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.
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.”
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:
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
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.
Santorum endorsers need to issue joint statement and quickly (not so cohesive)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
They're "heartless."
He's just...
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?"
I forgot to include you on my post #17. Thought you might be interested in reading it.
Go “Old Testament on their ass”, eh? (giggling) I like that one!
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.
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.