Gary Johnson — Libertarian Party candidate; Former Governor of New Mexico
Mitt Romney — Democratic Presidential Nominee; President of the United States
Barack Obama — Republican Presidential Nominee; Former Governor of Massachusetts
Ron Paul — Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate; U.S. Representative from the State of Texas
by Rep. Ron Paul | Texas Straight Talk
August 1, 2011
One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involved one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.
But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.
In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.
A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.
We pay 35% more for our military today than we did 10 years ago for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population or double the land area or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
In Washington terms a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger cut than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.
From: LA Times Blog
Ron Paul may be a long-shot candidate to some, but the conservative congressman from Texas received more than twice as many rounds of applause as his opponents at Monday night’s GOP debate.
According to our friends at the Baltimore Sun, Paul was applauded 11 times while Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty were applauded five times each. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were applauded four times each. Rick Santorum brought up the rear by only being applauded three times during the two-hour CNN debate.
Paul received one of the best reactions of any of the candidates after Romney said that if he were president, he would withdraw troops from Afghanistan only if his generals agreed that it was the right move.
“I wouldn’t wait for my generals,” Paul responded.
“I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do,” Paul, 75, said. “I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. I’d start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.”
It is often said that a convert to a cause is more fervent than those born to it. That is probably true about me and my “conversion” as an immigrant to this great country.
In that spirit of passionate desire for my adoptive land to become everything it was meant to be, may I humbly suggest, America, that Ron Paul is Your Man.
Just a few years ago, I was excited to follow Obama’s success in the hope that he would undo the worst of the un-American shenanigans of the Bush administration, including the abrogation of rights of American citizens, the killing of citizens of lands that don’t threaten us and the wholesale transfer of wealth from those that create it and play by the rules to those that do neither of those two things.
Perhaps I was a little caught up in the excitement, but my intentions were good.
Texas Straight Talk
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14
The remarkable confluence of recent events has brought unprecedented but very welcome attention to both U.S. monetary policy and the global political economy in general. First, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke recently announced that the Fed would embark upon another round of monetary easing by purchasing $600 billion worth of U.S. treasury debt. This amounts to admission that markets have run out of patience with our profligacy and therefore our own central bank literally must serve as the buyer of last resort for treasury debt.
Second, World Bank President Robert Zoellick openly suggested that gold could play a helpful role in the global monetary system by serving as reference against more volatile fiat currencies. This is almost heresy coming from a neoconservative globalist like Mr. Zoellick. It hints at an obvious but unspoken truth that is anathema to politicians and central bankers alike, namely, that gold could be viewed as money.
Finally, Mr. Obama attended the G20 summit in South Korea last week and found a very chilly reception for his vision of American economic policy. Mr. Obama argued for continued worldwide stimulus via continued debasing of the U.S. dollar to bolster American exports. Several powerful European and Asian finance ministers however rejected this approach out of hand as nothing short of a currency war. They are committed to austerity measures at home and don’t want to let the U.S. simply monetize its past sins at their expense.
All these events culminated in a tremendous amount of political and media scrutiny aimed at the Fed. Ordinary Americans are demanding answers and accountability and they are putting heat on their political representatives in Washington to end the cozy independence from congressional oversight the Fed has enjoyed for so long.
In the 35 years I have been studying, speaking and writing about monetary policy I have never before seen Congress or the financial press pay much attention to the Fed. Monetary policy has always been considered boring on Capitol Hill, something left to remote policy wonks far away from the den of presidential or congressional politics. Congress always has been eager to leave Fed governors well alone with no oversight or accountability as long as they played along and papered over the growing budget deficits.
But it’s amazing what a global economic meltdown will do to the political and media landscape. In just two short years the Fed has become the hot topic and a lightning rod for criticism. While it is gratifying to see so many formerly uninterested politicians, economists, talk show hosts and pundits suddenly rally to attack the Fed, one can only wonder whether they truly understand that central banking is inherently incompatible with our Constitution and a free market economy.
In other words, it’s not enough to show outrage at the latest Fed action or argue about the relative merits of Mr. Bernanke compared to his predecessors. To reclaim our dollar and our economy Americans must oppose central banking per se. Fiat currencies cannot be reformed or managed. They are fundamentally subject to ruinous debasement courtesy of the political and ruling class. History shows that this is true in all nations, at all times.
Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14
This week marks six months since Congress passed the healthcare reform bill in what has become all-too-typical legislative chicanery. Those in power crafted a mammoth piece of legislation and rammed it through Congress under a dire sense of emergency. Insisting on time enough to read the bill was dismissed as dangerous and crazy in a time of crisis. We were told that if we really wanted to see what was in the bill we would have to pass it first. I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers intended that Congress legislate in this manner. I would think if a member is not absolutely certain the entire legislation meets constitutional muster, the default vote should be “no” in accordance with our oath of office. But now that Congress has had six months to read the new law, there is a significant amount of buyer’s remorse on Capitol Hill.
The more constituents learn about the law, the more angry they become. 60% of Americans are now to be said in favor of repealing the entire thing. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to repeal a law than it is to pass a bill. I wrote a while back about the egregious provision to require businesses to issue 1099s for all transactions over $600 as a way to partially pay for it. I have co-sponsored legislation to fix this issue, yet this is just the tip of the iceberg.
First of all, in spite of the administration repeating over and over that this legislation would not increase costs for Americans, they are now saying they knew all along that it would. The Congressional Budget office estimates that American families will see their premiums rise by an average of $2,100 by 2016. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the cost of compliance is forcing some insurers to increase premiums by up to 20% as soon as next year. Also, in spite of repeated claims from the administration that we could all keep our plans and doctors if we liked them, the administration’s own officials are now predicting that won’t be true for up to
117 million Americans who will lose their current plans.
Major insurers are also dropping child-only plans because of mandates and price fixing on such policies leaving parents with fewer choices for their children, not more. In addition, in spite of claiming this law would contain government costs, not increase them, administration actuaries now predict it will increase healthcare spending by over $300 billion. This additional spending comes along with doctor shortages, fewer choices and more taxes, perhaps, worst of all, increases in labor cost because of health insurance mandates are discouraging employers from hiring new workers and even triggering more layoffs.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Austrian economics could have predicted the unintended consequences of these new healthcare policies. Central planning never increases choices and quality or cuts costs as promised. Price controls and government mandates always create artificial scarcity. Healthcare is not a right or privilege. It is a product, like food or clothing. As with any good or service, the free market regulation of supply and demand provides the optimal quality to the maximum number of people.
Once we realize the problems we are trying to solve today were created by government intervention beginning in the 1960s, we can begin to put patients back in control of healthcare, rather than third party oligopolies and government bureaucrats. The sooner the better.
Way too much common sense talk here for the TV stations to carry it!
World would already be very different if more American’s heard this then.
Texas Straight Talk
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14
Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy had been saying for years. The killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident. The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept blowback in our foreign policy.
It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home, or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger toward us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and other loved ones, being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intention, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be a Muslim to react this way – just human.
Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, ten more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to six retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the deaths of a loved one. Meanwhile we are bleeding ourselves dry militarily and economically.
Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I have already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid to Pakistan specifically makes it into the Taliban’s coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union.
For example, our CIA supplied them with stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield according to the Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.
Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our War on Drugs or our War on Poverty, or any of our government’s wars. They all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to image even winning anything this way. We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people and to ourselves. It’s time to reevaluate the situation. It’s time to come home.
Nothing else needs said!