Rick Perry and his "Pro-Life" Decision

On February 2, 2007, Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, signed an executive order requiring all girls entering the sixth grade in Texas to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus. The only way to avoid getting your daughter vaccinated against this virus was if the parent filed a form "opting out."

The human papilloma virus is sexually transmitted and causes about 70% of all cervical cancers.

Some Texas lawmakers said vaccinating girls against the human papilloma virus would encourage girls to be sexually promiscuous.

Governor Perry had some interesting responses to his legislative detractors. He said, "Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than the hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," and "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?"

But, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation reversing Governor Perry's executive order. He did not have the votes to keep his veto from being overriden, so he allowed the legislation to become law without his signature.

From then until he announced that he was running for President of the United States, Governor Perry staunchly defended his decision to issue the executive order requiring all sixth grade girls in the State of Texas to be vaccinated for HPV.

Among other things, he said these:

On May 9, 2007, at a news conference where he was accompanied by women who had had cervical cancer, including one who contracted the HPV from her rapist, he said, "In the next year, more than a thousand women will likely be diagnosed with this insidious yet mostly preventable disease. I challenge legislators to look these women in the eye and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and grandaughters, but we didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric.'"

In January 2010, when his gubernatorial election opponent, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison raised the issue in a debate, he said, when asked if his decision to issue the executive order had been a mistake: "No, sir, not from my position. I stand proudly by my pro-life position."

When asked about it in a September 2010 interview, he said, "Let me tell you why it wasn't a bad idea. ... I knew I was going to take a political hit. ... At the end of the day, I did what was right from my perspective, and I did something that saved people's lives and, you know, that's a big deal."

He's right. It is a big deal. So, what will he do as President? Take the political hit to save people's lives?

Well, here's what he said after announcing that he was running for President when he was asked about his decision to issue the executive order: "I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do my research well enough ... ," and "That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on."

So, what happened to "I stand proudly by my pro-life position"? What happened to accusing opposing legislators of not having the political gumption to do the right thing and save women's lives when we can?

All that changed in less than a year. Now it's a "mistake."

Now, there are a few options. The first option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he really meant it and ... now ... he's caved in and he's taking a politically expedient position because he wants to be President.

Another option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he didn't mean it and he was lying.

Or, finally, he might have meant it then, and be telling the truth now: he didn't do enough research before issuing an executive order that would affect tens of thousands of girls and their families.

I have my suspicions about which option is correct, but they are only suspicions. I can't know whether I'm right or not.

Nonetheless, anyone who is deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President of the United States will have to decide if any of those options is alright with them.

Do they want a President who changes his positions based on political expediency? Or do they want a President who lies? Of do they want a President who makes decisions affecting tens of thousands of people without sufficiently researching them?

Because, if you vote for Rick Perry, you'll be voting for a man for President who does at least one of those things.

On the other hand, we can ignore global climate change and in a few years it won't really matter who is President of the United States.

So, Governor Perry Is Running for President

Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that he was running for President of the United States.

Only a few months before, he said, many times, that he was not running for President, didn't want to run for President, wasn't planning to run for President, and wasn't thinking about running for President.

Now, such statements made in some general way are pretty common. However, Governor Perry's statements were unambiguous and unequivocal. I listened carefully, trying to see if the Governor had left himself some wiggle room in case he later ran for President. There wasn't any.

I even discussed the statements with some of my friends. We all agreed that there really wasn't any wiggle room in his statements. Yet, his behavior was definitely that of someone running for some national office. The best would could come up with was that he was angling to be the Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket.

But, now he's officially running. What happened?

Governor Perry says that two things happened. First, his wife asked him to reconsider. Second, he heard the call of duty.

Maybe so. Or, maybe not. There is no way I can know. I know what I think, but I can't know.

However, there are a couple of possibilities. The first possibility is that at least once when he said he was not going to run for President, he secretly knew that he was. That makes him a liar.

The second possibility is that every time he said he was not going to run for President, he meant it and later changed his mind. That means he didn't keep his word and (not "or"), perhaps, wasn't very careful about what he said in the first place.

