Jimmy Carter is Rick Perry’s biggest fan…[Reader Post]


If Barack Obama were prone to conspiracy theories, he might think the last couple of weeks were part of a plot orchestrated by Jimmy Carter to salvage his own legacy.

First off the Democrats get the GOP to acquiesce to a debt ceiling bill that will result in the federal government raising taxes and increasing spending by over $7 trillion over the next decade. The immediate result is United States government debt being downgraded for the first time in history, something Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stated unequivocally would not happen only the week before.

Soon thereafter the Fed looked into their crystal ball and decided that economic prospects were so bad that they had to take the unprecedented step of publicly stating that they would be leaving interest rates near zero until mid 2013. It seems as if Keynesians never see – nay recognize – failure, they simply see another opportunity to try and do the same thing over again, only each time a bit bigger.

Up on Wall Street things weren’t going any better. The Dow dropped 600 points the day after the downgrade and it has spent the subsequent two weeks on a daily triple digit roller coaster. All together the market is down almost 10 percent since the beginning of the month.

Those things are tough, but they don’t really add up to much of a conspiracy. Hey, the unemployment rate went down… from 9.2% to 9.1%, that can’t be a bad thing. Unless of course that decline is the result of more people simply throwing in the towel and giving up looking for a job at all. Add to that the decline in productivity and the increase in labor costs and things start to look rather bleak. All this while Obama’s approval ratings slipped to the lowest levels of his presidency.

Across the pond, as if to add gasoline to the proverbial fire, the socialist Mecca of Europe is crumbling from within. In the UK you have waves of chaos and riots perpetrated by youth who’ve spent their lives suckling at the public teat. The little rascals are ostensibly rioting against the police and government budget cuts, but seem to take particular joy in burning businesses and stealing jewelry and electronics. In Greece strikes and protests continue unabated while in Italy Silvio Berlusconi is fighting to keep his country solvent. It’s so bad over there that George Soros is recommending that Greece and Portugal pull out of both the EU and the Euro.

While it’s unlikely that Carter had a hand in any of this, the fact that the Consumer Confidence index is at its lowest level since he was President must give him some hope.

As if an economy on life support was not bad enough, on Saturday Rick Perry finally made it official and announced he was running for the GOP nomination to succeed Barack Obama.

If Perry gets the nomination it will set up a match Vince McMahon could only dream of. For the first time since Jimmy Carter occupied the White House, Americans will have a crystal clear choice between two philosophies that are diametrically opposed to one another.

In one corner you have Barack Obama who is leading the progressive charge that seeks to turn the United States into the train wreck that is Western Europe. In the other corner you have Rick Perry, an avowed 10th Amendment fan, a fierce advocate of small government and an unabashed believer in American Exceptionalism.

Rarely is it the case that voters have such a clear choice between philosophies of government. One need look no farther than the housing market to understand the consequences of the choice to be made. (Pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell’s The Housing Boom and Bust for a full telling of the tale.) California, one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country – not coincidentally the most regulated state in the Union – has seen massive bloodletting in the housing market as a result of the burst of the real estate bubble. Tellingly, despite the massive declines the state is still one of the most expensive places to live in the country. Texas on the other hand – largely due to its dearth of regulation – never experienced a bubble and its real estate has continued to appreciate throughout the recession. At the same time while California has an unemployment rate sits near 12% Texas’s is at 8.2%. And of course the state’s economic growth rate is almost double California’s and it has no income tax while California’s is amongst the highest in the country.

Barack Obama of course is not the Governor of California, he is the President of the United States. California is however the embodiment of everything Barack Obama holds dear, overarching regulation, high taxes, enormous social spending, an illegal alien and union paradise all under the watchful eye of an unassailable green lobby. Given his druthers Obama would indeed turn the United States into California.

