When Rick Perry Praised HillaryCare (1993)

The Atlantic ^ | Conor Friedersdorf

[Tempest]

So what does a complete review of Perry's record reveal? As it turns out, he sent a letter during his tenure as Texas Agricultural Commissioner that praised Hillary Clinton's 1993 health care reform efforts. "I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system are most commendable," he wrote. "I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation's farmers... Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services." He concluded by noting, "your efforts are worthy, and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance."

Dan Amira at New York magazine dismisses the story and mocks the Daily Caller for publishing it. "He didn't even say anything about the substance of Clinton's health-care reform plan," Amira writes, "just that it was 'commendable' to try to reform the system in some way, which is hardly controversial."

I disagree.

Clinton's efforts were widely criticized by Republicans at the time, and the substance of her reforms obviously constituted a substantial federal intervention into health care, the very thing Perry now claims is obviously unconstitutional and ruinous to liberty. (And yes, Clinton's plan did call for both an employer mandate to provide health care and an individual mandate to be covered.)

[Oceander]

But the point is 'who can beat Obama'? Isn't that it? I really dislike Romney (he's a sissy and a trust fund baby), but I would pick up a weapon (I have plenty) and march on his behalf against Obama, that is if Romney is somehow chosen to be our champion...and I don't think he will be.

But you are saying that if Sarah doesn't get the nom...you will, by your abstinence, vote for Obama.

I don't believe it.

We are at war against a force which, if given 4 more years, will destroy this country. I don't believe you would choose that option. I don't believe you would hold out for a perfect future candidate while our present is destroyed (and the future with it).


I couldn't agree with you more; I would find it really, really hard to pull the lever for Romney, but while I personally find him to be pretty da*ned close to Obama, he isn't Obama and he (Romney) isn't a puppet of the liberals or the left.

It might be a bit of a close call, but another Obama term will definitely sink this country, while a Romney term might not.

Anyone who refuses up-front to pull together with the team once we've finished our internal bickering and chosen a nominee for the general election might as well be casting a vote for Obama in the general election.

That is not what conservatives do.

[comebacknewt]

So bailouts by GWB were good bailouts? And if Rick Perry bails out Wall Street and gives them so much money that it triples the debt in one day, that would be a good bailout too? Wow!

At least read my entire post Jim.

In the very next line I stated that I disagreed with those who supported the bailout then, and I still disagree with them now.

It was a terrible decision. I even said I feel that it is a legitimate argument against Perry for those who are inclined to make it.

You guys are trying waaaaay too hard. I suggest you just relax and let events play out as they will over the next few weeks.

We'll have a clear picture of who is and isn't running, and you'll have a better idea of who you truly want to focus your efforts against.

[Erik Latranyi]

Seems some conservatives just aren't happy unless they are attacking other conservatives for not being conservatie enough for them.

There are some conservatives that are purists, so they keep letting liberals win because the "perfect" candidate has not emerged.

Then there are libertarians, who are so few in number, that they are constantly looking for a home. They feel FR is a decent home. Unfortunately, like the stray dog you take in, they disrupt the home so much that you really need to euthanize them.

Finally, there are the liberals who come to FR and try to incite division in our ranks. These are clever liberals who know that when we are united, we cannot be stopped, so they will do anything in their power to tear us asunder.

[KantianBurke]

The race for the GOP nomination is on. All of those who are going to vote in the primary are judging the candidates. You call that trashing, I call it enlightening. I did not know that Perry backed the TARP plan as well as a number of other unconservative actions. If he wants my primary vote he needs to explain them.

[CajunConservative]

Just keep in mind that some of these outlandish accusations are not exactly 100% factual and are being posted by those with an agenda. It’s good to get facts. It’s what we all should be doing.

Perry isn’t the boogeyman here. He’s on his 4th term as governor of the state that has weathered the 0bama regime’s war on jobs, war on Texas and is the number one state to do business. He’s been aggressive in wooing businesses to move to Texas both nationally and internationally.

Texas has dealt with tort reform and passed loser pay laws which has allowed doctors to flock there. There’s more good if you look for it and ignore the trolls.

[FreeReign]

Perry:I think your(Hillary's) efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system are most commendable....

Gee I thought Hillary's efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system were destructive.

This is indefensible.

[TexMom7]

You say “Insuring nationalized Healthcare is part of agriculture commissioners job?! Really???”

---

From Perry’s Letter:

“As the Agriculture Commissioner for the State of Texas, I have a strong interest in the problems of health care delivery to rural areas. Over 50 hospitals have closed in rural Texas since the mid eighties.

Most rural communities have problems with access to adequate health care due to shortage of physicians, clinics & hospitals within a safe driving distance.”