Those considering whether to vote for him for President may be comfortable with either one or both of those possibilities, but before casting a vote for Rick Perry to be President of the United States, the voter ought to decide if he or she is comfortable voting for a man for that position who is either a liar or does not keep his word.

Dishonoring your Debts Is Called Dishonoring for a Reason

Imagine a business owner who sits down and works out a budget for his business for the next year, but works out that budget so that he will spend more than he makes. He realizes this, and knows he will have to borrow money to pay for everything in his budget.

Now, in that budget there are different types of things. One is the wages of his employees. Another is the cost of buying the things he needs to run his business - paper, cars, steel, whatever. Another is the payments on loans he's already taken out in previous years.

Being aware of this, he makes a plan to get the money he needs to pay all of his budgeted expenses by borrowing it when the time comes that he needs the extra funds. For whatever reason, he decides this is the best way to run his business for the next year.

But, everyone knows about this budget that will need a new loan to fully fund - his employees, his suppliers, his bank. One by one, each of them comes to him and asks him about his plan to pay for his budgeted expenses for the next year.

The employees come, and they say, "Boss, it doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay us our wages under this plan. What are you planning to do about this?" And the man tells them, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so when your wages come due, I'll be able to pay them. Just keep on working. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

The suppliers come to him, and they say, "Sir, it doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay us for the goods we supply to your business under this plan. Should we keep supplying you and trust you to pay, or should we demand cash in advance?" The man looks them all in the eyes and says, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so when it comes time to pay you for the things you've furnished me for my business, I'll be able to pay you. Just keep on sending the supplies. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

His banker comes to him, and says, "It doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay your loan we made you under this plan. Should we renew that loan, or make you pay it all now, to be sure we get our money?" And he tells his banker, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so I'll be able to pay you back when my debt to you comes due. I have a plan. You will recall that I've done this every year when it was time to pay you. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

But, then, when the time comes when he doesn't have enough money to pay his employees for the work they've already done for him, or his suppliers for the goods they've already furnished him, or his bank for the money it already loaned him, he thinks, "Now that I'm right down to it, I don't think this was such a good plan. It seems to me that I should have adopted a budget for my business that was balanced, and didn't require me to borrow any more money. Yes, I should have done that a long time ago. Well, I'm just going to change my plan, and I'm not going to get that new loan that I promised I'd get, the promise I made to my employees who worked for me, to my suppliers who provided their goods to me, to my bank which loaned me money to run my business in the past. I'm just going to break that promise."

So, he doesn't get the loan. He doesn't pay his employees for the work they've done. He doesn't pay his suppliers for the things they've sold him. And he doesn't pay his bank the money he owes them. This is not because he can't pay them, because he could take out that new loan he promised them all he'd take out. This is not because he doesn't owe them all fair and square, because they all have valid claims to be paid. Honest claims. It is just because he changed his mind.

They relied on his word, and he broke it.

That's exactly what the Congress of the United States is threatening to do. Break our promises. We promised we'd pay, and they're about to break our promise. We, the People. Remember us?

I have often said that people get the government they deserve. We elected these folks who are about to dishonor our debt, about to break our promise. Unfortunately, not only will they dishonor the debt of the United States, they will dishonor the United States of America. They will dishonor themselves. And they will dishonor us.

But, maybe we deserve it.

Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, the dishonoring of the United States is going to be a tiny thing in the course of human affairs, which are likely to have a very short future anyway.

Sad for Mitch McConnell

Yesterday I wrote an article praising Senator Mitch McConnell for a tremendous compromise idea he came up with regarding raising the United States' debt ceiling. He deserves praise for finding a way out of the dead end that the President and Congress were in.

Today, I hear that he is "selling" the idea to his fellow Republicans as something they need to do to keep President Obama from being re-elected, rather than as something they need to do in the best interests of the American people and the world.

How sad.

Praise for Mitch McConnell

Yesterday, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did something responsible, and he deserves a great deal of praise for doing it.

He proposed a compromise in the negotiations for raising the United States' debt ceiling that will work.