At the end of the day, the progressive vs. freedom comparison that Rick Perry offers does not bode well for Barack Obama. No candidate provides a starker contrast of philosophy, and more importantly, actual results, than does Perry. (During the decade he’s been governor Texas has produced more jobs than the other 49 states… combined.) Of course he still needs to secure the nomination, but don’t be surprised if FEC documents show a large donation to the campaign chest from an anonymous donor down in Plains, Georgia.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hi Beez (#48): I’m not shoving anything down anyone’s throat, anymore than the other people who disagree with me are shoving anything down my throat. I discuss and debate. I don’t taunt. I don’t name call. I don’t question anyone’s character or personality. I’ve never accused anyone of “lying.” I occasionally use just a touch of satire or sarcasm, but less than most, and I didn’t do any of that on this particular thread.

What, precisely, are you suggesting? Maybe you can help me by giving me an example of something I specifically said to Retire05 that crossed some sort of line. If I crossed a line, I’ll apologize and try not to let it happen again.

– Larry W/HB

Hi Nan (#50): The chart you show is incorrect. The blogger failed to use seasonally adjusted data. This very thing was discussed in comment #27:

Political Math had some interesting numbers yesterday, that contradict yours. Care to comment?

Link here:

Rick Perry And Texas Job Numbers

Jared Bernstein says:
August 17, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Yep–s/he messed up. The 70K number comes from seasonally unadjusted data–you can’t compare Dec07 to Jun11 using NSA (not seasonally adjusted data). If s/he used the correct (seasonally adjusted) data, they would have gotten 112K.

Since we are dealing with handy charts, look again at this one, comparing and contrasting Texas with California:


The data for these graphs came straight from easy to read National Labor Relations Board tables, which are referenced on the author’s blog site:

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/page/2/ (scroll down to the 2nd from the top August 17 blog post).

The reason for Texas losing state jobs most recently is because they are running out of Federal stimulus money. It will be interesting to refresh our respective graphs, come August of 2012.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Still hoped I would get an answer to #35…

Well here is another question:

Why do you insist on ignoring China’s communistic actions? Merely because they allow a small degree of capitalism does not mean they are no longer a Communist country. There is a HUGE difference between allowing a small decree of capitalism and having totally free market principals rule the day.

Hi Antics (#53): My understanding is that about 1/3 of the total economic activity (GDP) is from government owned and operated enterprises, and that these are mainly infrastructure (power, railroads, etc.) and defense industries. The remainder is capitalist. And the “remainder” is rapidly growing. I’ve also read that China modeled its remodernized economy on that of Tawain’s “authoritarian capitalist” economy (presumably on seeing how well this worked for Taiwan).

I think that we are sort of arguing about angels dancing on pin heads, at this point, but I’d claim that it would be most accurate to describe present day China as being an “authoritarian capitalist” regime. This would certainly be more accurate than to describe China as being an “authoritarian communist” regime, as it truly was under Chairman Mao.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Here is another perspective on Texas job growth. Obviously this one is from a conservative blog but Bernstein was the point man for the Stimulus Program so his views are going to be skewed too.


@another vet:

Bernstein also used annual averages to compare the individual years rather than a true comparison of Jan 2007 to Dec 2010.

@Aye: Perhaps a little CYA or a diversion given the “success” of the Stimulus in keeping the unemployment rate below 8%?


So he fudged the numbers? I am so shocked! (massive, dripping, sarcasm)
I’m starting to think an HONEST comparison or analysis of their actions and beliefs would actually kill a liberal.

Hi AnotherVet; Hi Aye (55-58): Again, the point is that Texas added mostly government jobs (again, nearly half of all the government jobs added in the entire USA).

With regard to Aye’s point (#56), Bernstein discusses this (e.g. see #52). There is a strong seasonal component to job growth. For example, in December, both retailers and the postal service (and other delivery businesses) add workers. You can’t, therefore, compare January 2007 with December 2010 and come up with meaningful numbers — you’ll inflate the ostensible growth. You can’t even compare December 2006 with December 2010, because that’s merely reflective of differing strengths of retail sales in given years (and the like). Because of the strong seasonable variability in jobs, the only reliable way to compare employment trends over time is either to do seasonal adjustments (which introduces a fudge factor), or, more reliably, to just take the whole year’s data.

With regard to the “gotcha” over the lack of the stimulus having kept unemployment below 8%, it should be noted that it was already well above 8% by the time the first dime of stimulus money was spent.

As noted, Texas is already starting to lose the government jobs it conserved with its share of the stimulus funds. It will be interesting to revisit the state by state employment statistics at this time next year, around the time of the political conventions.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: There is a strong seasonal component to job growth. For example, in December, both retailers and the postal service (and other delivery businesses) add workers. You can’t, therefore, compare January 2007 with December 2010 and come up with meaningful numbers — you’ll inflate the ostensible growth. You can’t even compare December 2006 with December 2010, because that’s merely reflective of differing strengths of retail sales in given years (and the like). Because of the strong seasonable variability in jobs, the only reliable way to compare employment trends over time is either to do seasonal adjustments (which introduces a fudge factor), or, more reliably, to just take the whole year’s data.

Hey… not sticking around this post, mind you… but caught this when reading thru some comments. Of course, the proverbial goose/gander bit came to mind instantly.

So, Larry… if the job stats that Perry is attempting to claim is quite bogus in your mind due to the various and sundry points above – seasonal, economic strength in recent years etal – can we then expect to hear you admit that Obama’s repeated claims of “jobs created or saved” is even more vague and bogus?

Not expecting to hear that, so I’ll just bid adieu and ta tah for now. But I would suggest that someone archive this masterful spin about how these numbers mean BS when applied to Perry, but not to your POTUS and his spin. I leave that parting thought for you to ponder for awhile….

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: As for the jobless rate if that was the case they should have retracted the statement but they continued to say the bill had to be passed to prevent that. My question is, at first team Obama came out and said that the jobs created in Texas were low paying. Then after it came out that it wasn’t the case when adjusted for cost of living, they came out and said the Stimulus created the jobs. It seems like they either can’t keep their story straight. I realize that the economy/jobs are probably going to be the number one issue in 2012 and given that POTUS’s approval on the economy is a dismal 26% that there is probably some major panic going on here, but they need to get their story straight before criticizing.

BTW, have a chance to check out Ellis’s book?

Hi AnotherVet (#60). If you are saying that the Obama administration is inept when it comes to communication, I couldn’t agree more. I happen to more or less agree with their overall economic policy, in retrospect, but they’d have been far better off hiring Ross Perot as a consultant and front man and have him get out his easel and graphs and present a coherent and consistent story than having a half dozen administration hacks out there, with Confuser-In-Chief ignoring the important points, but touching each and every less relevant base, in an unsuccessful attempt to sound wise, reasonable, and conciliatory, before resorting to acting downright pouty.

Obama’s main deficiency as President is that he’s not really a leader. He’s trying to run the country the way he ran the Harvard Law Review.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Hi Mata (#62): We weren’t discussing “stimulus jobs created or saved,” we were talking job growth in Texas. Since you ask, I can’t currently comment on the former, as I haven’t taken the time to try and read what various economists may say about this or what their specific arguments are and whether or not the data appear to support their arguments. To date, I’ve just head the remarks of various and sundry talking economic heads, generally claiming that things would have been worse without the “stimulus” (a third of which was GOP-suggested tax cuts, by the way).

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but, were you to claim that the stimulus didn’t create private sector jobs, you’d be arguing that tax cuts don’t create jobs, which I’m sure you wouldn’t claim.

Anyway, I don’t disagree with the general thrust of your comment. Economics is inherently fuzzy math, and there’s so much data out there that it’s possible to propose all manner of theories as to what the data really show and what are the factors which produced the data, with regard to governance and human motivation.

I was basically just trying to make the same point. Rick Perry is being lauded for riding herd over an economic “miracle,” based on certain data. I’m simply illustrating how these data may be interpreted in a different way.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Hi Aqua (#38): Getting back to the State of the California State issue:

I read the Orange County Register article you link, back when it originally ran (I’m a home delivery subscriber; I seldom read the actual paper anymore; save for occasionally checking out the local section or reading about high school sports in the sports section. I maintain my subscription to support the paper, which does a terrific job with local investigative journalism. If newspapers die, local investigative journalism will die along with them. Everyone who can afford it should subscribe to their local paper — just a pitch).

Anyway, the writer of the article runs a business which is based around getting businesses to move out of California and relocate to other states. He’s not exactly an unbiased writer.

You’ve got to start with the fact that the cost of real estate in coastal California (where most people want to live and work) is multiples higher than in other areas of the country. This drives cost of living and drives business costs.

Why do American companies outsource to India and China? To escape regulation?




To escape taxation on manufactured goods and/or services?

http://www.chinaunique.com/business/taxes.htm (n.b. payroll taxes in China are 50%!).

Or do they outsource because of dramatically lower labor costs?

If houses cost 3 to 4 times in California than they cost in Texas and California rents are correspondingly higher, this will dramatically impact on the availability of labor (from middle managers on down to data entry clerks) and on the compensation which must be provided to labor.

So why do some American companies seek to relocate to Texas? For the same reason that American companies relocate to China and India.

Now, let’s address the issue of why California land is so darn expensive. I may not be Sowell, but I’ve lived in California for the past 32 years and he hasn’t.

I live and work in Orange County. My city (Huntington Beach) has 190,000 people, living in 26.5 square miles of land, enclosed within is 5 square miles of water (excluding 8.5 miles of Pacific Ocean beachfront).

Here’s the political make up (from Wikipedia):

45.8% are registered Republicans, 28.5% are registered Democrats, 20.7% are decline to state, and the balance are registered with third parties.[24] Like much of Orange County, Huntington Beach politics are dominated by Republicans.

Now, you’d think that we’d have development friendly and business friendly city policies — right? Well, when I moved here, we had 1,500 acres of prime, undeveloped real estate, surrounding an estuary right on Pacific Coast Highway. There were plans to turn this into another Newport Beach, with marinas, hotels, and 5,000 residential units, as well as stores, restaurants, etc.

Who fought this, tooth and nail (ultimately successfully) over a period of three decades? Sierra Club environmentalists (yes, but they added virtually nothing of real impact)? Whacko Democrat environmentalists and green belt advocates (yes, but they were only moderately instrumental)? Who did the real heavy lifting? Republican NIMBYs.

Since I’ve lived in Huntington Beach, the City Council has been “ruled” exclusively by Republicans, the majority of whom have been anti-growth. This is a microcosm of California in general. We’d rather keep what we have than add more people. Ask most Californians and they’ll tell you that we have too many people and that we really don’t want any more. This goes for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and US native born citizens from Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, or Minnesota. While the rest of the country is telling us how bad we have it, most of us are laughing on the way to the beach, figuratively speaking.

California is the way it is because that’s the way that the people who live here want it to be. What most drives cost of living and cost of doing business is cost of land and not cost of regulation or cost of taxation (which is only trivially higher than it is in the USA in general and Texas in particular). And land is so expensive because (1) we have 50% more people than Texas has, (2) the parts of the state where the people want to live are pretty much filled up, and (3) there is absolutely no enthusiasm among the state’s residents (Republican or Democrat) for getting rid of our remaining open coastal space for the sake of allowing even more people to live here.

It’s NIMBYism, not politics.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

On January 10, 2009 the Berstein/Romer report that substantiated Obama’s request for the Stimulus bill. It states:

“First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business peak in December, 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. We are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package (the Stimulus bill), the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is projected to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the appromixately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.”

There is a chart included with this report, and following this paragraph, that shows the unemployment rate at under 7.8% at the end of 2008Q4, the report designed to show that the Stimulus Bill would maintain unemployment below 8% falling to 7.% by 2010Q4. The chart also shows that without the Stimulus, the unemployment rate would rise to 8% by the end of the fourth quarter of 2009, remaining at the 8% rate until the end of the third quarter of 2010 then to constantly fall to 5% by the first quarter of 2014. The report also shows that the unemployment rate would have still fallen to that 5% by Q12014 WITHOUT the Stimulus bill.

But none of what was promised happened. The unemployment rate continued to increase, although ABC reported by March, 2009, that Stimulus money was flowing into the economy. In March, 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.6% and continued to climb to a high of 10.1% by October, 2009. Currently, the unemployment rate is 9.1% while the Bernstein/Romer chart predicted it would be at appromimately 6.75% by the end of June, 2011.

According to bzjournals.com, an article published in May, 2011, Texas had 7,946,200 private sector jobs in April, 2001. By April, 2010, Texas had increased that figure to 8,427,300 private sector jobs ( for a 10 year raw change of 732,000 jobs) and one year later, April, 2011, the total private sector jobs in Texas had increased to 8,679,00, for a private sector job increase of 251,700 only followed by Arizona’s job in over the same ten/one year period of 90,200/18,200 jobs.

Now, it seem that Larry doesn’t think that Texas, who has seen a 5,000,000 increase in population in the last ten years, and a steady 5,000 additional increase in population each and every month since the census was taken, should not be adding public sector jobs like teachers (public sector), increased police/fire departments (public sector), increase in municipal workers (public sector) to handle services for new subdivisions that are being build to provide homes for the increase in population or to staff the new schools that are being built to service an increase in population.

Now, let’s take a look at Larry’s beloved, and wonderful, California:

April, 2001 – 12,242,400 private sector jobs
April, 2011 – 11,618,700 private sector jobs
Total job LOSS – 623,700

But hey, don’t blame those job losses on high taxes, radical land use restrictions, or any of the other things that California bureaucrats have done to basically try to kill their state.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Now that you mention it, I wonder what old Ross has been up to these days. He kind of fell off the face of the earth. He did get my vote in ’92.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I don’t care if China’s economy thrives on capitalism or statism, but the fact remains that for you to claim that China is not a Communist country is quite disingenuous on your part.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said to Mata:

…were you to claim that the stimulus didn’t create private sector jobs, you’d be arguing that tax cuts don’t create jobs, which I’m sure you wouldn’t claim.

Larry all tax cuts don’t create jobs, certain ones definitely do.

Reagan stimulated the economy like gang busters with his brand of tax reform, which included tax cuts and some increases.

Clinton raised income taxes, but cut capital gains taxes and he saw an improved economy; not to the degree that Reagan did, but none the less it did improve.

@anticsrocks, dang… Larry replied? Why yes he did. Guess I’m back here only for this. And this should make Larry grin….

Mr. Larry, as to @your comment #63, I’m not in total disagreement. I do think that Perry is capitalizing on jobs/events/haps out of his control and creation. My point was, Obama is doing the same.

Again, my “exit” thought for you to ponder is, why will you let Obama get away with this fuzzy math, and not Perry? Your disdain for such tactics should be equal.

@MataHarley: You said:

Your disdain for such tactics should be equal.

That’s my Mata – ever the optimist!

Most nations recognize “Citizenship by Descent”: Citizenship of a nation is passed on to a child
based upon at least one of the parents being a citizen of that nation, regardless of the child’s actual country of birth. The term for this is “jus sanguinis.” If both parents are from the same nation when their child is born abroad, that child is also a citizen of the home nation. In other words, a child born abroad by visiting (legally or illegally) foreign nationals, are recognized by most nations as being of the parent(s) home nation. This is also the case for children born ‘in transit’ beyond all national borders (i.e at sea or on board an aircraft).

The Constitution mention’s neither jus sanguinis or jus soli, only “natural citizenship.” Nor does the Constitution address dual citizenship. Some nations do not accept jus soli or dual citizenship, some do. There is no reason why Congress can not pass legislation to specify which shall be accepted, or requiring those with “dual citizenship” to select one specific nation as their official nation of birth. When in the military or political office, a person takes a vow pledging allegiance to America. IMO, at that time they should lose their “dual citizenship” status, otherwise, their “oath” is being made falsely.

MATA, hi,
some will call the COWBOYS as a insult, to diminish them,
I just read a script at FOX NEWS made by PATRICK DORINSON SAYING;
give me COWBOY VALUES anytime over WASHINGTON,
AND the one who said it with a negative intent was directed at RICK PERRY,


Can you provide me with a link to the Fox News script?

RETIRE05, HI, I click on FOX NEWS, AND
I’m having computer problems, I cannot fix now,
and I dunno how to send link either,
but it’s there at FOX NEWS, SOMWHERE


Thanks, found it.

I was going there to see if I could locate it again for you,