Skip to comments.Perry’s govt reform speech "This is not red meat. This is raw meat, still steaming from the cow"
Posted on 11/15/2011 10:39:31 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
So, Governor Rick Perry made a speech today where he proposed the following:
* Ending the practice of giving lifetime appointments to federal judges (current judges would not be affected);
* Cutting Congressional pay in half;
* Cutting Congressional pay in half again if they dont balance the budget by 2020;
* Cutting Congressional office budgets in half;
* Cutting the Congressional calendar by half;
* Criminalizing insider trading by Congressmen (no, actually, its not currently illegal for them to do that);
* Reducing spending to 18% of GDP;
* Privatizing Fannie & Freddie;
* Ending the funding of Planned Parenthood;
* Eliminating the Commerce, Education, and Energy Departments;
* Getting the EPA under control;
* Getting the TSA under control;
* Audit the government, including the Department of Defense;
* Freeze incoming federal regulations, and audit all of them for the last five years;
* Federal salary freeze for all non-military and non-law enforcement officials until the budget is balanced;
* And cutting the Presidential salary in half until the budget is balanced
This is not red meat. This is raw meat, still steaming from the cow.....
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Thanks for the ping, Shield!
Sounds just like a lib! :)
Read the little thing called "The Constitution of the United States" and after the next Amendment you can change it.
What may be clear to you or I will NOT be clear to Perry’s (or whom ever wins the GOP nomination) opponents. Perry, or the eventual nominee, will NOT be working in a vaccuum. If you believe that Perry’s reform platform is “doable” under the current conditions in D.C. then you’re extremely naive. No liberal is going to sign on for what Perry is proposing, and I envision that there will be a number of Republicans who would also not support this. Perry needs to pare down the scope of his ideas, especially for the campaign. If, and that’s a huge IF, he wins the nomination, then he might expand his ideas, somewhat. But the scope of what he’s proposing is a SHOTGUN approach being floated by a candidate that is in HUGE political trouble.
If you believe this is a shotgun approach you have not looked at the 3 sections of the policy direction.
But it's a pretty good dream!
It'd be awesome if such things came to pass. But alas, leftist power is such that they never will until we have a civil war and a subsequent restoration of the Constitution.
I spelled it tirant so he wouldn’t understand. We both know the correct spelling.
There are a number of proposals which might be considered one would be a Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year.24 This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices. A similar model could also be applied to appellate and district courts.
In addition, there are some reforms to the Judiciary that would not require an amendment to the Constitution. Congress has the authority under the Constitution to establish the jurisdiction of the Court. If our courts insist on refusing to adhere to the Constitution and the law on important issues be it school prayer, life, the death penalty or anything else of importance to the people then Congress should take their jurisdiction away. As president, Governor Perry would work with Congress to establish the necessary changes to the judicial system. [snip]
You’re living on a river in Egypt in you believe that Perry (or anyone, really) has the ability to institute this kind of change in D.C. Being naive is not an attractive characteristic, especailly in the times we live in today. The ONLY way ANYONE could implement reforms of this magnitude would be to become a leader with supreme power (Hitler managed this). Is this truly what you want?
You have a different candidate, I get it, but PLEASE don’t act stupid.
Ah. I’m stupid because I’m being realistic. FYI, I DO NOT have a candidate at the present time. If the election were held today I wouldn’t know which one to vote for. I’ve not seen anything from any one candidate that leads me to believe they have the “right stuff” over any other candidate. The ONLY thing I can say today is that I would NOT vote for R-U-N Paul or John Huntsman.
Seriously?! Take a look at his years as governor. Have you forgotten his campaigns full of lies?
Here are some from the 2010 campaign.
This site gives an "honesty" rundown of the current GOP candidates.
And let's not forget all of his tough talk on border security. We're still waiting on that one.
I supported him early on. Held my nose and voted for him over Kinky and the rest of the yahoos. Refused to do that last time so I gave my vote to Medina just to make my voice against the establishment heard.
Just keep lookin on him with your rose colored glasses. But he has been less than the perfect conservative many on FR paint him to be.
Have you taken the time to read the 3-Part Perry proposal I gave you LINKS to?
I agree with everything he said.
What is your point? There is nothing in the 3-part proposal that takes away from my earlier position that Perry is using a shotgun to try and score points for a political campaign that is in huge trouble. There is also nothing there to take away from the fact that, even IF Perry won the primary, and IF he won the general election, he WOULD NOT be able to make such sweeping, widespread, and deep changes. Again, I must point out that the POTUS is not a supreme ruler, and is incapable of implementing such high (and heavy) handed reforms. The POTUS doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and must work WITH a congress that has stiff-necked libtards that must be dealt with (not to mention all the RINO’s). Again, being naive like this is not attractive.
Refusing to even look at the man's proposals gives you no standing in addressing how it's being presented.
Making assumptions is also not attractive.