Texas governor, and freshly minted GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry will have to explain what he meant when he said “we would treat [Fed chairman Ben Bernanke] pretty ugly down in Texas” if he prints money — or, more charitably, printing more money than usual. Likewise, he’ll have to explain why he thinks printing money — or prints more money than usual — would be “almost treasonous,” at least as compared to, say, secession.
But what’s gone completely unnoticed in the wake of candidate Perry’s first big flap is his rationale for opposing a looser Fed policy in this depressed economy: specifically that it would work, boost the economy, and thus make it harder for the GOP to defeat President Obama.
“If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion.”
Emphasis added. There are plenty of people on the right, even some very influential members of the Republican party, who’ve come out against more so-called quantitative easing, because they claim it would “debase the currency” — i.e. lead to inflation. Inflation is not currently a risk at all, and in fact is lower than it was under Ronald Reagan whose support for tight money policies likely played a part in the current anti-inflation mania gripping the right. But that’s not what Perry’s saying.
Crucially, Rick Perry appears to be saying that a new round of quantitative easing “between now and the election” would improve the economy. That, he holds, would not be a good thing, but a crime. Because it would tilt the political balance in a way that harms Rick Perry’s chances of defeating the incumbent President.
Get the day’s best political analysis, news and reporting from the TPM team delivered to your inbox every day with DayBreaker. Sign up here, it takes just a few seconds.
