privacy.au.tc

  15. Perry has never held a real job. Perry was a democrat until the 90’s. He’s actually an idiot.

  16. Perry is a grade-A moron, but if can just convince him to do as little in the White House as he has in Austin we’d be in for a great 8 years.

    Nothing he’s done here in Texas has led to all the jobs here. High oil prices and science have done that. But a lot of things he hasn’t done could have screwed it up.

    /starting a new job on Monday
    //thanks for not fucking it up, Goodhair

    1. This is why Clinton was the second best president in my lifetime. All he had to do was not fuck it up, and he did that.

      1. This. People don’t realize that all you have to do, is sit back and don’t do a goddamn thing, and the shit will work itself out.

        Clinton was perfect for this role because he was so f-ing lazy. We need another lazy southern bumbkin to sleep late and not do things.

  17. It’s refreshing to see someone use a constitutional interpretation invented out of thin air for the purpose of supporting a particular agenda applying that interpretation consistently, though only people dumber than theocrats think there’s a principle behind it.

    1. Tony, please tell us what you think the purpose of the 10th Amendment was (or is).

      1. Case law interprets it as mostly a truism–an affirmation that a list of rights is not to be construed as a restriction of rights.

        What it is not is a negation of the entire purpose of the constitution–to build a strong federal government.

        1. “What it is not is a negation of the entire purpose of the constitution–to build a strong federal government.”

          Which Constitution are YOU referring to?

          Here is the text of the actual 10th Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          Which Constitution are you referring to?

          1. The one that replaced the Articles of Confederation, which failed because the federal government wasn’t able to enforce decisions or raise taxes to do the things it needed to do.

            You can say case law is wrong, but you can’t just dismiss it as irrelevant.

            1. I don’t dismiss Case law as “irrelevant” just as I don’t dismiss the gun in a mafioso’s hand as irrelevant. Both are out to oppress myself and others.

              You still have not satisfied your claim that the Constitution’s purpose is to build a “strong Federal Government”. Stronger than the Articles of Confederation does not equal strong. An eight year old boy may be stronger than an infant – this does not make him strong.

              1. So the current federal government isn’t too strong? Because that’s what the constitution allows, for good or ill. And I don’t understand what authority other than case law we should appeal to when making this determination. You, because you’re smarter than decades of legal tradition?

                1. “So the current federal government isn’t too strong? Because that’s what the constitution allows, for good or ill. ”

                  This is NOT what the Constitution allows.

                  “And I don’t understand what authority other than case law we should appeal to when making this determination. ”

                  How about the text of the ACTUAL Constitution? Or at least the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Or the notes from the arguments that went on during the convention?

                  1. Haha, we should consult both the Federalist and Anti-Federalists to figure out how our government is supposed to work? Look this argument has been going on a long time. You lost.

                    “Read the text” translates to “I’m right because I say so!” No actually, the courts get the say because that’s their job.

                    1. Look, I know you don’t care about individual rights and are a majority tyrrany enthusiast, but how can you contradict yourself so ludicrously?

                      Here you defer to the authority of the constitution:
                      “So the current federal government isn’t too strong? Because that’s what the constitution allows, for good or ill.”

                      PIRS says you should “read the text” because you are mistaken about the powers it entitles to the government.

                      Then, you say, “No actually, the courts get the say because that’s their job.”

                      So, it’s not the “text”, it’s the “courts.”
                      I’m starting to think you don’t even believe what you say.

        2. That’s the 9th Amendment, idiot.

          The 10th Amendment explicitly states that powers not designated to the Federal government in the Constitution are the jurisdiction of the states and individuals. Of course, creative legalese has stretched the enumerated powers to mean anything they want them to mean, thus allowing limitless Federal government.

          1. The man who introduced the 10th Amendment, James Madison, describes it in this way:

            “I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.”

            The 10th simply makes explicit what was implicit in the rest of the constitution. It does not negate the necessary and proper clause.

            1. “It does not negate the necessary and proper clause.”

              Ahh, the necessary and proper clause.

              So, tell me. What is the point of having a Constitution at all if it can mean whatever you want it to mean?

              1. I don’t see a point to having a constitution if we’re going to worship it as a sacred text. We know pretty much what governments are supposed to do by now. We’ve helped set up plenty of them.

                1. “We know pretty much what governments are supposed to do by now.”

                  Okay, this is a spoofer. Set phasers to ignore.

    2. Re: Tony,

      It’s refreshing to see someone use a constitutional interpretation invented out of thin air[…]

      You see, for Statist fucks, the Amendment that establishes that states and people retain rights not given to the Federal Government is just the figment of someone’s imagination.

      1. It’s amusing when right-wingers think they’ve discovered something that the judicial branch and centuries of scholars hadn’t.

