Skip to comments.When Rick Perry Praised HillaryCare (1993)
Posted on 09/03/2011 4:15:57 PM PDT by 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."
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.)
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
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...
Hillary's closed door approach as was apparent on April 6 1993 was NOT a "commendable" approach.
I strongly agree with your sentiment that the attacks need to stop.
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.
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.
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.
In fact, once it came out, he strongly opposed it. Just like he strongly opposes ObamaCare today.
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.
Contained some good info about Perry / TARP that I was not aware of. I'm going to look into it further.
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?
I simply said that Hillary's closed door approach as was apparent on April 6 1993 was NOT a "commendable" approach".
The statement is true.
Deal with it dumbass.
Which part of the letter endorsed Hillarycare?
"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?"Of course they do . . . (not really, but they won't admit that their attack is unreasonable and unjustifiable). When you hate someone, you are unlikely ever to see reason or truth.
He’s George Bush without the blue-blood.
This (democrat)needs to return to his beloved Texas. asap
If you were in Perry’s place in 1993, what would you have done differently?
Ignored the possibility that her efforts might be effective and you’re people are left out?
Been insulting by telling her what a commie socialist bitch she was?
Or asked her about cattle futures?
"Commendable" and "worthy" indicate endorsement.
But what else would one expect from a RINO who worked with Gore?
The "efforts" were secretive. That's what we knew about the Clinton "effort" on April 6 1993.
Secret efforts by left-wing ideologues to reform health care aren't commendable. Most of us knew that at that time.
Who wants to be associated with an openly and unappologetcally dishonest person?
My support for Palin predated her national exposure from McCaine, but if her supporters feel the need to lie, cheat, and steal, then how can I possibly want to work with them?
In case you are, Perry is clearly stating that the general effort to reform healthcare was commendable. In other words, it was a good idea to try to fix a system that everyone admits has flaws.
He neither endorsed her approach to the problem nor the end product that she ultimately presented.
If Perry had come out and said he thought national healthcare was a great idea and he was thrilled Hillary was moving in that direction, then I would be right there with you in my outrage.
But, he didn't. Not then. Not now. Not ever.
There literally is no story here. None.
Minnestoans have no business criticizing ANY other politicians. None.
Look at your history; look at your present.
Clean up your own mess first.
No. Perry specifically called Hillary's efforts commendable.
If you want to be serious you should get your facts right.
Wow, well, I will answer this one, as I have recently observed that it is very important chose words carefully...
Before you reply, I am not a Perry-hater...I am seeking information as he is a new entry into the field and I am not from TX or the South. Some have said he was opposed to Hillarycare and has been on the record as opposing National Health care efforts; well as he is a conservative, I would hope so, but I need to read those too and this is the only piece I have seen on his stand on health care, so I replied...
Perhaps “endorse” is too strong a word, but I don’t like the letter...what statements do I think come close to “endorsing Hillarycare”
1. “I think your efforts to reform...are most commendable”
2. I would like task force to give particular consideration to needs of farmers, ranchers, etc/
3. “...Your efforts are worthy...please don’t hesitate to contact me”
These statements certainly don’t condemn it and would not be contained in a letter I would have sent Hillary. I would not have been so positive and accommodating...I would not have been rude, but I would have expressed major concern...Had I been writing the letter, I might have noted that there are more efficient free-market private sector avenues for health care reform.
As I said, I am learning about all the candidates...Nov. 2012 is still a long way away
Thank you for the polite reply...
Well, if you repeat an underhanded lie often enough.... How Obama-esque.
Kevin Curry, is that you?
Clarify your post for me. Are you accusing Gov. Perry of being a homosexual?
Really who else have I come out against?
Palin 2012 or bust!
You’ve already been shown to be an unrepentant liar with your post.
Perry’s letter pre dates the clinton health care package and nothing you can do or say can change that.
May God have mercy on you because mercy is the withholding of justly deserved consequences.
Let me make this clear for you Perrybots. I have yet to support any candidate. BUT I DO OPPOSE THE RINO RICK PERRY.
I’ll say it in Texan so YA’ALLZ CAN UNDERSTAND IT. YA ALLZ have an unhealthy devotion to Rick Perry that anyone that opposes him must be assigned a candidate to attack.
YA ALLZ CAN GO AHEAD AND START HATIN ON SARAH PALIN. BUT IT WILL ONLY MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID.
Because if you do that I could just accuse you of supporting Obama, like you do to me. Opposing your candidate does not make me pro-Obama, it makes me anti-RINO. Do I make myself clear.
Let’s see....even in 1993 I knew the Clintons were trouble, partially because I the Little Rock newspaper was delivered to my house on behalf of the former owner.
I’m sure Perry knew about the Clintons, too.
And as a Southern, Western gentleman, I’m sure that it was in his nature to be polite and courtious in his correspondence, especially when he’s asking for consideration for his concerns.
Hillarycare did not yet exist beyond a draft at the point Perry writes to her.
Kicking hillery in the shin verbally would, and is, a stupid move if you want something from her.
No more. No less.