As I understand it, the Congress would pass legislation that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative, without the approval of Congress. He would have to do it in steps, and there are details to those steps, but they really aren't relevant to the core of the idea proposed by Senator McConnell.

However, to raise the debt ceiling at any of the steps, the President would have to notify Congress of his intention to do so and propose specific budget cuts equal to the amount by which the debt ceiling would be raised. The Congress would then have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" to take away the President's authority to increase the debt ceiling at that step. However, the President could veto the Congress' resolution, and unless the Congress could get two-thirds of each house to override the President's veto, the President could raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative.

Later, at the time the Congress approves the budget, they could enact the President's proposed budget cuts, or some of them, or none of them, or different ones.

It is an elegant and statesmanlike compromise.

If the President thinks the debt ceiling should be raised, he can do it, no strings attached, as it ought to be, but he takes full responsibility for doing it and he has to put our money where his mouth is and propose budget cuts in an equal amount.

If the Congress thinks the debt ceiling should not be raised, they can vote against it, but they can't stop it unless they can get two out of every three of their colleagues to vote with them.

Later, the Congress can debate spending when spending out to be debated - when the budget is adopted. If they think we shouldn't be borrowing so much money, they can vote to stop spending so much money.

And, if the Congress takes the budget cuts the President proposed when he raised the debt ceiling, he can't complain, because they were the budget cuts he proposed. If they don't - either because they made different budget cuts or weren't willing to cut as much as he proposed - they have only themselves to blame. And, by the way, the voters also have them to blame, if they want to blame someone.

No one can really keep the other from doing what they think is right, and voters can judge each elected official by what they do, not by what they were strong-armed into doing by the other side.

If there are enough adults in the room, it should work. If there are enough adults in the room.

Of course, if we don't do something to control global climate change, and soon, the debt ceiling crisis will look like a game of Trivial Pursuit, no matter how it comes out. None of this will really matter.

Now the Democrats

A few weeks ago, I criticized the Republicans in Congress for predicating a vote to increase the United States' debt limit on an agreement to cut spending. I said then and I say now, even the prospect of defaulting on our debt is too grave to play games with.

Now, the Democrats have said they won't vote to increase the debt limit unless the Republicans agree to increase taxes (or decrease tax spending or enhance revenue or whatever it's called these days). That's just as bad!

Someone needs to step up to the plate and say, "We can't play this game. We all need to vote for a clean, straight up increase in the debt ceiling without any deals or restrictions. This is too important. Important to our nation, important to its people, and important to the world."

Are there really no patriots left?

Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, none of it will matter anyway. It may already be too late.

Shame!

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated a bill to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Failure to raise the debt ceiling will mean that the United States will default on its debt. That would be devastating for not only the U.S. economy, but the world's economy. Even the potential that the United States might default on its debt can injure the United States financially in major ways. The United States never defaults on its debt. That's why United States Treasury Bills are the safest investment in the world.

While there were both Republicans and Democrats voting against the bill, the Republicans went on record saying that the defeat of the bill was intended to send a message to President Obama that the Republicans in the House will not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama and the Democrats agree to significant cuts in the current federal budget.

Unfortunately, that also sends the same message to every investor in the world - all those who purchase the debt of the United States government. If nothing else, that raises the cost of borrowing money for the United States, which runs up the deficit even higher, which isn't good. It is supposedly the thing the Republicans are most concerned about, but obviously they aren't.

In any event, the Republicans are playing chicken with the world economy. They know better.

The U.S. Congress should pass a clean bill raising the federal debt ceiling, so all the world will know that we won't, under any circumstances, default on our debt. Then they can argue about how much to cut the budget.

Even if the Republicans and Democrats can't agree on how much to cut the federal budget, or whether to cut it at all, the world needs to know, beyond any doubt, that we won't default on our debt. If you buy a U.S. government security, you're going to get paid. No matter what.

The phrase "as sound as a dollar" didn't become trite for no reason and it is crucial that it remain true.

Shame on the U.S. House of Representatives for risking the well-being of everyone in the world! Because that's what they're doing. Shame on them!