---

He was doing his job. If they were going to reform healthcare, he wanted them to be mindful of American Ranchers, Farmers and Rural Folk.

[comebacknewt]

And nowhere in his letter does he say ANYTHING about "insuring national healthcare".

That is a total fabrication by the OP.

[Freedom56v2]

If you were directing your snide comment to me as Texmom7 was addressing my comment, I resent it, but out of respect for forum rules, I won’t write what I would like you to do with your incendiary rhetoric. I am not a Perry-hater. I missed space bar in word, but having taught college English; I can spell if I want to, and I can think just fine.

I am not a Perry-hater, Palin lover, nor a Romneybot. I have been a FReeper since 2001 (Oh, that would be nearly 8 years more than you!), and I have legitimate questions about the candidates—especially ones that have recently declared.

[Oceander]

"I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation's farmers... Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services." He concluded by noting, "your efforts are worthy, and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance."

Is that the mole hill that is supposed to be some insuperable mountain? Puhleeze. What was he supposed to say, something like "I hope you totally and completely ignore the poor rural farmers in Texas"?

What numbnuts thinks that this is the functional equivalent of a ringing endorsement of every little jot and tittle that got stuffed into Clintoncare?

In fact, did you even bother to look at the date on the letter? Did you then check the facts to see when the details of Clintoncare became public? I didn't think so.

The timeline is illuminating:

The group that was charged with coming up with the whole thing - the "Task Force" - was empaneled in January of 1993.

The letter from Perry is dated April 6, 1993.

The details of the Clintoncare bill did not become fully public until September 1993 - the Task Force was a basically closed-door organization (which was sued several times over its lack of transparency) - and the Harry and Louise commercial did not start running until September 8, 1993.

Therefore, it is almost certain that Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry did not know the details of what the Task Force was cooking up and it would have been a dereliction of his duties and obligations to the rural farmers of Texas - his constituents as it were - to not raise their particular concerns with the federal entity that was bidding fair to significantly change health care in the United States.

And that is all this letter does; it doesn't endorse the full-fledged idiocy that eventually came out of the Task Force - the facts needed weren't available in April of 1993 - and it doesn't independently urge that the Task Force propose a socialist health care system.

In fact, if we want to get into reading the tea leaves, since we all know that socialized health care is particularly bad for the rural poor - go ask the Cubans who have the misfortune to need something more complicated than a band-aid or an aspirin - the letter can just as easily be read as asking that the Task Force avoid anything - including socialized health care - that would just hurt the rural poor.

Tempest in a Teapot indeed.

[Freedom56v2]

Thank you for your reasonable courteous response—unlike some of the others on this thread....Extremely disappointing.

IMHO it is truly a sad day when long-time FReepers cannot ask legitimate questions or have honest comments about articles posted.

Again, I appreciate your reply more than you know as I am getting pretty tired of the sniping that I have seen lately on FR...

[FreeReign]

The details of the Clintoncare bill did not become fully public until September 1993 - the Task Force was a basically closed-door organization (which was sued several times over its lack of transparency) - and the Harry and Louise commercial did not start running until September 8, 1993.

Hillary's closed door approach as was apparent on April 6 1993 was NOT a "commendable" approach.

[comebacknewt]

FWIW, I had no intention of criticizing you or your post. If you interpreted my response as doing that, then I sincerely apologize and did not express myself as I intended.

I strongly agree with your sentiment that the attacks need to stop.

[Eagle Eye]

Tempest knows that this letter came out before the Clinton health care reform program was unveiled and knows that Perry was lobbying for the rural constituency.

He uses polite languge by praising her efforts but never in this letter endorses her product.

Tempest’s own post undermines one of Tempest’s main criticisms, and more importantly demonstrates an utter lack of personal integrity.

[Oceander]

Don't be stupid. Do you really think that then-Commissioner Perry's letter would have been forwarded from the mailroom to anything other than the circular file if he'd been rude or offensive?

Are you going to poke a stick into the face of the 800-pound gorilla who's staring at you, or are you going to be polite?

[TexMom7]

BEFORE the TARP VOTE...

this is the Press Release by Perry dated October 1, 2008:

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement:

“In a free market economy, government should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporate America. Congress needs to take off its partisan gloves and work together to bring both short and long term stability to the credit markets. They need to stop blaming each other and start thinking about solutions that put the taxpayers of this country first.”

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11363/

---

On December 2, 2008 Governor Perry co-wrote a letter with Governor Sanford of South Carolina denouncing state bailouts and proposals to bailout General Motors:

Governors Against State Bailouts

Hard to believe, but not everyone in politics wants a free lunch.
By RICK PERRY and MARK SANFORD

As governors and citizens, we’ve grown increasingly concerned over the past weeks as Washington has thrown bailout after bailout at the national economy with little to show for it.

