Posted on 10/14/2011 12:36:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What is your dispute with the President using executive orders to force policy changes for a department in his cabinet?
This plan hits it out of the park.
Now, if he can forcefully sell this plan, hopefully, it will take root.
Your answer: There were 93 Democrats and 88 Republicans in the Texas Legislature in 2001 when this bill passed.
The Texas House at that time was majority Democrats 78 to 72 Republicans.
The Texas Senate at that time was majority Republican by one one Tx Senator - 16 Republicans and 15 Democrats.
The vote of the legislature in 2001 in the House was 142-1 in favor
The vote of the legislature in 2001 in the Senate was 27-3 in favor
So Total = 169 for and 4 nays.
Also of note, Perry was only in office for 4 months when this vote took place - he had taken over the governorship of Texas when Bush took over as President in 2001.
So you don’t want any of our candidates to have money?
Palin loved to demonize "big oil". We need to be embracing "big oil".
This is the crux of the whole issue. TX added jobs at a time the rest of the country was losing them.
“did he say how many EPA jobs he will cut?”
No, but he did not say he would gut it. He said he would reign it in.
There are approx 18,000 full time employees.
The energy proposal Perry is making estimates over a million jobs in the private sector.
You do the math.
Palin is gone. Time to move on.
[The strength of the Texas economy, compared to many other states, isn’t in dispute.
This is the crux of the whole issue. TX added jobs at a time the rest of the country was losing them.]
And if I may add:
TX added the jobs during a recession,
3 years of fighting with Obama Adm EPA harassing TX,
paying to secure the border with Tx Taxpayers money & manpower,
fighting drought and hurricanes,
and with an Obama Adm not doing his job of securing the border or deporting the illegals.
Looks like he's turning in his homework three days late. And it consists of loosening restrictions on drilling? Other candidates' (excluding Romney) response: "Well, yeah. Kinda assumed that one."
The MSM will trying to kill it but Perry will keep selling it (it's not a hard sell and will sound even better with ZERO answering his challenge).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787263/posts
IT WILL BE THE JOBS ISSUE—and Texas’s record in creating them—that will define Rick Perry’s presidential run. Since he became governor in 2001, the U.S. as a whole has had a net loss of private-sector jobs, while Texas—which has only 8 percent of the nation’s population—has had a net gain of 825,000 jobs.
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Board, told me that if you look at the number of jobs created since the recession technically ended in June 2009, Texas has accounted for 48 percent of net new jobs created in the U.S.
Fisher also disparages claims that the jobs are all low-paying jobs at McDonald’s or Walmart, paying the minimum wage, or that they were primarily caused by the oil and natural gas boom. According to Tom Pauken of the Texas Work Force Commission, the annual median wage in Texas in 2010 for all occupations was $31,500 a year, only 7 percent below the national average. That difference is easily explained by the fact that Texas has a younger workforce than most states and a higher percentage of workers in lower-pay agriculture jobs near the border with Mexico. [ CW: Cost of living in Texas is lower than many other states; Texas has no state income tax; Texas is a right to work state.]
As for where the job growth has been, three sectors of the economy have grown faster than the energy sector, which alone added 40,500 net new jobs in 2010. Last year, Texas added 57,900 new jobs in trade, transportation, and utilities; a total of 53,400 jobs in professional and business services; and 44,900 net new jobs in the hospitality industry.
For each of the past seven years, CEOs polled by “Chief Executive” magazine have rated Texas first in the nation for economic development climate and job growth. What is the secret of Texas’s success? Rick Perry isn’t shy about his answer. “It’s all about four points,” he told me. “First, don’t spend all the money. Keep the taxes low and under control. Have regulations that are fair and predictable so business owners know what to expect from one quarter to the next. And reform the legal system so that frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers who are trying to create real wealth.”
If there is on issue which Perry has made a personal crusade, it is lawsuit reform. Working with the legislature, he has helped pass curbs on frivolous lawsuits, implemented a first-in-the-nation system under which loser pays all court costs in many lawsuits, and reformed medical malpractice law.
Dick Weekley, the co-founder of Texans for Lawsuit Reform, says Perry showed genuine political courage in resisting calls for watered-down reforms that wouldn’t have addressed the core problem. He recalls that in 2002 Perry vetoed a bill strongly supported by doctors that would have required them to prompt payment from health maintenance organizations. In the eyes of the tort reform advocates, the bill was a Trojan Horse compromise negotiated between doctors and trial lawyers. “There was a huge response from physicians [against the veto],” Kim Ross, the former top lobbyist for the Texas Medical Association, said. TMA went so far as to endorse Tony Sanchez, Perry’s millionaire Democratic opponent in the 2002 election. “Perry sent a signal that he wanted real reform and would stand his ground,” Weekley told me. “Soon the medical lobbyists playing footsie with the trial lawyers were gone and the obstacles to real reform started falling.”
