This reveals a lot:

Perry is struggling to answer a question about why a commitment to abstinence education makes sense when Texas has the third highest teenage pregnancy rate in the country. Shorter Perry — it works because I say it does. Also he has personal experience with abstinence. Right. See also Steve Benen and Paul Wildman.

In more Perry news — Bruce Bartlett called Perry an idiot. Yes, but he’s a ruthless idiot.

Update: See Ezra, “How much did illegal immigrants contribute to Texas’ economic boom?” Quite a bit, it seems.

Since I keep bumping into “Well, Obama hasn’t closed Guantanamo, so that means he didn’t want to close it,” I want to address that briefly. The short answer is that Congress passed a law in 2010 that prevents the Defense Department from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for any reason. This doesn’t leave the President with many options.

Before that —

– President Obama came into office in January 2009, and two days after his inauguration, he signs his first executive order, calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year.

– Less than five months later, Congress — controlled by Democrats — votes overwhelmingly to neutralize that executive order, and to keep Gitmo open, by choking off the funds needed to enact the executive order by building new facilities, seeking deportations, etc. The vote in the Senate was 90 to 6.

– In November 2009, the Obama administration tried another tack: they plan to move 100 remaining Gitmo detainees (not including KSM and other 9/11 direct suspects) to an all-but abandoned, state-of-the-art prison in Illinois. The rural town wanted the deal, and the jobs that would come with it. Again, the deal was blocked, and demogogued, by Congressional Republicans, and as of today, the “Gitmo North” plan seems to be dead on arrival.

And then came the 2010 law, and there’s not much else President Obama can do other than get some other country to take them or turn them all loose. This is as good a one-blog-post summary of the mess as I’ve found anywhere. It shows the White House making a sincere effort to close Guantanamo but being repeatedly blocked by Congress, in particular Democrats in Congress.

Now, one could argue that the White House could have handled Congress better — we can always argue that — but reviewing what actually happened, I have to agree with the blogger that it is grossly disingenuous to conclude that Obama didn’t want to close Guantanamo.

And if he appears to have given up for the moment, I don’t blame him. This is not a fight to pick this close to the elections. Outside of us hard-core liberals there is not much pubic support for closing Guantanamo, I suspect. This may not be a fight that any first-term president could be expected to win.

This is just plain disgusting.

“We’re approaching nearly half of the United States population that doesn’t pay any income taxes,” Mr. Perry said in Iowa, when asked about combating an “entitlement culture” in the U.S. “And I think one of the ways is to let everybody, as many people as possible…be able to be helping pay for the government that we have in this country.” In Nashua, N.H., Mr. Romney hit a similar theme: “We want to make sure people do pay their fair share.”

Broadening the tax base, simplifying the tax code and lowering tax rates have long been prescriptions for a more efficient tax system, notably from the right. The idea is likely to be a major issue as a congressional supercommittee seeks at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving.

Of the poorest 20% of American households, those earning less than $16,812 a year, 93.4% pay no income tax. But even 30% of the middle class earning between $33,542 and $59,386 are exempt. Some Republican economists say the tax policies that cause this phenomenon have gone too far, contending that people who don’t pay income taxes have an incentive to support politicians who promise more federal programs, since they aren’t paying for them. …

…About half of the households that pay no income tax do so simply because the standard deductions for tax filers and dependents are large enough to negate taxable earnings. In addition, nearly half of the remainder who were knocked off the tax rolls because of other tax measures are seniors, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The elderly who do not itemize their taxes get a larger standard deduction and most can exclude some or all of their Social Security from being counted as income. Repealing those benefits would subject 16.3 million more households to income taxation.

In other words, it’s wrong to raise taxes on the wealthy when we can squeeze money out of Grandpa.

This sorta kinda goes with the last post — the President’s requests to Congress to work with the White House on immigration reform have been ignored. So, the White House is doing some reform on its own.

The President has no power to change immigration law, but he has some room to maneuver within the implementation of the law. Instead of deporting people wholesale, the administration has set some priorities.

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety.

The new policy is expected to help thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as young children, graduated from high school and want to go on to college or serve in the armed forces.

White House and immigration officials said they would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to focus enforcement efforts on cases involving criminals and people who have flagrantly violated immigration laws.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:

“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

Many people in the country illegally will now be able to get work permits, meaning they will no longer be undocumented.

This is sensible. Naturally, righties are going ballistic.

Steve Benen writes,

The element of discretion is key here — the administration can’t change the law unilaterally, but it can choose to prioritize among cases. As of yesterday, felons and security threats will be (and stay) at the top of the list, while young people who entered the country illegally with their families as children will not face deportation.

If this latter part sounds kind of familiar, it’s because the DREAM Act is intended to help these same young people. Republicans have refused to allow the legislation to advance, and while the bill is still worthwhile, yesterday’s move from the Obama administration will directly benefit those kids who stand to benefit from the proposal.

I’ll expect the usual howlers to explain how this shows the President wants to promote the GOP agenda. Of course, I think it shows that he is trying to move some things in a more progressive direction within the limitations of the constraints that Congress imposes.