Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jobs, jobs, jobs lure Perry backer
The State ^ | January 15, 2012 | ADAM BEAM

Posted on 01/15/2012 4:02:00 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

When Allie Jennings and her husband, Ethan, graduated form college in 2003, they had no trouble finding jobs.

“I just think raising a son, and then being married to someone who would like to climb the ladder in business, I think Gov. Perry represents a lot of opportunity for our family,” Allie Jennings said.

Perry announced his candidacy during a rally in Charleston over the summer, and the Jennings were there to see him as Perry emphasized his record on job creation while governor of Texas.

In January 2001, a month after Perry took office, there were 10,023,806 jobs in Texas, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In August 2011, Texas had 11,216,227 jobs.

That’s 1,192,421 new jobs in Texas while Perry has been governor.

“His record on job creation was the thing that won us over,” said Jennings. “The economy is the No. 1 issue of this election, and Gov. Perry has proven he knows how to create a climate where businesses can flourish.”

But the new jobs in Texas did not keep up with Texas’ growing work force.

As a result, more people are unemployed in Texas today – 1,036,563 – than were unemployed when Perry took office – 442,929. That means Texas’ unemployment rate, while still below the national average, nearly has doubled under Perry’s leadership: 8.1 percent today, up from 4.2 percent when Perry took office.

“I don’t think that Texas has been immune to the recession the country is going through as a whole,” Jennings said. “They definitely have some issues being a border state – unique issues. I think the numbers are reflective of that.”

Perry’s campaign has struggled recently. After finishing fifth in Iowa, Perry canceled a S.C. trip to return to Texas to “reassess” his campaign – a move that many interpreted as a precursor to dropping out of the race.

But Perry did not quit, choosing instead to skip New Hampshire and campaign exclusively in South Carolina. Jennings said she did not know what to think when Perry canceled his trip. But she never once thought of changing her vote.

“He’s the only candidate in this race that has the combination of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and a proven track record of job creation, that can compete with Romney and go on to compete with Barack Obama,” she said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: amnesty; economy; gopprimary; heartless; jobs; jobs4mexicans; openborders; perry; perry2012; rickperry; rino; soreloser
Let me put this into context. It isn't that Texas is a border state that unemployment has risen, it's because 1300 (up from 1000 last year) people daily move to Texas from other states.

As a result, more people are unemployed in Texas today – 1,036,563 – than were unemployed when Perry took office – 442,929. That means Texas’ unemployment rate, while still below the national average, nearly has doubled under Perry’s leadership: 8.1 percent today, up from 4.2 percent when Perry took office.

“I don’t think that Texas has been immune to the recession the country is going through as a whole,” Jennings said. “They definitely have some issues being a border state – unique issues. I think the numbers are reflective of that.”

1 posted on 01/15/2012 4:02:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All; shield
Last night on Judge Jeanine (Fox) Gov. Huckabee singled out Gov. Perry for praise and Gov. Palin said that JOBS will be the issue to focus on in this election.


2 posted on 01/15/2012 4:04:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
......."Given that the Texas economy has grown so much and private sector jobs have grown so much, that doesn't strike me as an unsustainable growth in the public sector.

But, just in case you're really worried about it, you can lay your fears to rest because in the last year the Texas public sector has shrunk by 26,000 jobs. In the last 12 months, Texas lost 31,300 federal employees, trimmed 3,800 state jobs, and increased local government jobs by 8,400 jobs.

(To be fair, this was partially driven by the role Texas employees played in the census, which inflated federal job numbers this time last year. Since the census numbers stabilized, federal employment has been at about break-even.) Source

........."you can lay your fears to rest because in the last year the Texas public sector has shrunk by 26,000 jobs. In the last 12 months, Texas lost 31,300 federal employees, trimmed 3,800 state jobs, and increased local government jobs by 8,400 jobs."........... Source

Misfire: Romney Ad Targets Rick Perry's Jobs Record "I think it's safe to say the Romney campaign is going for the kill with its latest attack on Rick Perry. The former Massachusetts Governor has already gotten a fair amount of mileage out of attacking his Texan rival from the left on Social Security, and from the right on immigration, but this new spot strikes at the heart of the Perry campaign's raison detre -- jobs, jobs, jobs:

