Tag Archives: Texas secession

Rick Perry and WHOSE Army?

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry poses with a cut out of U.S. Army Reserves Spc. James Benal of the Nebraska National Guard, serving in Afghanistan, after he was approached by his mother Patty Benal, as Perry visited the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Aug. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Associated Press photo

Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry (photographed above in Iowa today) says that if he is made president, then our troops will respect the president of the United States again. (But that’s not sedition or anything from the same treasonous bastard who has called for his state’s secession.) Of course, our troops to the likes of pseudo-patriot Perry are just like the cardboard cutout above: expendable cannon fodder for the corporateers and war profiteers whom the Repugnican Tea Party traitors coddle at the expense of the rest of us, The People.

Of Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry I recently noted: “Perry will tout Texas’ actual or alleged job growth during his tenure as governor, but of course while he’ll talk about a quantity of jobs, don’t expect him to talk about the quality of those jobs.”

While I didn’t go into as much detail as I could have, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman breaks it all down in his latest column, titled “The Texas Unmiracle.”

You should read the whole column, but the money shot, I think, is this:

…[The] rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State. …

What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.”

The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs…

So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought.

Again: We need to look at the quality of the jobs in Texas — which is why the last time that I talked about Texas, I called it “McTexas” — and not the mere quantity of jobs in Texas.

What real difference would it make if there technically virtually were no unemployment in Texas, but the vast majority of Texans were wage slaves who didn’t make a living wage — which is the plutocratic Perry & Co.’s wet dream?

I expect Rick Perry to be the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ presidential candidate in 2012 (Mitt Romney may or may not be his running mate), and if enough Americans fall for Perry’s lies about how great it is in Texas (well, it’s great for the treasonous plutocrats there, anyway) — so much so that we need to Texas-ize the entire United States just like George W. Bush did — then I expect President Perry and his plutocratic pillagers and plunderers to polish off what little is left of the American empire.

And the man who has talked about Texas’ secession (which, as I have noted, I’m all for) now can add sedition to his resume.

In Iowa last night, Rick Perry reportedly stated, “One of the reasons that I’m running for president is I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of the United States respects highly the president of the United States.”

Wow.

So 53 percent of Americans (including me) voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. (The highest percentage of the popular vote that George W. Bush ever got was 50.7 percent, in 2004.) More than half of Americans chose Obama as their nation’s commander in chief, while 46 percent had cast their vote John McCainosaurus.

So — Rick Perry very apparently essentially does not respect the results of a democratic election. (This is in line with the vast majority of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, who like democracy only when democracy goes their way. When it does not, they believe that they simply can ignore the democratic choice of the majority, as they did most spectacularly in the stolen presidential election of 2000.)

Rick Perry very apparently also believes that the members of the U.S. military can respect only a right-wing white guy from Texas.*

Secession, sedition — Rick Perry is, in a word — OK, two words — a fucking traitor.

If Texas wants to secede, that’s fine with me — it can take all of the other treasonous red states with it and make Rick Perry its Neo-Confederate president.

But Rick Perry in the White House probably will mean blood in the streets.

Another civil war in the United States has been brewing for some time now, and a President Perry would be the perfect catalyst to make the pot boil over.

I, for one, have had more than enough of traitors from Texas ruining my nation, and I, for one, am ready to take to arms to take my nation back from the Repugnican Tea Party traitors.

I’d prefer a rematch of the Civil War to the continued slow and agonizing death of my nation at the hands of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors.

*I know of no evidence that anything even approaching a majority of the members of the U.S. military do not respect President Barack Obama, which, of course, is exactly what Perry is asserting, and if he weren’t such a fucking coward himself, he would just come right out and say it and not beat around the Bush — er, bush.

Further, what would gain their respect? A president who sends even more of them to their unnecessary deaths (or their maimings) for corporate profits, just like the unelected BushCheneyCorp did? Is that how you show your love for our troops — by making sure that even more of them die and are injured unnecessarily in bullshit wars that are fought only for the war profiteers and the corporateers?