And if you’re going to criticize Perry for the words he uses, then your words are equally open for examination, right?
As you’ve conceded, he did not endorse hillarycare as the thread claims.
You can try to twist his statement into an endorsement of HillaryCare if you want. You'll probably even find a few on here willing to believe it.
It is an argument with zero merit though. I'm moving on.
Sorry, I think an official letter from a state-level commissioner merits somewhat more consideration to word choice than a thread comment...Just guess we disagree.
Did he endorse hillarycare? (which did not yet exist)
That is the question, isn’t it?
Thanks for the ping to this thread and posts (I stopped at cripplecreek’s post #67 to go over to ESPN and check out the Tiger’s victory...I’ll be back). Great thread so far. Thanks to all posters.
(I just got home from work)
LOL, well put.
Stay cool FRiend. I am sure that over the years you have been here, you have probably seen similar (or worse) ranting, raving, accusing, snarking, etc., than this before.
Gold Miners have to sift through a lot of mud before they find the precious metal. Any gold they find varies from tiny specs to good sized nuggets. And they have to be wise enough, and experienced enough, to know real gold from Fools gold.
Every so often, a valuable "nugget" of information (positive or negative) about one of the candidates appears out of the muck, and is useful for folks like you and I who are looking for them.
Undoubtedly, some posters will go over the stated line for this forum, and the Sheriff and his Deputies will take action to run (zot) them out of town. The Sheriff and his Deputies have seen every example of Troll, Agenda-Poster, Spammer, Know-It-All, etc., there is.
And just about the time those individuals think they are "getting away with it", lightning strikes in the saloon, leaving only a pair of empty boots (or sneakers) with smoke rolling out of them. Folks like us who come to FR for information will, at times, grow weary waiting for a "cleanup on aisle 5" moment, but inevitably it always happens.
Having said all that, FR is like no other place on the inter-webs, and I'll be here to take advantage of a place that provides the best information to Conservatives, bar none.
May the Lord Bless you and yours.
Nice logo, did you do it up yourself?
Did he endorse hillarycare? (which did not yet exist)
That is the question, isnt it?
This is getting really old. OK, In my opinion:
1. Hillary care NEVER existed....it was a plan, an initiative in 1993. It was as not ever passed into law—I don’t think it was ever voted on....Read my previous post, I think he was far more supportive than I would have liked....OK???
2. NO, really that is not the question in my opinion.
The questions are: Is he a true conservative? What is his record? Based on his record, what will he do or not do in office. Is he going to be a president that can lead this country out of the very troubled place we are headed if not in.
Interesting, TM7. Thanks for the post.
Not if he doesn't close the border for one thing....and surely not if he continues to cater to the Muslim population......
Thank you, I enjoyed your perspective. :) Agreed, on all points.
May the Lord Bless you and yours as well!
No, you don’t make yourself “clear” at all. Indeed, every post you make has you sounding more and more deranged.
Perry is a 10 year governor and that says something about his popularity in the state and the climate in the state says something about his effectiveness as governor.
Texas is a strongly Red state now, unlike when Bush was gov.
Obama hates Perry and hates Texas. Perry has confronted Obama personally on immigration and done battle with the EPA over environmental regulations that stangle jobs with little or no positive impact on the environment.
The job I have today did not exist last year, it is newly created and considered well paying, not the minimum wage or governemnt jobs some Perry critics claim is all that exists here.
There are no state income taxes but property taxes and sales taxes can be steep in places.
The cost of living (aka housing) is better here than in most of the nation and there are many, many, good jobs waiting to be filled and solid companies that want to do more business but need more people to work.
Perry has effectively dealt with political foes and has built a solid Republican/conservative government that should last for years after he leaves.
Is Perry the Ultimate Conservative to match every ideal that the most narrowly minded purists seem to demand?
Probably not...no, absolutely not.
But check out his book, and take some of the most outrageous criticism with a grain or three of salt.
Thanks again for the ping, South40. I just finished reading every post. Great thread. Thanks to all posters.
You are welcome PG. :-)
Yes. I think you have hit on an issue that is important. As one tries to gather information about the candidates, sometimes it's not always so much that they may have made a misstep in their decision making, but rather, was it a one-time incident, or does it accurately reflect their worldview, and how they would approach similar problems (on a federal level, with much more power to impact us).
For example (so far - to me) Gov. Perry's record sometimes appears to indicate a "this is the way it's going to be, regardless of what people want" approach, and yet, his supporters have been posting some "rest of the story" information that would seem to indicate that he does indeed think through issues, and respond to his constituents.
So, at this juncture, I look forward to running across more information about Gov. Perry so that I can, with some level of confidence, place in either his Pro, or his Con, column. Hopefully, by the end of the primary period, everything about him will have hit FR, and have been hashed out enough to know all we can about him.
The same is true for Gov. Palin (and any other candidate that seems viable).
Yeah, looks like the diehard PDS tagteam is down to 4 or 5 and hasn’t been able to find anything new and beleivable. Only hope will be if ronpaul’s Seting Perry ad comes through. Wasn’t that also weeks back and no takers other than Deb Medina and Bill White?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.