I gave this post a tongue-in-cheek title because Congressman Paul has produced a very good budget plan.
Which is to be expected since he is the candidate closest to my views according to the Reason political quiz (though I do criticize him when appropriate).
You can read it on Congressman Paul’s campaign site and here’s how the New York Times described the highlights.
Representative Ron Paul on Monday unveiled an aggressive budget plan that would greatly shrink the federal government that he is seeking to run, eliminating the agency that oversees airport security, the departments of energy and education — and three others — while cutting all war financing. Providing a stark vision of what a libertarian takeover of the White House would look like, the plan would slash the federal budget by $1 trillion in a single year and, Mr. Paul said, bring the budget into balance within three. The federal workforce would be cut by 10 percent across the board. Aid to foreign nations would stop flowing altogether.
There’s obviously a lot to applaud about this proposal, and he gets rid of five useless cabinet-level departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education).
But why not get rid of the Department of Agriculture, which is a rat’s nest of destructive subsidies?
And why not get rid of the Department of Labor, which promotes unemployment and props up Big Labor?
Is there any reason not to get rid of the Department of Transportation, which does things that should be handled by the private sector, or state and local government?
But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the very good. If we ever got half of what Congressman Paul is proposing, I might actually be briefly happy.
[…] are Reagan and Coolidge, and I have great admiration for those few politicians – such as Ron Paul – who almost always do the right […]
[…] are Reagan and Coolidge, and I have great admiration for those few politicians – such as Ron Paul – who almost always do the right […]
[…] Not that I was terribly surprised, though I confess that I don’t remember if Gary Johnson was part of the quiz. And, if so, whether there were any differences between him and Ron Paul. […]
[…] not just restraining its growth. Even if he’s not your preferred presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s proposal for an immediate $1 trillion reduction in the burden of federal spending is a very good idea. Merely limiting the growth of spending is a tiny and timid step in the right […]
What outstanding proposals!
It’s the largest step in the right direction on offer. And as such, Ron Paul deserves our full support.
As a wise man once said: it’s important to encourage the behavior you wish to encourage!
[…] not just restraining its growth. Even if he’s not your preferred presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s proposal for an immediate $1 trillion reduction in the burden of federal spending is a very good idea. Merely limiting the growth of spending is a tiny and timid step in the right […]
[…] him, but he benefits from being an anti-politician. And he appeals to all the Republicans who want less government. Simply stated, what you see is what you get – even when it’s something crazy such as […]
I think it’s worth voting for Paul for just those things you know he can deliver without anyone else’s approval – things within the purview of the Oval Office.
1. Bring the troops home.
2. Veto the living hell out of any unconstituional bill that hits his desk.
He CAN promise those and DO them day one. He can’t promise many other things – and hasn’t promised anything beyond the President’s direct control, (or that should be), as far as I’m aware.
You’re the one always saying that to get things under control you just have to stop, (or slow the rate of), EXPANSION of government Dan. So no.2 sounds pretty good to me – even if he was unable to end the Fed, or do anything else he’d LIKE to do. Give me 4 years of that anytime.
I was a bit disappointed with my Libertarian friends in 2008. If you have ANYONE this way inclined with a snowball’s chance in Hades, then Bob Barr himself should be voting for the guy, and Libertarians should not be piffling over minor issues.
I was just arguing with someone over Ron Paul’s PERSONSAL stance on abortion. It’s a complicated issue obviously, and he has strong religious and moral convictions – yet he wants to default the decision back the states, (what a guy!) This is a man who admits to a deep emotional reaction at having seen a viable foetus crying in a bucket – and still wont use the power of the Federal Government against it. If you don’t think abortion is murder, you probably have no idea what that means. That’s like you being offered kingship over America 200 years ago, knowing you could end slavery by simple decree and still refusing the crown, (despite what seems like a perfect moral justification – even a moral imperitive).
I personally find the idea of abortion unpaletable enough that I’d take great pains to avoid that situation, but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from doing it.
So my friend is whining that they might have to travel two states over to get an abortion if Ron Paul has “his” way. The hell?! Yeah, wouldn’t that be terrible. Much better to vote for a candidate that’s going to enforce YOUR view on people two states over, (even though that particular policy probably wont change at the Federal level if they do get in anyway). Brilliant.
So I say there are two damn good reasons anyone with a brain, (left or right), should vote for this guy, (along with his record of actually practicing what he preaches). I don’t even expect him to be perfect if he does get in, but give me an imperfect Ron Paul over a perfect Republicrat anytime – I sure as shootin’ don’t want them to keep their promises anyway.
“Providing a stark vision of what a libertarian takeover of the White House would look like, the plan would slash the federal budget by $1 trillion in a single year and, Mr. Paul said, bring the budget into balance within three.”
And this is why I am willing to even consider voting for Ron Paul: an out-there, radically libertarian plan that slashes the federal budget by $1 trillion in a single year will only bring the budget into balance within three. Hopefully. What the hell have we gotten ourselves into?
[…] […]
[…] DAN MITCHELL: Is Ron Paul Going Soft On Big Government? […]
Others may comment more on point, but Bill nailed the flavor of the post. The echo of Marvin.
not sure why I think it’s so hilarious, but “maybe I’ll be briefly happy” just kills me. oh the travails of the libertarian economist! Dan you almost sound like that depressed robot from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.
Agriculture should the the FIRST to go. Education is a good thing, even if government support, let alone federal government support, may not be. Agricultural protectionism is a bad thing, whoever does it.
Baby steps. Once people realize how little value these entities bring to the table, cutting further will be even easier.
In effect, this plan is a doubling of Rand’s $500Bn plan he proposed earlier in the year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110431794539522.html
Possible Dr. Paul wants to take it slowly as locke says above. He’d be largely ridiculed and unfortunately ignored if he proposed making all of the necessary cuts. Prioritizing which departments to cut first, as a litmus test for non-believers is paramount. Once they realize our dependency on those departments’ existence is nothing but a mirage folks will be open to more “deeper” cuts. On top of what you said, I’d go so far as to cut the entire DHS. Talk about a sinkhole of money… the entire department is just added layers of increased bureaucracy and leadership positions!
Yup one step at a time. Ron Paul can’t get rid of the Fed, social security, the fda , medicare, medicaid in one year. Ending our military occupation overseas is just as important. We shouldn’t be spending a dime in Korea, Japan, Germany, Thailand, Africa, etc. Scrap up those military bases and bring the troops home. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to end too.