[snip]

The spot's most striking image is a tumbleweed blowing along a deserted Texas highway. That's rich. It's intended to create the impression that Rick Perry's Texas is something of a depressed ghost town. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the recession began, desperate job seekers have flocked to Texas at a clip of roughly 1,000 people per day. And they're finding work, too. Despite a huge population influx and a bruising national recession, Texas' unemployment rate remains below the national average. How remarkable has the Lone Star State's economic performance been? Read this Political Math analysis (written by a self-professed non Perry supporter), and marvel. One telling data point:


3 posted on 01/15/2012 4:05:50 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
January 14, 2012: SC -- Perry talks tax, energy (military)
4 posted on 01/15/2012 5:04:57 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; jonrick46; deepbluesea; TexMom7; potlatch; SunkenCiv; wolfcreek; BuckeyeTexan; ...
Perry Ping....

IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.

IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************


5 posted on 01/15/2012 6:27:13 AM PST by shield (Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield
People say Perry should drop out and support Newt or Santorum so as to have one alternative to Romney.

I say Perry is that alternative if conservatives want a socially conservative and a fiscally conservative candidate. If Perry drops out I would seriously have to consider Ron Paul because he would be the last fiscally and socially conservative candidate left. His problem is foreign policy but if we don't get our fiscal house in order nothing else matters anyway.

Newt and Santorum are not viable alternatives to Perry for conservatives, they are only half-conservatives.

If I had to choose between Newt and Santorum I would be disgusted because I wouldn't be able to trust the words coming out of Newts mouth (hell Conservatives kicked his ass out in the first place) and Santorum is a Bush type Compassionate conservative and a Roman Catholic.

I will vote Perry, then Paul, then whomever the Republicans nominate to defeat Obama and then I think I'm done voting.

By the way the evangelicals who are rallying around Santorum or Gingrich are sell out bandwagon jumpers who have shown amazing confusion. especially when only a few votes separated Gingrich and Santorum on the first ballot. Sounds like either God is confused or those "leaders" are.

6 posted on 01/15/2012 7:04:37 AM PST by normy (Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: normy; shield
Things aren't so rosy when you look deeper. It looks more like this Texas gathering of "conservatives" was done for a headline and now they're going their own ways.

Santorum endorsers need to issue joint statement and quickly (not so cohesive)

7 posted on 01/15/2012 7:36:04 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: normy
The problem, which is magnified for this election, is not simply the differences between social and fiscal conservatism. It's far bigger than that.

The problem is a growing fissure between statists and small-governmentalists. And it's found throughout the political spectrum, left and right.

On the right, social conservatives are more apt to support an ever more powerful, centralized government... for only that size government is capable of delivering what they want.

After all, how can you eliminate abortion unless you there is one law over all the land proclaiming it illegal... and how can you enforce it without monitoring every woman and doctor at all times, coupled with a large enough police force to arrest them before it happens?

And that costs money. A lot of money. Money that will come from higher taxes.

And on the left, you see this play out between the communists/socialists/fascists/race baiters/unions/environmentalists and the hippy drippy ‘my body is a temple and I can do what I want with it’ crowd.

To be sure, it's fairly unbalanced between the two parties... with more small-governmentalists in the Republican party than Democrat party, and vice versa in the Democrat party. But there is enough of the opposite in each party to play spoiler. Which is why the Republicans have managed to screw the pooch in 2008... and will probably do it again in 2012.

8 posted on 01/15/2012 7:55:08 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Good point on the small government/big government divide and that is what is frustrating. Santorum is not a small government conservative at all and Newt can really not be trusted to do the right thing.

The reason Perry is an attractive candidate is because he is a small government candidate. Not as much as Paul but far more than anyone else running. He actually believes the answers do not come from Washington. Mitt, Santorum and Newt absolutely do not believe people can handle freedom and Washington DC is where freedom is doled out. They think tinkering around in DC will fix our problem. Perry and Paul do not.

Perry happens to be more in line with the Republican Party on military issues and what I'll call "the Empire" but I think Perry is more of a "if you're going to war declare it and then go old testament on their ass" where as Paul is more along the lines of "don't even go".

Depending on what happens in this election I could see a strong, states rights, small government movement based on freedom coming out of this thing.

