Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 2

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the second in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding Debt and Taxes:

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

I agree that the economy (and by extension, the majority of the populace) benefits from low marginal tax rates. I agree that Americans are generally better off being being free to make our own economic choices rather than having economic choices dictated to us by a paternalistic government. On the other hand, I see two significant qualifiers to this general rule:

1) The federal government has a legitimate role to play in providing some services to citizens. Insofar as the government must provide these services, taxes are necessary to fund this work. At some point, lower taxes are not an option. When a lower tax rate results in government revenue that is too low to fund government operations, the tax rate is too low. Ron Paul can argue for lower taxes, but this is a policy goal which can only be implemented if government spending is reduced.

2) It simply isn't true that "lower taxes benefit all of us". It is arguably true that lower tax rates would be a net boost to the economy. It is arguably true that most government spending programs are misguided, wasteful and ineffective. But the truth is that some people do benefit from our current regime of resource redistribution. Politically, the low levels of taxation and government spending that Ron Paul wants to see are simply unattainable. Most conservatives are willing to compromise in the face of political reality. Ron Paul, not so much.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

Armageddon is coming. Repent. Yes, we spend too much money. Yes, we should have been running a surplus over the last several years to pay down the national debt while we were in the midst of an economic expansion. The end of the world is not yet in sight though. In the grand scheme of things recent deficits haven't been a serious problem.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

The Federal Reserve is one of Ron Paul's favorite bogeymen. Here he argues that the unaccountable Fed creates inflation. While he doesn't mention it here, it's no secret that Paul would like to abolish the Fed and put America back on the Gold Standard. He calls the Fed "unaccountable", but in reality it is a creation of Congress, it is governed by a Board whose members are appointed (and who can be dismissed) by the President and the whole system can be altered by Congress if necessary. I can't deny that the Fed definitely does try to achieve a positive (albeit low) rate of inflation. This is a feature, not a bug. Smarter folks than I will argue that inflation is *NOT* always a bad thing. As for putting America back on the Gold Standard, I'd rather vote for Hillary than for somebody who honestly thinks that the Gold Standard is significantly better than a well managed fiat currency. I'm not exaggerating, either.

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Another way to describe this situation is to say that the central banks of China and Saudi Arabia continue to see the U.S. as the safest place to invest their money. If they choose to invest in America by offering us very low rates of interest, the rational response is to say "thank you", but only after grabbing their cash. We wouldn't want them to rescind the offer while we're busy being polite...

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

"Private banks" is Paul's way of saying "the Federal Reserve". Enough said about that. Sure, many government agencies are wasteful, pork barrel spending is a problem that I'd love to see reduced, and I think foreign aid is generally counterproductive, at best. But Paul is missing the forest for the trees. The biggest fiscal problem we face is entitlement spending: these are the liabilities in future budgets that the federal government will not be able to fund. Foreign aid is, in relative terms, a pittance. A real solution to our over-grown entitlement spending isn't politically feasible (at least, not right now). Paul's ultimate solution is to return to the Constitution to find a blueprint for the Federal Government's fiscal and monetary future. This makes sense, in Ron Paul's dream world. In reality, we are never going to roll back the size and scope of the Federal Government to the extent that Paul desires.

Ron Paul's past history of absolutely uncompromising devotion to his principles leads me to believe that he would be a horrible President. As an uncompromising congressman, Paul is a valuable (embarrassingly rabid, but valuable nonetheless) voice for limited government. As President, Paul would gladly grid-lock the country into disaster in pursuit of his goals. To do so in pursuit of limited government is somewhat understandable. To do so in a quest to restore the Gold Standard would be laughably bad policy.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to American Independence and Sovereignty.

Deconstructing America's Savior

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the first in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

To begin, let's look at the introduction to his policy platform:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

The protection of individual freedoms for American citizens is the fundamental goal of Paul's political philosophy. Because Paul sees the U.S. Constitution as the bulwark of individual freedoms, all of his policy prescriptions are measured against an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. This desire for individual freedoms and his respect for the original intent of the founding fathers are admirable, but he holds these principles in such high regard that he is blind to the practical impact of his policy prescriptions in the real world. I don't disagree with Paul's principles, I disagree with several of the policies he advocates based on a blind devotion to those principles.

Let's pick apart that introduction:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital.

First and foremost, Ron Paul's goal is to protect individual freedoms. Although he doesn't specify any qualifiers here, further analysis of Paul's platform reveals an important qualifier: Paul isn't concerned with the individual freedoms of non-citizens.

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.

In Paul's view, almost any government activity results in the destruction of individual liberties. This is especially true when government engages in activities that aren't explicitly approved by the Constitution. Consequently, "limited constitutional government" is the first item on Paul's priority list. "Low taxes" and "free markets" make the priority list because an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would force the federal government to drastically curtail its interference in the lives of Americans. Paul demands "sound monetary policies" because he sees the current Federal Reserve system as a tool for government to play games with money and impose a silent tax on Americans. His solution--return to the Gold Standard.

He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

His devotion to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is so unswerving that Ron Paul is nothing if not consistent in his legislative record. Political expediency has no influence in his decision making process. The practical impact of legislation isn't a major concern either

I agree with some of the principles upon which Ron Paul bases his policies. I admire Ron Paul's devotion to those principles. But I can't vote for somebody who takes admirable principles and turns them into a blind devotion to absurd policy prescriptions. As we'll see when I begin breaking down the individual components of Paul's policy platform, I strongly object to his foreign policy, his trade policy and his monetary policy. Those policies are so misguided and dangerous that I simply can't consider voting for him.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Debt and Taxes

The politics of tea

I found this on a bottle of Tradewinds Raspberry Tea:

"Tea is a natural source of protective flavonoid antioxidants that help guard against free radicals."

Perhaps this is why the revolutionaries dumped tea in Boston Harbor. Given my tea drinking habit, it may also explain my reluctance to support Ron Paul.

If actresses had a perfect grasp of history, there would be no stupid political rants during the Emmys in the first place.

One of the distinguished historians of our day, Sally Field, has been "censored" by Fox while trying to make this particularly cogent argument against war:

"If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g-dd-mned wars in the first place."

No doubt Ms. Field is basing this statement upon the historical record of women like Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Clearly, it's coincidental that the Yom Kippur war, the Falklands war and the 1971 war with Pakistan were all fought while these women led their countries. After all, they were mothers. Q.E.D.