Bloggers can sign up for the Perry.org Blogger Action Center and get widgets for their blog here.
I like my button, seen at the right, but these are pretty! There are several State-specific widgets and these more general buttons:
I could be writing funny jokes about President Obama missing the bus under which he intends to throw America.
Instead, I got side tracked by a tweet claiming that Governor Perry is not honest.
“A Time for Choosing” is a pro-Sarah Palin blog that published an August 29, 2011 post titled, “Perry Campaign: Everything in “Fed Up!” Was Meaningless BS,”
Needless to say, no Perry staffer said such a thing. Instead, the author takes a mish mash of articles from the Los Angeles Times, the Hill, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal and builds himself a strawman.
He claims the Governor lies because he repeatedly told us he had no desire to run for President, ignoring the fact that the Governor told us that conversations with his wife in June of this year led him to have a change of heart.
As for the rest of the piece, A Time for Choosing’s author, who claims to have read the Governor’s book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, echoes the claims that the Perry campaign is denying the book has any relevance, and that the Governor is “walking back” or has “tempered” his stand on the strong views expressed in it.
Perry told a Wall Street Journal reporter to read the book when the reporter repeatedly insisted that Perry
“. . . suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”
However bad it is for SS to be “at the expense of respect for the Constitution,” nowhere in the book does it say that Social Security violates the Constitution.The reporter suggests that the Governor “suggests.”
The author quotes the Hill referring to the Washington Post’s comments on an email from Perry staffer, Mark Miner:
The 16th Amendment instituting a federal income tax starting at one percent has exploded into onerous, complex and confusing tax rates and rules for American workers over the last century. The need for job creation in the wake of the explosion of federal debt and costly entitlement programs, mean the best course of action in the near future is a simpler, flatter and broader tax system that unleashes production, creates jobs, and creates more taxpayers. We can’t undo more than 70 years of progressive taxation and worsening debt obligations overnight.
Here’s what the book actually proposes:
“Second, we should restrict the unlimited source of revenue that the federal government has used to grow beyond its constitutionally prescribed powers. One option would be to totally scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax, and thereby make taxation much simpler, easier to follow, and harder to manipulate. Another option would be to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (providing the power for the income tax) altogether, and then pursue an alternative model of taxation such as a national sales tax or the Fair Tax. The time has come to stop talking about fixing the broken and burdensome tax code and to take bold action to replace it with one that is not a burden for the taxpayer and that provides only the modest revenue needed to perform the basic constitutional functions of the federal government. America needs a fairer, flatter, and simpler system, one which working families can complete without having to hire a bevy of professionals to assist them.” Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington (pp. 182-183). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle PC Edition. (accessed 8/29/11)
I want to believe that the bloggers’ problem is using interpretations/spins from several reporters, on a book they evidently either didn’t read or didn’t understand to build your premise on. If that is the case, though, why would he a headline that appears to be a quote from a staff member when it’s an obvious, biased interpretation by the blogger?