I actually have thought a Perry/Rand Paul ticket would be awesome for the simple fact of cutting government.

9 posted on 01/15/2012 8:06:10 AM PST by normy (Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: normy
I say Perry is that alternative if conservatives want a socially conservative and a fiscally conservative candidate.

Governor Perry is the only true conservative left in the race. That he's wallowing in the single-digits despite a successful executive record and solid conservative credentials tells me a lot more about so-called "conservative" voters than it does about Rick Perry.

Perry remains the best man for the job. He's twice the conservative that Santorum is with none of the baggage that Gingrinch is dragging around. Sadly, short of a miracle comeback of historic proportions, Perry's days in this race are clearly numbered.

10 posted on 01/15/2012 8:18:44 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
I think you have failed to make the case that pro-life views lead to statism or that pro-abortion views lead to wanting a small government. That is one small issue and wouldn't have a major effect on the size of government either way. And I totally disagree with the premise that being pro-life is being statist. It is actually being constitutional. Life is a guaranteed right by the constitution and must be protected. To believe human offspring in the womb is not a human life is like believing the world is flat. It totally denies obvious scientific reality. A fetus may not be a citizen, but that constitutional right applies to any non-citizen who visits or otherwise exists within our borders.

I do agree with your thesis that social conservatives are more comfortable with big government. Obviously fiscal conservatives are in this game solely because they want a small government.

I believe there is a genuine libertarian movement, especially among young people in this country, that could have a major effect on future politics. Ron Paul has surged in this primary as compared to 4 years ago, doubling or tripling his votes. If a charismatic, Obama-like candidate eventually runs as a libertarian, either in or out of the Republican party, they will probably be able to win not too far into the future from now.

My biggest problem with the libertarian message is the focus on the federal government. It's extremely easy for them to say the federal government shouldn't do this and that, but it allows them to totally skate the issue of what the state government should do. "It should be up to the states" isn't much of a philosophy. And if they want the state government to do as little as they say they want the feds to do, then they're pretty much asking for anarchy and the law of the jungle.

11 posted on 01/15/2012 8:33:20 AM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: normy
Yep.

And what's sad is that the reason Ron Paul is doing so well is because he brings a sort of small-government ‘purity’ that is appealing to anyone that has not seen a small-government candidate. After 4 years of big-government Obama, 8 years of big-government Bush, and 8 years of big-government Clinton... it's a breath of fresh air.

For a nation whose electorate is desperate to just have the government leave them alone, he comes across with his ‘pure’ message like some sort of political Messiah... when in reality, he's a cheap demagogue.

And my point explains why about half his support is coming from Democrats. For the same split exists within their party.

(Whereas the statists already got their Messiah, Obama, and found out how having their Messiah isn't as good as yearning for one.)


Sad thing is that on both sides of the political spectrum (statist, non-statist, left, right)... we have seen demagogues preying on a desperate electorate. An electorate that has repeatedly voted for the politicians that enact the laws necessary to make the electorate more and more desperate.

To be honest, I expect our political system to come crashing down relatively soon... and that it'll be cheered by the voters because whoever does it will finally have ‘done something’.

12 posted on 01/15/2012 8:35:48 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: normy
"The reason Perry is an attractive candidate is because he is a small government candidate. Not as much as Paul but far more than anyone else running. He actually believes the answers do not come from Washington."

States rights is simply not an exciting campaign slogan or philosophy. I also think it's a very poor plan for success of the country. We are the UNITED states and we don't gain by seceding from each other 50 different ways. We should be looking to implement good, conservative policy on the federal level where we can. What good is shutting down the EPA if every state is then allowed to enact their own environmental regulations? California for instance would do everything the EPA does and more. There comes a point when states are no longer the laboratories on a given issue and when conclusions from their experiments should be drawn and applied to the country on the federal level. The reality is that the world and the country is a far, far smaller place than it ever was before. The things each state does almost invariably affects other states, hence we should seek to have consistent federal laws across the board.

13 posted on 01/15/2012 8:39:10 AM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JediJones; gogogodzilla
To me states rights is very exciting. Small government is very exciting. Now to many it isn't. I think you make the point gogogodzilla and I are discussing and the division in the Republican party. I happen to think Perry's idea of a much smaller more specific EPA is great compared to the job crushing, unaccountable, unelected agency it is today.