In the process, the federal government is not only burying future generations under mountains of debt. It is also taking our country in a very dangerous direction —

toward a “bailout mentality” where we look to government rather than ourselves for solutions. We’re asking other governors from both sides of the political aisle to join with us in opposing further federal bailout intervention for three reasons.

First, we’re crossing the Rubicon with regard to debt.

One fact that’s been continually glossed over in the bailout debate is that Washington doesn’t have money in hand for any of these proposals. Every penny would be borrowed. Estimates for what the government is willing to spend on bailouts and stimulus efforts for this year reach as much as $7.7 trillion according to Bloomberg.com — a full half of the United States’ yearly economic output.

With all the zeroes in the numbers, it’s no wonder Washington politicians have lost track.

That trillion-dollar figure is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to checks written by the federal government that it can’t cash. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker puts our nation’s total debt and unpaid promises, like Social Security, at roughly $52 trillion — an invisible mortgage of $450,000 on every American household. Borrowing money to “solve” a problem created by too much debt seems odd. And as fiscally conservative Republicans, we take no pleasure in pointing out that many in our own party have been just as complicit in running up the tab as those on the political left.

Second, the bailout mentality threatens Americans’ sense of personal responsibility.

In a free-market system, competition and one’s own personal stake motivate people to do their best. In this process, the winners create wealth, jobs and new investment, while others go back to the drawing board better prepared to try again.

To an unprecedented degree, government is currently picking winners and losers in the private marketplace, and throwing good money after bad. A prudent investor takes money from low-yield investments and puts them in those that yield better returns. Recent government intervention is doing the opposite — taking capital generated from productive activities and throwing it at enterprises that in many cases need to reorganize their business model.

Take for example the proposed Big Three auto-maker bailout. We think it’s very telling that each of the three CEO’s flew on their own private jets to Washington to ask for a taxpayer handout. No amount of taxpayer largess could fix a business culture so fundamentally flawed.

Third, we’d ask the federal government to stop believing it has all the answers.

Our Founding Fathers were clear and deliberate in setting up a system whereby the federal government would only step in for that which states cannot do themselves. An expansionist federal government of the last century has moved us light-years away from that model, but it doesn’t mean that Congress can’t learn from states that are coming up with solutions that work.

In Texas and South Carolina, we’ve focused on improving “soil conditions” for businesses by cutting taxes, reforming our legal system and our workers’ compensation system. We’d humbly suggest that Congress take a page from those playbooks by focusing on targeted tax relief paid for by cutting spending, not by borrowing.

In the rush to do “something” to help, federal leaders would be wise to take a line from the Hippocratic Oath, and pledge to do no (more) harm to our country’s finances. We can weather this storm if we commit to fiscal prudence and hold true to the values of individual freedom and responsibility that made our nation great.

[comebacknewt]

Perry said the "effort" was commendable. He never endorsed the "approach".

In fact, once it came out, he strongly opposed it. Just like he strongly opposes ObamaCare today.

[Sudetenland]

If you read the letter completely objectively, it is not so much a praise Hilary letter as it is an attempt to ingratiate himself sufficiently to get his agenda--reformed healthcare for his rural constituency improved.

Very clearly his goal it to get the committee to look at the plight of ranchers, farmers, farm workers and rural community residents.

It isn't terribly likely that anyone would get very far with saying something like, "Hilary, your effort to reform healthcare is a socialist abomination. Oh yeah, by the way would you please turn your attention to the difficulties our rural communities are experiencing in getting good affordable healthcare."

You are free to look at this letter anyway you choose, but being that Perry was the Texas Commissioner of Agriculture and part of his responsibility was to assist those rural communities with any problems they might have, you would have to be fairly determined to see something bad in what he wrote.

Try rereading the letter with that point of view. It was the first thing that leaped out at me in reading the letter--but then, I am not out to attack Perry so that my preferred candidate might gain from it.

Let's see, one sentence politely commending Hilary for her efforts in trying to reform the healthcare system and three paragraphs expressing his wish for the committee to pay close attention to the needs of the rural communities.

Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty fair analysis.

[Diogenesis]

The SNIPING was LONG before FR.

Romney vs every candidate in 2007 and 2008
(to throw the election).

Romney and Perry against the women candidates in 2011.

Shame on the RINOs.

[comebacknewt]

Thanks for sharing that TexMom7.

Contained some good info about Perry / TARP that I was not aware of. I'm going to look into it further.