the tindog coffeehouse

I’ll be honest, I debated for months over whom I’d vote for in the Texas gubernatorial race and even whether I’d vote at all. I knew I wouldn’t be voting for any of the Democratic candidates, so the choice came down to 10-year-incumbent Rick Perry, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, or ultra-right-wing newcomer Debra Medina.

In the end, I voted for Hutchison.

Now, if you’ve read my previous posts about Hutchison, you know I haven’t exactly gushed over her. Frankly, her campaign has been a mess, and I’m not exactly confident that could do any better job than Perry. Furthermore, for someone who has served in the Senate since 1993 (after pledging to serve only two terms), she has little to show for it other than a bunch of pork barrel spending she’s accumulated for her home state.

So why vote for her? I suppose it was a process of elimination.

Debra Medina seems like a good person, and I respect her conservative principles. But she is in no way qualified to be governor of Texas. Her only political experience has been as the Wharton County Republican chairperson. That may in fact be a bigger deal than it sounds, but it certainly doesn’t sound impressive. She might as well say she’s been the president of the PTA. My advice to her would be to run for the state legislature instead, get some real experience in Austin, prove that she can handle it, then come back and talk about bigger things.

But even with more experience, I still wouldn’t vote for her. Her ultra-conservative Ron-Paul-flavored beliefs are too extreme for me, and they expose her naïveté. For example, the foundation of her platform is the elimination of property taxes and the raising of the sales tax. That would be a complete disaster for the state economically. Just look at California. They have the highest sales tax rate and the highest income tax rate in the country, and they’re also broke. I’m not in favor of repeating that same mistake in Texas.

And then there’s Rick Perry.

Perry has been the governor of Texas since December 2001, serving longer than any other governor in the state’s history. In terms of evaluating whether to reelect him for yet another four years, that works to voters’ advantage since they can clearly see what he’s done in office and how he approaches the job. And personally, I’m not that impressed.

While Texas may be doing better economically than almost any other state in the nation, we still relied on federal stimulus money to pass a balanced budget last year. Plus we’re looking at a projected $10.8 billion shortfall in 2011. So while conditions may be not dire, they’re certainly not as rosy as Perry claims they are.

Perry has also campaigned as a champion of the Tea Party movement, speaking at tea parties, writing op-ed pieces in national publications espousing “self-governance” and limited government, and even suggesting that Texas could secede from the Union. (For the record, I don’t believe he was really suggesting or promoting secession, but it shows how his rhetoric has been groomed over the last year to play to anti-Washington conservatives.) While I myself am a conservative and also believe in limited government regulation and low taxes, I have a hard time supporting the Tea Party movement, and as such, have a hard time supporting Perry.

To be fair, though, I’ve never been a big fan of Perry’s. His arrogant, “Adios, mofo” bravado has always turned me off. In 2006 I voted for Democrat Chris Bell, a vote which was more of an anti-Perry stance, driven particularly by Perry’s fondness for toll roads and his support of the hated TAKS test in public schools. While some of those toll road plans have since been scrapped and a new end-of-course exam will soon replace the TAKS (a bill which Perry signed), my opinion of him over the last four years has not changed.

So that leaves Kay Bailey Hutchison. Granted, she has no real hope of beating Perry in the Republican primary, having consistently trailed in the polls for months. But if the vote is close enough, it may at least result in a run-off election, which is as close a victory as Hutchison can realistically hope for.

Previously:
The many ideas of Rick Perry
Why are the Internets turning on Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Race for Texas governor on …sorta
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

According to Texas governor Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison’s decision to not resign from the Senate was his idea:

“If there was ever a time to have full-time representation in the United States Senate, it would be right now,” Perry said during a visit to Emmett J. Conrad High School in Dallas. “So I really appreciate her taking my advice and staying on the job full time.”

Never mind that Hutchison has been decisively indecisive throughout the campaign and has seemed determined to hedge her bets as long as possible. I guess she just needed some helpful guidance from Governor Rick.

Also Perry’s idea?

• The Interstate Highway system (followed later by the invention of toll roads)
• Sliced bread
• Penicillin
• The Roman aqueducts
• Rocky IV
• Cherry Garcia ice cream
• Mega-strength hairspray

I’m pretty sure he also single-handedly planted thousands of acres of apples throughout the upper Midwest in the early 1800s and once had a giant blue ox named Babe.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?
Race for Texas governor on …sorta
Why are the Internets turning on Kay Bailey Hutchison?

I haven’t exactly hidden my feelings for Senator and gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison. I don’t really have anything against her, but I’m not a big fan either. Still, you’d expect that someone whose political experience dates back to 1972 and whose campaign includes Karl Rove and Karen Hughes would be a very strong challenger to incumbent to Rick Perry. So far, though, that hasn’t been the case, and the Internet hasn’t made it any easier.