LOL
In that editorial:
Perry: “I would argue they want to return us to the era of horse and buggy except they would probably complain about the methane gas from horse manure, too.”
“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.” quoth Paul Begala
You might be right in this case, but I get a bit uneasy when major directional shifts are implemented via executive fiat.
And I also get uneasy when Republicans use the same rhetoric as Democrats, even though the Republicans are pursuing policy that I agree with, and the Democrats are not.
Perry has a boatload of experience rolling back regulations and lawsuits that could otherwise have production and business growth in Texas. He has worked for Texas in its energy production successes and knows the ins and outs, the problems and fixes, and the goods and bads as far as regulations.
As far as lawsuits, Perry's successes with TORT reform in Texas have led to Texas' free market enterprise, a specific example being Perry's TORT reform in the health-related industry. His accomplishments with TORT reform are numerous and extraordinary!
The plan being made public today: I saw a short (very short) preview online last night, and I'm very impressed Perry is providing details for things to do EARLY ON without hang up in Congress, things that can get started quickly for both energy production and for jobs, and I'm sure there will be other steps throughout the process too which his knowledge and successful experience with TORT reform in the government and then working with legislators which will make a HUGE difference for our country.
Looking forward to the plan and hoping that those who have questioned Perry will begin to see a glimpse of why some of us believe in what he does and can do for our nation.
I understand your concern, and I know it sounds cliche, but this example is different. It really isnt any different than Cain promising to get rid of the EPA and build it back smaller.
In my opinion, the only three candidates who might reduce the scope of the executive branch (departments and agencies, specifically) are Perry, Paul, and Cain. The others, like Santorum, Bachmann, and Gingrich, while being conservatives, are/were too tied to the Fed Gov. They may try to reduce spending by making deals to cut here or there, but they wont reduce the scope of the Fed Gov. Im not saying Paul, Perry, or Cain will do that, but I believe they are the only three who might.
What I want to hear is one of the candidates promise to have no czars. That would tell me who is going to reduce the scope of government.
Yes!
And re: lawsuit abuse:
........”“Perry sent a signal that he wanted real reform and would stand his ground,” Weekley told me. “Soon the medical lobbyists playing footsie with the trial lawyers were gone and the obstacles to real reform started falling.”....... Post #72
Debate Transcript:
ROSE: Governor Perry, are you prepared -- even though you've said that you want to make Washington inconsequential -- to go to Washington and, as Ronald Reagan did, compromise on spending cuts and taxes in order to produce results?
PERRY: Well, certainly as the governor of the second largest state, I've had to deal with folks on both sides of the aisle. I've signed six balanced budgets as the governor of -- of Texas. So working with folks on both sides of the aisle and -- and bringing ideas, whether it's ways to redo your tax structure or what have you.
One of the things that I laid out today I think is a pretty bold plan, to put 1.2 million Americans working in the energy industry. And you don't need Congress to do that. You need a president with a plan, which I'm laying out over the next three days, and, clearly, the intent to open up this treasure trove that America's sitting on and getting America independent on the domestic energy side. It's time for another American Declaration of Independence. It's time for energy independence.
(he was interrupted and moderator quickly switched over to Romney)
ROSE: We'll come back to energy, also your economic plan this evening, but I go now to Governor Romney.
The paralysis there, and everybody's concerned about it. What specifically would you be prepared to do to make the country moving again on addressing its problems?
Later:
_______
ROSE: And back to Governor Perry, this plan that you would like to lay out, because Governor Romney has said you have had two months to produce a plan, an economic plan, he's had a 59 point plan, what is the plan? What will you say specifically?
PERRY: Well, clearly, opening up a lot of the areas of our domestic energy area. That's the real key. You have got an administration that, by and large, has either by intimidation or over-regulation, put our energy industry and the rest of the economy in jeopardy. And we have got to have a president who is willing to stand up and to clearly pull back those regulations that are strangling the American entrepreneurship that's out there.
And it doesn't make any difference whether it's Obamacare, whether it's Dodd-Frank, or whether it's the tax burden.
A president, particularly with the plan that I'm going to be laying out over the next three days -- and I'm not going to lay it out all for you tonight -- Mitt has had six years to be working on a plan. I have been in this for about eight weeks.
But, clearly, we're going to be focused on initially
the energy industry in this country and making a America
again independent, and clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from.
http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/11/complete-transcript-of-hanover-economic-debate/#ixzz1alYoDoSn
Every Republican Candidate has said they will use Executive Orders to correct many of Obama’s policies.
The last I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, there are three branches defined in the Constitution. Each with its limitations and charges in what is phrased as co-equal to each other. When the Administrative Branch, legislates without the Legislative Branch, then I have a huge problem with it.
So I should imagine that the way the current pResident is legislating with executive orders is all good and dandy with you?
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.