I get it that there are plenty of white male “Christo”fascists in the U.S. military who hate Barack Obama because he’s not a right-wing white guy. (The caption for the photo above, for instance, indicates that the soldier depicted in the cutout is on active duty and that his mother wanted a picture taken of his cutout with Perry. If the soldier himself is OK with this — mothers sometimes embarrass us by doing things that we’d prefer they not do, I understand — then I think that it raises interesting questions as to the ability of the soldier to obey his current commander in chief; is the soldier’s loyalty due only to a president of his preferred political party or is it strictly due to the president who last democratically was elected, no matter who he or she is?)

But these white male wingnuts’ (and other wingnuts’) job is to serve their commander in chief. If they feel that they cannot do that, then they need to leave the U.S. military. For them to actively oppose their commander in chief makes them parties to treason.

Indeed, during the unelected reign of the Bush regime, members of the U.S. military were expected to be loyal to George W. Bush — to at least keep their mouths shut, even if they opposed vehemently Bush’s wars for Big Oil — so why the fucking double standard?

Why is it that a white, right-wing president is to be strictly obeyed, but it’s perfectly OK to be disloyal to a black “Democratic” president?

P.S. And be careful. Rick Perry very apparently is a biter:

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry eats a corn dog at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry walks with his wife Anita and eats a veggie corn dog as they visited the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Aug. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Reuters and Associated Press photos

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Perry a potential Repugnican Tea Party insurgent to be reckoned with

Texas Governor Rick Perry

AFP photo

Texas Gov. Rick Perry addresses the Wingnuts’ Ball (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Washingtion, D.C., in February. Perry reportedly is testing the presidential waters.

I hate Repugnican Tea Party Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I hate Texas. I hate the Repugnican Tea Party. I hate baby boomers (most of them, anyway) and Rick Perry is one of them.

But putting my broad-spectrum hatred aside, I think that Perry has a great shot at winning the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination.

Perry is the demonic hybrid (hey, if Ann Cunter can use “demonic,” I can, too) of Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

Romney is a Richie Rich frat boy who has the support of the Repugnican Party Old Guard (or maybe that should be Old Money), because he promises to protect and to expand their fortunes, to further enrichen the already rich and to further impoverish the already impoverished.

But the “tea party” traitors aren’t so keen on Romney, in no small part because his Mormonism isn’t in step with their brand of “Christo”fascism, but for other reasons, too, such as that he was, in their eyes, the too-moderate governor of the blue state of Massachusetts. (This — the ability to win in a blue state — actually would be a strength for a Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate in actually winning a national election, but the worst of the wingnuts probably don’t see it that way.)

Bachmann, who is an abject lunatic, replete with eyes like a deer’s in headlights, is the “tea party” darling, but she doesn’t have the support of the Repugnican Party Old Guard, in no small part because unlike Romney, she doesn’t come from Old Money, but also because, let’s face it, she’s just embarrassing. (For someone who wraps herself in the flag so much, she struggles to get a single fact about American history correct. And that’s for starters.)

Perry’s biography doesn’t indicate that, like George W. Bush does, he comes from Old Money, but Perry has the gravitas of Old Money nonetheless — at least in stark contrast to Bachmann, who is Sarah Palin’s Mini-Me.

In a political pinch, like the pinch that they are in now (there is doubt that Romney can beat Barack Obama), the gravitas will do for the Repugnican Party Old Guard, methinks.

Perry also is a “tea party” darling. He has called forth the specter of Texas seceding from the Union, after all (to which I say Good fucking riddance, but that’s another blog post).

Perry has two main obstacles to the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination, that I can see: He doesn’t have Romney’s money and political and fundraising network (Romney has been running for president for years now), and there are and there will be the inevitable comparisons of Perry to the last Texas governor who became president of the United States.

But, in the end, Rick Perry is not George W. Bush.

It’s true that Perry started out as Bush’s lieutenant governor in January 1999 and became Texas’ governor when Bush went to the White House even though he had lost the presidential election to Al Gore, but Perry went on to win the Texas governorship in his own right in 2002, in 2006 and in 2010, “an unprecedented feat in Texas political history,” according to Wikipedia, which adds that Perry is “the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor and the second-longest-serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa.”