I would say your argument directly contradicts the Constitution and that somehow today things are too different for those ancient texts to apply. I think they are timeless.

14 posted on 01/15/2012 8:52:32 AM PST by normy (Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
.....California for instance would do everything the EPA does and more. .....

And businesses and workers and their money and taxable dollars will leave the state -- last count I read it was 1,000,000 jobs lost in California -- many of those where picked up in the Texas "laboratory.

15 posted on 01/15/2012 8:59:41 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
That he's wallowing in the single-digits despite a successful executive record and solid conservative credentials tells me a lot more about so-called "conservative" voters than it does about Rick Perry.

They're "heartless."

He's just...


16 posted on 01/15/2012 9:04:15 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
My point on abortion was an example of how social conservatives are statists.

Gay marriage is another. In order to make it illegal everywhere is the nation, you have to make it a federal law. After all, if it's left to the states, some of ‘em will probably legalize it (MA/CA/etc). And if it's a federal law... you need the necessary federal-controlled police force capable of arresting anyone that breaks it. For if the gays are married and no one is punished, what sort of law is it, then?

Flag burning, too. Banning evolution in schools. You name it.

Every social conservative issue almost always defaults straight to the Federal level. Social conservatives cannot countenance anyone not following their views.

And since, at the most primal level, government is just brute force... by taking all their issues straight to the highest level of government in the land, they are simply stating their willingness to apply force against anyone that disagrees.

That is a quintessentially statist point of view.

Whereas the small-government, non-statist views that law and government (ie: force) should only be made and used at the lowest level possible, recognizing that not everyone wishes to exist as they do. And as long as there is no harm affecting them at the individual level, there is no need to exert force.

Furthermore, as government is brute force, you have to pay for the necessary, authorized body to actually exert it. And the more laws you have, the more people you need to enforce them. Additionally, the more people you cover under those laws also increases the number of people needed to enforce them.

Which means that statists = high taxes. And thus, since social conservatives tend to be more comfortable in a statist role... they are directly responsible for higher taxes.

---

I would say to anyone that's ever said, "There ought to be a law"...

..."Are you the one paying for it?"

17 posted on 01/15/2012 9:04:28 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: normy

I forgot to include you on my post #17. Thought you might be interested in reading it.


18 posted on 01/15/2012 9:10:55 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: normy

Go “Old Testament on their ass”, eh? (giggling) I like that one!


19 posted on 01/15/2012 9:41:39 AM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Very well put and I agree completely.

Freedom has to be the ultimate goal of every Republican. Someone who wants to ban gay marriage at the federal level is no better than someone who wants to enforce it at a federal level.

Gay marriage is not marriage at all anyway, so unless you can get an Amendment to the constitution the only alternative is making it a states issue, which the constitution says it would be anyway.

the only way to seriously stop abortion is through an Amendment to the Constitution. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would only send it back to the states where it was originally because originally it was actually a medical procedure to save the life of the mother.

America isn't about what you like or dont like. It's based on freedom and when there are disagreements deal with them at the local level.

Because of States Rights, Perry and Texas can defund planned parenthood and close 12 agencies as a cost cutting measure. Because of the statist mentality on the left, they believe they have the right to withhold tax dollars from Texas for doing this. Tax dollars Texas sent in to them in the first place.

If the Republican Party doesn't start standing for freedom, and Santorum and Mitt do not stand for freedom, then we may as well just admit that the USA as it once was intended is finished for good.

20 posted on 01/15/2012 10:12:13 AM PST by normy (Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: normy

Perry remains my favored candidate for the reasons you have stated.

I hope I have the privilege of voting for him by the time my primary rolls around.


21 posted on 01/15/2012 10:29:04 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
I would say to anyone that's ever said, "There ought to be a law"...

..."Are you the one paying for it?"

Nice!

22 posted on 01/15/2012 10:35:25 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks shield.


23 posted on 01/15/2012 3:58:59 PM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

You go off the deep end. I don’t believe schools should have mandatory evolution or mandatory hostility to religion. I believe that they should be able to teach whatever the people receiving the education want to learn. I don’t believe public education should be controlled on a federal level at all. In fact, I’d much prefer if education was handled entirely on a private level. This to me is the “libertarian” view.