The first mistake Hutchison (or “Kay” as her campaign prefers to call her) made was not being decisive about running. Four years ago, there were rumors she was considering a run for governor but backed off when it was obvious she couldn’t beat Perry. This time around, she finally pulled the trigger, but not very convincingly. In mid-July she announced that she would be announcing her candidacy at a later time. Combined with her fence-sitting about if or when she will be retiring from the Senate, this non-announcement created the impression that she wasn’t really committed to the task. And in the political world, that’s like blood in the water; sooner or later, the sharks are bound to appear.

But the mistakes didn’t end there. Even before her campaign officially started, she replaced her campaign manager, a clear sign of trouble. Then it was discovered that her website contained thousands of hidden search keywords, including the phrase “rick perry gay”. That was embarrassing enough, but then Yahoo and Google removed the site from their indexes because of the incredible number of search terms.

Then she fumbled again when it came time to actually announce her candidacy. Instead of holding the announcement in Dallas, Houston, or Austin, she opted for her hometown of La Marque (yeah, I’ve never heard of it either) in a mostly-empty venue that only drew about 60 people. Paul Burka of Texas Monthly called it an “astonishingly inept rollout”, and Matt Lewis of Townhall.com said it was “like watching a train wreck.” And then there’s this description from RedState.com’s Erick Erickson:

About the only campaign that comes close to the disaster that is Creigh Deeds’ campaign in Virginia is the craptacular spectacle of Kay Bailey Hutchison running her Texas gubernatorial primary.

The campaign has thus far been a disaster. Most recently, this morning, KBH showed up an hour late to her own kick off event.

Then, when she got there, she started bashing Rick Perry for being Governor for ten years. She said, “We need results, not politics. And that starts with term limits for Texas governor. For any governor, eight years is enough.”

The befuddling irony is that Kay Bailey Hutchison has been a United States Senator for seventeen years. Pot meet kettle.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s not a good sign when a blogger from your own party refers to your campaign as a “craptacular spectacle”.

So why all the backlash? Well, certainly Senator Hutchison, er, Kay has given political commentators plenty of material to work with, but I think it’s also a reflection of just how popular Rick Perry is at the moment. Perry is still riding the wave of anti-Washington sentiment building in the state. Conservative voters see him as someone they can rally around at tea parties, even if he hasn’t always been their knight in shining armor. (Keep in mind Perry won re-election in 2006 with only 39% of the vote). Hutchison, meanwhile, isn’t nearly as conservative as her opponent, earning her a reputation as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and a Washington insider, a reputation Perry’s camp is more than happy to perpetuate.

The end result is a weak and vulnerable candidate. And in the age of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, that’s all it takes to doom a campaign.

Previously:
Race for Texas governor officially on …sorta
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

When comparing Texas and California, this cartoon from The Economist tells you everything you need to know:

Never mind the Economist’s statement that they are the “nation’s two biggest states” (I think Alaska might have something to say about that) or that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is made up of “flat, ugly countryside” (OK, that might not be too far off). The fact remains that CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-A is old and busted, while the Lone Star State is the new hotness.

These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.

The second worry has to do with dysfunctional government. No state has quite so many overlapping systems of accountability or such a gerrymandered legislature. Ballot initiatives, the crack cocaine of democracy, have left only around a quarter of its budget within the power of its representative politicians. (One reason budget cuts are inevitable is that voters rejected tax increases in a package of ballot measures in May.) Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places). Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy. Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.

By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state—64 compared with California’s 51 and New York’s 56.

(Emphasis mine.)

The article goes on to point out Texas’ weaknesses (education, immigration) and says that we can learn a lot from the “inventive” Golden State. Sounds like the only thing they’ve “invented”, however, is big government with excessive taxation and regulation. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I’ll stick with the state where the inventions come from the private sector.

Oh, and one other thing:

Previously:
Chuck Norris for President of Texas

On Monday, Senator Kay Baily Hutchison officially announced that she will be officially announcing her intent to someday run for governor of Texas. Or something like that.

I was surprised as anyone. I thought she had been already been running for governor for months. I’m so used to her not doing anything substantive as a senator, I just figured she was taking the same approach to her gubernatorial campaign.

But running she is, and she’s already raised $6.7 million. Combined with the $6 million she had leftover from her Senate run, that puts her ahead of incumbent Rick Perry, at least financially.

And so far campaign finances are the only thing the two candidates seem to care about. Hutchison accused Perry of raising funds while the state legislature was still in session (a no-no), and Perry’s staff replied that she is a “liar, liar, pants on fire” (to paraphrase).