        1. Which right-wingers are you referring to?

          1. 10th amendment obsessives

  18. I don’t know nothing ’bout the Tenth Alignment, but he’s got nice hair.

    1. So you are voting for Obama then?

  19. The Wannabe President of the The Texas Republic sez: “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

    The 10th Amendment to Our Great Charter reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Article IV, Section 1 reads: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

    Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    A marriage in New York State is a “public Act” entered into that States “Records”. If married New Yorkers move to Texas won’t Texas have to give “Full Faith and Credit” to New York’s “public Act”?
    How about couples traveling to New York to wed and move back to any of the other 49 States. Wouldn’t they be “entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States”?
    Maybe marriage is a right “reserved,..to the people.” States and Federal Government be damned!

    1. Yes. A couple married in New York could probably get divorced in a Texas court that refused to issue such marriages. Why do you think people used to go to Nevada to get married/divorced? So what? More dangerous is that a Texas court might not recognize automatic probate and/or other next of kin benefits of marriage.

    2. My understanding is that the Defense of Marriage Act says that the P&I clause does not apply to same-sex marriages. States can pick or choose what marriages they will recognize (except that they have to recognize marriages between “a man and a woman”*).

      IIANM, that is the major thrust of the law. The fact that it says that the federal government wil not recognize same-sex marriages for any federal benefits is secondary, though more of a burden, I suppose.

      *Loving says they can’t discriminate on race or miscegenation, However I believe states can still make some distinctions on age of consent laws.

  20. There’s actually a case going through the courts in Texas, because the courts here refused to divorce a gay couple. Not sure where it is.

    The whole full faith and credit thing is very nebulous. There are lots and lots of things, including many licenses, that don’t automatically cross state lines. Professional licenses don’t. Concealed carry licenses don’t. I don’t know the details, buts its far from clear that a gay marriage in one state has to be recognized in another state.

    1. Contracts that are legal in one state but deemed against public policy in another are not subject to the full faith and credit clause. There is no reason why gay marriages can’t be treated the same way.

      1. That’s why the Supreme Court had to rule against miscegenation laws in Loving. Prior to that not only were interracial marriages not recognized in some states, but people were getting charged in those states under those laws.

        Last I heard of the lesbian divorce case was that the state basically said, “as far as the laws of Texas are concerned, you’re not married. Therefore, you can’t get divorced.”

    2. Yep, look at any number of occupational licenses that don’t cross state lines as well.

      1. And MMJ laws.

        1. As I comprehend it Medical MaryJane laws are contrary to federal law and cannot stand.
          Any notion that one state would have to recognize these laws of another state is moot.

  21. I say starting in 2012 we send the GOP to relative obscurity for ever and ever. Their backwards antediluvian policies don’t belong in the 21st century.

    1. I am starting to think concern troll is concerned.

    2. I think you wanted the Daily Kos but clicked here by mistake.

  22. Obviously Perry is far from perfect. But he’s one of the only mainstream candidates that I will at least give a listen to.

    We’ll see . . .

    1. Agreed.

      Handled many crisis
      NAFTA/CAFTA supporter
      Brings up Ammend #10
      Defies EPA
      Packs heat
      Cut education spending
      ROADZ

      Sounds good to me thus far.

      1. Handled many crisis

        ?

        1. He once ran out of hair product on a Sunday morning, and due to strict blue laws, there weren’t any stores open to replenish his supply.

          The resulting matter/antimatter explosion was known in the media as Hurricane Katrina, and caused massive damage along the Gulf Coast.

        2. He is said to have shot a coyote whilst on a run. I think the hair just defended itself.

        3. Hurricanes, tornados, fires.

      2. How again is NAFTA/CAFTA a libertarian policy? I support free trade, but that is not a free trade agreement.

        1. DEY DURKER JURBZ

          NAFTA/CAFTA is the best sort of agreements we can get, for now. It’s either that or protectionist idiocy. And most republicans (and all democrats) choose protectionist idiocy,including all the other mainstream candidates (and most of the not-so-mainstream ones too).

  23. Stellar job creation? Oh, you must mean the thousands of minimum wage and below minimum wage jobs for high school drop outs, which happen to out number the teachers he’s fired and the high tech jobs we lost to California have because he show-boated on the stem cell issue. Yes, Texas proudly employers more MacDonalds cashiers and hot-lamp operators than any other state, and it only cost us a liveable wage, our ability to take care of the mentally ill and disabled, a functioning school system, our ability to keep the working poor out of the street, our ability to feed the children of this state, our ability to house juvenile offenders humanely, and the worthiness of our high school graduates to actually attend college to do it. Yeah, it’s a real achievement having such a “robust” economy, and given that Texas job creation isn’t in any way bolstered by a construction industry that didn’t crash in 2006 because progressive home-owner protection laws passed in the 1930s were never repealed here, a fact that insulated Texas home owners and home equity from the mortgage speculation bubble, Perry can totally take credit for it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.