So, it appears that another failure of a Texas governor -- you wanna talk about how your state has the highest percentage of people making the minimum wage and the highest percentage of people without health insurance, Rick -- called Ben Bernanke's discussion of more quantitative easing "treason."

First, Perry needs to get a clue.  Treason, as defined in the Constitution, requires the person accused of it to levy war against the country or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.  Doing something to help stimulate the economy hardly constitutes waging  war against the United States.  An economic policy that doesn't work as well as you want isn't waging war against the United States.

Second, we need to look at what Perry and the teabaggers that support him want.  They were instrumental in trying to push through a bill that would have required a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution and would have required the government to slash spending by 40 percent.

Where did we get that 40 percent?  Well, the government only takes in about 60 percent of what it spends.  Government spending is 25 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are coming in at around 15 percent.

The relationship between government spending and GDP is complex.  It's not a one to one ratio.  Moody's Economy.com said there was a multiplier effect of about 1.5 to one.  That means for every dollar of government spending, there's $1.50 returned to the economy as a whole.  Others have disputed that argument, and say that government spending is ineffective.

Let's assume that Moody's is wrong by a factor of two, and that the government only gets $0.75 back from every dollar they spend.

Assuming this, then by doing what teabaggers want would shave 7.5 percentage points off GDP.  That's $0.75 times the ten percent of GDP which we'd have to cut government spending.

In an economy that's growing at around two percent, that would mean we'd end up with an economy that contracts by around 5.5 percent.  And that's assuming Moody's is off by a factor of two.  If we just assume there's a one to one corrleation between government spending and GDP, then it's even worse.  We'd see an economic contraction of eight percent.  If Moody's is right, and there's a multiplier effect, then we'd see economic contraction of 13 percent.

Let's put that in perspective.  When Osama bin Laden attacked the United States in September 2001, we saw the economy contract by 1.1 percent.

Teabaggers and people like Perry who cater to them would inflict economic damage anywhere from five to 12 times worse than Osama bin Laden did.

You want to talk about treason?  Someone who wants to damage the US economy five to 12 times more than Osama bin Laden did would be waging economic war on the United States.  If they got their way, somewhere in the depths of hell, Osama bin Laden would get a few moments of pleasure, as he got to see us do more damage to our own economy than he could ever have dreamed of doing.

And those sons of bitches and bitches admit it!  We've got them on record.

What could give more aid and comfort to what's left of al Qaeda or North Korea than shaving five to 12 times more off the economy than Osama bin Laden did?

Perhaps teabaggers and Perry should learn what treason is and how their policies are economic terrorism before they talk.  To do otherwise would be, dare I say, treasonous.