And Texas is the nation’s most populous state only after California. (It’s a distant second, however; California has more than 12 million more residents than does Texas, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.) Texas is the most powerful of the red states, as California is the most powerful of the blue states. Both behemoths have millions and millions of dollars of potential campaign contributions and millions and millions of potential votes.

And while he hasn’t been running for president like Romney has, Perry isn’t exactly a political neophyte, having been governor of the most populous red state longer than anyone else ever had before him, apparently.

And, of course, Perry is a late-middle-aged white “Christian” guy, the kind of candidate that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors prefer.

Romney matches Perry on that one, but Romney’s Mormonism and Massachusetts political roots are, I think, no match for Perry’s Texas roots (he’s a fifth-generation Texan, per Wikipedia), and while (per Wiki) Perry at least nominally is a Methodist, he caters even to the way-off-the-deep-end Pentecostals, since it’s politically beneficial. (Perry, among other things, opposes women’s right to control their own uteri, denies the fact of global warming, and of course he opposes same-sex marriage and loves the death penalty. I mean, Texas.)

Perry is, I think, for a political party that has seen the milquetoast Mitt Romney as its best hope for months now, the best of both worlds: He can get the “Christo”fascist vote without turning off Old Money.

It seems to me that if he fights for it, the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination is his.

P.S. Some perhaps-not-so-trivial Rick Perry trivia: According to Wikipedia, Perry began his political career in Texas as a Democrat and even “supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and was chairman of the Gore campaign in Texas.” In 1989, Perry switched to the Repugnican Party, according to Wiki.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Let’s let the parasitic red states go

Repugnican Texas Gov. Rick Perry is coming as close to threatening to secede from the Union that he can without actually using the “s” word.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Those red states that want to secede — let’s blue-staters let them.

The red states are nothing but a drag on the blue states anyway. Not only do the red states cause us blue-staters international embarrassment, but they’re a huge drain on us financially as well.

For all of the red staters’ bitching and moaning about having to pay taxes and how horrible welfare is, most of the solidly red states* receive more from the federal government than they contribute to the federal government.

For fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which I was able to find figures, for every $1 that Repugnican Gov. Haley Barbour’s state of Mississippi gave the federal government, it received $2.02 from the federal government in return. A 202 percent return ain’t bad! Repugnican Gov. Sarah Palin-Quayle’s Alaska? $1.84 — you betcha! Repugnican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana? $1.78. Yet all three of these Repugnican governors have balked at accepting even more money for their states from the federal government — not because their states hate to receive federal money, obviously, but apparently because it’s Democratic President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, who is offering it.  

The list goes on: In 2005 West Virginia got back $1.76 for every $1 that it contributed. North Dakota: $1.68. Alabama: $1.66. South Dakota: $1.53. Kentucky and Virginia: $1.51. Montana: $1.47. Arkansas: $1.41. Oklahoma: $1.36. South Carolina (whose Repugnican governor also has balked at accepting even more federal money for his state): $1.35. Missouri: $1.32. Tennessee: $1.27. Idaho: $1.21. Repugnican presidential wannabe John McCainosaurus’ Arizona: $1.19. Kansas: $1.12. Wyoming: $1.11. Nebraska: $1.10. Utah: $1.07. Georgia: $1.01.

All of those states went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to McCainosaurus in 2008, with the exception of Virginia, which in 2008 went to Obama, so I guess it’s purplish.

So that’s 21 states that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed to the fed.

Only a handful of solidly blue states in 2005 received more than $1 from the fed for every $1 that they contributed: Hawaii ($1.44); Maine ($1.41); Maryland ($1.30); Vermont ($1.08); and Pennsylvania ($1.07).