The right to life is certainly inalienable. It is the ‘statists’ who want to define it as being a matter that is decided by a vote.

What we have seen with the Ron Paul types (not Ron Paul himself) is this hijacking of basic libertarian philosophy and mingling it with an all-pervasive godlessness. They have become what Ronald Reagan would have been if he were an atheist. They are very destructive to themselves (because they are godless), they lack patriotic principles (because they are godless), and they despise Christianity, which is the foundation of our culture and free system. A godless “conservativism” or libertarianism is fundamentally poisonous to the country as it rejects the One who guarantees the Rights we all celebrate.


24 posted on 01/16/2012 1:57:08 AM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

???

You don’t say what issues you have with my posts except to say that it’s ‘off the deep end’.

And that’s just cheap name calling.

If you disagree with the reasoning behind my assertions, explain how they are wrong. Provide examples to support your claims.

Anything else doesn’t detract from my point, but instead... reinforces it by highlighting the *lack* of an argument from your side.


25 posted on 01/16/2012 2:37:11 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

I gave several points of disagreement. Read it again.


26 posted on 01/16/2012 7:11:36 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

There’s nothing there.

You go on about the freedom to teach different subjects in school... then meander into ‘life is sacred’...

... and then post a screed about Libertarians being godless.

So, what’s that got to do with thegrowing divide between statists and small-govrnment types... and how social conservatives tend to be on the side of growing state power?


27 posted on 01/16/2012 9:18:01 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Namely, that your assumptions that “social” conservatives advocate for evolution to be banned in schools, despite the fact that the most popular position right now (which is the libertarian position) is that the Federal government shouldn’t have any say in what schools teach, period. It should be a private matter. The government should get out of education, because private enterprise always produces superior results. So far as I know, there aren’t any groups in the United States (of any major note) advocating for evolution to be banned from schools. However, there are plenty of groups advocating that intelligent design also be taught, or that children are better off being homeschooled. There is nothing “statist” in these positions. In other words, you’ve invented an issue and placed it on your opponents.

You also downplay the rights of the unborn, and suggest that people who believe that these rights exist are ‘statists’, when, in reality, we can trace these ideas to the foundation of our philosophy.

Your post has more to do with your problems with Christians than it does with anything to do with “Statists” or “small government” divisions. If Ron Paul was strong on foreign policy, he’d be our nominee yesterday. Ron Paul, FYI, is pro-life, and apparently disbelieves the theory of evolution. If he weren’t a traitor on foreign matters, I guarantee he’d be the top contender for the “eeeevil” social conservatives.

Of course, I don’t deny that there are plenty of stupid people out there who lack the ability to properly judge a candidate. There is no difference between Santorum or any of the candidates on social matters, so why is Santorum the superior candidate for it? The reason is because he shot up in the polls, and people believe “he can win”. Once they have this impression in their minds, they ignore reality out of pure desperation to get a “not-romney” candidate certified before Romney wins it all. It’s that simple. They are tossed around by the wind of the media, going wherever it goes. They are truly a farce this time around. However, the wind may turn back to our favor any time now, so the sword that has threatened to kill us might swing somewhere else in our favor.


28 posted on 01/17/2012 12:34:35 AM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
Now, I don't agree with the first half of your post... but I do agree with the last half.

To me, religion is a private matter and should be the cornerstone of anyone’s moral and ethical code. And that code should be used to judge any form of legislation that a politician generates.

That's it. In no way, shape, or form should religion be codified into law simply because it's your (not you personally, but the hypothetical politician in question) religion.

If religion and law match, it should only be because aids in the maintenance of a free people.

As for Santorum, I'm speaking more to his actual, dedicated supporters. Not the large mass of idiots that flit from candidate to candidate because their poll numbers are up that day. And those dedicated supporters tend to be social conservatives, where their primary interest is solely focused on social issues.

And those supporters, as well as Santorum himself, have proven that their have no problems with a large and powerful government, capable of forcing others to obey their whims... well, that is, until that apparatus is then turned against them.

Then there is a problem. (and yet, the irony of that situation is impossible for them to understand)

29 posted on 01/17/2012 2:04:00 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson