The moment Rick Perry (note: Not Parry with the A for IowA) entered his name in the hat for the presidential candidacy, he was immediately hailed as the darling on the right. With staunch conservative credentials and a cross on his sleeve, he was considered by many to be a fresh option in a field that has been battered by countless speech gaffs. Not waiting long to get bloodied, Perry's views have come to light and the more Americans hear the facts, the more Michelle Bachmann seems like a reasonable candidate.
For starters, Perry wants to make a few revisions to the Constitution: for someone who lauds the founding father and original intent in arguing for small government, he's quite unhappy with the constitution and effectively wants to redraw everything he finds to get in the way of his libertarian utopia. This is even better than most as he had a book come out last year co-written with not quite back from the dead politician Newt Gingrich to detail how he would take a sharpie to the constitution and remake it into a religiously libertarian utopia.
Of the most noteworthy changes would be a complete revamp of the Judicial Branch of government. In addition to ending lifelong appointment as designated in Article III, section I, he would like to permit for a super-majority (2/3rds vote) of Congress to override any decision made by the court. In fearing judicial activism, Perry and much of the Tea Party forget the reasoning for the founding fathers to establish the Court in such a manner. The reasoning, not entirely unsound, is that the role of a judge involves the interpretation and study of law in a highly controversial context. In allowing for the lifelong appointment of judges, the founding fathers sought to keep judges out of the political arena and remain capable of addressing concerns of law as scholars without the fear of repercussions. In the event of a greatly unpopular decision, Congress has always had the ability to draft an amendment to be passed by 2/3rds of Congress in addition to ratification by 3/4 of the states, rendering his argument of dealing with court actions moot. Perry's move would break that balance and hand more power to the arguably most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The federal court system would become the target of political posturing and based on the current climate turn into something dreadful.
The other change of great consequence being proposed is to abolish the 16th amendment to the constitution, best known as the income tax amendment. While this amendment was passed in 1913, it should be said that the concerns that an income tax would become necessary to deal with various national functions had been tossed around since the Civil War. Keeping in mind that in the early days of our country, states remained largely autonomous and our general stance toward isolationism limited the role of the federal government up until that point. Unfortunately with issues such as wars, the costs and complications necessitate a more centralized point of operations to perform with efficiency. From the Civil War onward we did a whole lot of fighting as well considering we were involved in the Spanish-American War, The rebellions in Philippines, Samoa and Hawaii as well as even having a presence in the Boxer's Rebellion over in China. These actions along with greater interaction in global affairs as a whole created a need for a federal pool of revenue and thus the income tax was ratified as an amendment.
Perry calls the income tax as the 'road to serfdom' with little regards to the vast improvement in the quality of life for most Americans, in part because of the taxes we all paid. The interstate highway system would have never developed with the speed and quality that it had without federal funds that ensured that cities and states would be interconnected even in areas in which building a road would not be economically feasible in the private sector. While originally intended for the movement of military equipment and personnel, it was a move that revolutionized entire regions of the country. Social spending allowed for small and/or poor communities, those that traditionally had limited access to education to have better footing. A university education became more accessible and the investment in those people proved advantageous in the rapid development of a skilled populace. And that goes without saying when you speak of the New Deal and Social Security....
Oh, he wants to get rid of that one too.
He calls Social Security a ponzi scheme and a failed social experiment. While there is a problem with the post war baby boom and subsequent baby bust from about 1965-1985, Perry uses words to portray it as a fraudulent program and wasteful. Yes, what a socialist scam to take care of your elderly in a manner that allows them to retire instead of working every day until death came as was the norm for most working class families prior to the program's establishment. Never does Perry address what he would do as an alternative for those senior citizens, many of whom live in poverty despite their meager checks. I know I am not alone in this rationale as polls consistently show the vast majority of the population (often around 80%) view Social Security as having a positive effect. Is reform needed to preserve this program for future generations? Certainly, but to say that we should eliminate the program and presumably leave the elderly to the whims of an unforgiving private market is appalling and unforgivable.
Okay, so it is socialist... does it really have to be such a negative thing when everyone benefits?
But he does remember to make mention of brushing up his religious credentials to state his wish to push through a marriage amendment to restrict who willing adults wed. He must be missing a copy of his New Testament, you know the books in which Jesus spent his life acting to the benefit of others, most notably the needy. I'm not Christian by faith, but I'm quite a fan of those who follow in his example. It's one of those lessons that should have universal appeal regardless if you think the guy is the son of God or not.
There's several others he depicts in the book he put out with Newt Gingrich (the moral god-fearing man who has left more than one wife under dubious conditions). The balanced budget amendment has already been deliberated a few days back. The repeal of the direct election of Senators is one that I find problematic, but not one that would irreparably alter the nation.
Of course, typical politician he is, has been trying to backtrack his stance on some of the things he wrote in his book. The Social Security issue has been a particular thorn in his side considering he needs to count on those senior citizen votes to win a number of states including electorate heavy Florida and Ohio. If the Pew poll is correct in that 87% of Americans consider the program to have a positive effect1 and 60%2 of Americans consider keeping benefits intact as a priority (32% said the deficit was more important), he's got a big foot to remove from his mouth. Of course, rather than being honest about his beliefs like Ron Paul (you know where he stands if nothing else), he has taken the road most traveled and use his spokesman to say how he merely wanted to put issues on the table (despite stating an outright issue with the ideology of Social Security). He's waffled on states rights concerning gay marriage in how he does not care what states such as New York decide upon while signing a document stating he would press the amendment if elected to the Presidency. It's this kind of sleezy, snake oil campaigning that galls me the most.
Listen, if you want to crumple up the constitution and begin anew, then say so. Better yet, if your state wants to be the guinea pigs for this experiment of a pure libertarian, state focused government, I'll be glad to see what Texas does. Just keep in mind it would mean no federal dollars, no asking for assistance in the event of a national disaster, and no backpedaling from explaining to countless constituents how their way of life is going to change drastically. If it works there, I'd be willing to bite. Until then, I'm calling a lot of this hot hair and showboating to show how much more conservative than thou Perry is from Bachmann or even Paul.
But don't toy with desecrating a document that was well thought out enough that it only needed 27 amendments in its time (one of which was to nullify another) and influenced the documents of many other modern democracies with petty politicking.
Link: Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's Book, "Fed Up"
Link: Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
Link: Pew Poll States 60% of Americans want Social Security Benefits Maintained
No comments:
Post a Comment