If this is any indication of how the rest of the primary season is going to play out, then I’m not interested. At least Carole Keeton “One Tough Grandma” Strayhorn was good for a few chuckles now and then.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

A new report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (written in part by supply-side economics guru Arthur Laffer) has concluded that instead of stimulating the economy and creating jobs, the massive increases in federal spending will actually hinder private sector job growth and could cost the state of Texas anywhere from 131,400 to 171,900 jobs.

Increasing federal spending does not stimulate the economy. Just the opposite: higher government spending crowds out the private economy, diminishing its rate of growth. The driving force of the economy is the incentive to engage in market activities. In both the long and short run, individuals and groups of individuals allocate resources according to the after-tax rate of return. If market activities are profitable, the economy will concentrate on ever-increasing market successes. When the profitability of market activities is reduced, market activity diminishes and welfare enhancing activities cease. …

The ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] is a significant increase in federal government expenditures at a time when the private sector can least afford to pay for the higher government burden. As a result, the purported “stimulus” plan passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama will actually worsen the economy’s performance.

The report estimates that nationally, the ARRA will increase government expenditures 3.3 percent while reducing real net business output by 2.5 percent.

As for Texas:

The ultimate impact from the ARRA of 2009 on Texas will depend upon how the state manages the increased federal government money. The previous section established the deleterious impact that a high or growing government expenditure wedge has on the private economy’s growth rate. Spending the money on recurring programs will necessitate Texas to increase taxes in the future in order to maintain these programs once the federal government funds run out, locking-in the higher expenditure wedge.

Maintaining the higher government expenditure wedge will reduce the annual average growth rate in the private sector by 0.32% per year. Over a 10-year period, Texas’ economy will be up to 3.22% smaller than it would have been had the extra spending been focused on one-time projects only—rejecting all funds that would ultimate lead to a permanent increase in the government spending burden. In terms of employment, this equates to the approximately 170,000 jobs that will not be created due to the additional government expenditure burden being maintained.

The conclusions of the report appear to back up Governor Perry’s insistence that federal stimulus funds be used for one-time expenses only instead of being incorporated into the budgets of ongoing programs. It also clearly echoes the supply-side arguments made famous by Dr. Laffer: namely that lower tax rates provide greater incentives for innovation and business growth, which in turn creates more private sector jobs.

Previously:
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

Texas Governor Rick Perry campaigned vigorously against the massive $787,000,000,000 “stimulus bill” signed into law Tuesday, but now that the funds have been approved, he’s more than willing to accept the state’s share of the money.

“As I have said during the debate on (the stimulus package), should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share,” Perry wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama.

Legislative leaders estimate that the stimulus bill could deliver almost $17 billion to the state budget, including billions for Medicaid, education and transportation. Lawmakers are just starting to see how the money might fit into the state budget. …

“We have begun the process today of accepting the funds,” Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said. “However, the governor only wants those funds that can be used for one-time expenditures that don’t obligate the state to ongoing costs long after the federal funding has dried up.”

Using it for one-time expenses or not, is it hypocritical for the governor to accept any of the money? After all, as he recently wrote in an op-ed piece for the Washington Times:

I am convinced that those who believe in big government have little faith in self-governance. Their philosophy says that government should do what a man can’t – or won’t – do for himself.

Perhaps I’m jaded, but I believe that the gush of taxpayer dollars issuing forth from Washington is not driven by compassion, but from an unspoken belief that Americans are not smart enough to govern their own lives, strong enough to take some risk or compassionate enough to help neighbors in need.

On the surface it certainly appears hypocritical. If you really believe that Americans are smart enough to govern their lives and strong enough to take the necessary risks to help themselves, then there should be no need for a $17 billion federal handout, right?

Of course, it’s not that simple. For Perry, who’s facing a fierce challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the governor’s office in 2010, it’s a no-win situation. If he takes the money, then he looks like a hypocrite and also gives Hutchison massive ammunition in what has already become a nasty primary season. If he rejects the money on principle, however, he risks coming up short on funds in critical areas such as transportation and education. Plus, he would most certainly be angering a large number of voters who stand to benefit from the money. (And if the 2006 election is any indication, Perry doesn’t have much political capital to spare.)

So what’s a conservative governor to do? I think the only option is to accept the money for one-time expenses as Perry is doing. Yeah, he might have some ’splainin’ to do to fend off the resulting criticism, but the cost of not accepting the money would be much more devastating.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison inches closer to officially running for Texas governor, the question becomes, when will she resign from the Senate? Paul Burka says sooner rather than later, in order to deprive Rick Perry of additional ammunition in the form of controversial Senate votes.

Between that and the fight to dislodge Tom Craddick from his role as Speaker of the House, 2009 is shaping up to be a very interesting year in Austin.

Gotta love Texas politics!