The purple state of New Mexico (it went to Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008), for whatever reason or reasons, got the most bang for its buck from the fed in 2005: $2.03 in return for every $1 that it contributed. Other purple states that got back more than $1 in 2005 are Virginia, as I mentioned already; Iowa (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.10); North Carolina (Bush 2004, Obama 2008; $1.08); and Indiana and Ohio (both Bush 2004, Obama 2008; and both $1.05).

The list of states that in 2005 got back less than $1 from the fed for every $1 contributed to the fed — the states that are supporting the rest of the nation — is overwhelmingly blue.

New Jerseyans get screwed, blued and tattooed the worst, with a return of only 61 cents on every $1. Next up is the purple state of Nevada (Bush 2004, Obama 2008), with only 65 cents. Then follow the solidly blue states of Connecticut (69 cents), New Hampshire (71 cents), Minnesota (72 cents), Illinois (75 cents), Delaware (77 cents), and population powerhouses California and New York (78 cents and 79 cents, respectively).

Purple Colorado (Bush 2004, Obama 2008) got only 81 cents for every $1. True-blue Massachusetts got 82 cents; Wisconsin, 86 cents; Washington state, 88 cents; Michigan, 92 cents; and Oregon, 93 cents.

The only state that went to Bush in 2004 and to McCain in 2008 that in 2005 received less than $1 from the feds for each $1 that it gave the feds was Texas, with a return of 94 cents on the dollar.

Purple state Florida (Bush 2004**, Obama 2008) in 2005 got 97 cents back for every $1.

Only the blue state of Rhode Island broke perfectly even, with $1 received for every $1 contributed.

Looking at the 2005 figures for all 50 states, which are in a table below, it’s pretty clear which states need the other states the most.

Again, of the solidly red states, Texas did the best in 2005, and it gave up only six cents of every dollar that it gave to the federal government, contrasted to blue states like California and New York, which gave up 22 cents and 21 cents, respectively.

If the red states want to secede and make Texas their fucking capital, as Texas’ governor seems to be offering, that’s fucking great by me.

Once the red states — which are fucking parasites on the blue states yet have the fucking gall to complain that they pay too much in taxes — have seceded from the union, then I, as a Californian, will actually start to see significantly more for my federal tax dollar than I do now.

Please, Texas, go — and take the rest of the red states with you. We blue-staters will miss you about as much as a dog would miss its ticks, fleas and worms. 

 

State FY 2005 Federal Spending per $1 of Federal Taxes Rank
New Mexico $2.03 1
Mississippi $2.02 2
Alaska $1.84 3
Louisiana $1.78 4
West Virginia $1.76 5
North Dakota $1.68 6
Alabama $1.66 7
South Dakota $1.53 8
Kentucky $1.51 9
Virginia $1.51 10
Montana $1.47 11
Hawaii $1.44 12
Maine $1.41 13
Arkansas $1.41 14
Oklahoma $1.36 15
South Carolina $1.35 16
Missouri $1.32 17
Maryland $1.30 18
Tennessee $1.27 19
Idaho $1.21 20
Arizona $1.19 21
Kansas $1.12 22
Wyoming $1.11 23
Iowa $1.10 24
Nebraska $1.10 25
Vermont $1.08 26
North Carolina $1.08 27
Pennsylvania $1.07 28
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05 30
Ohio $1.05 31
Georgia $1.01 32
Rhode Island $1.00 33
Florida $0.97 34
Texas $0.94 35
Oregon $0.93 36
Michigan $0.92 37
Washington $0.88 38
Wisconsin $0.86 39
Massachusetts $0.82 40
Colorado $0.81 41
New York $0.79 42
California $0.78 43
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Minnesota $0.72 46
New Hampshire $0.71 47
Connecticut $0.69 48
Nevada $0.65 49
New Jersey $0.61 50
     
Source: Tax Foundation, Census Bureau

 

*I define a “solidly red state” as a state that went to George W. Bush in 2004 and to John McCainosaurus in 2008 and a “solidly blue state” as a state that went to John Kerry in 2004 and to Barack Obama in 2008.

**Well, Al Gore actually won Florida in 2004, but the “official” results are that Bush won Florida in 2004. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized