Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
In the Republican Presidential debates, when questions pertinent to economic policy have been put to Ron Paul, I have nearly always thought his answers cogent and well worthy of consideration -- so I have tended to presume that his proposals regarding budgetary policy made some sense. Today, however, I learned otherwise.
In an article on The Weekly Standard website, John McCormack details Paul's proposals regarding entitlements reform, and we learn: he has none. In fact, he is an even fiercer defender of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society than Mitt Romney:
All across Iowa this week, Ron Paul, the great libertarian hope, has been promising voters that we'll have plenty of money to protect the crown jewels of the New Deal and the Great Society--Medicare and Social Security--if we simply cut "overseas spending."
“I want to take care of the people who become so dependent on government, even though there would have been a better way to take of them," Paul said at a rally in Des Moines on Wednesday evening. "You take the elderly on Social Security—there was a contract. But we can’t honor that contract if we keep spending this money overseas. So I’m for taking care of those people on Medicaid, Medicare, and anyone on Social Security.”
“Just remember the military budget is different than the defense budget. The military budget is all the weapons the military-industrial complex wants,” Paul said. If we have sound money and a “sensible foreign policy,” he continued, “we don’t have to give up anything. We don’t have to give up our defense.”
“The money we spend overseas should be the easiest money to cut," he explained at a townhall-style meeting earlier Wednesday in Newton. "We’re spending well over a trillion dollars a year—probably about $1.4 trillion to operate all our activities overseas."
Leave aside the obvious fact that if we cut 40% of the military budget and took that sum from the budget for personnel, weapons procurement, and weapons systems development, we would be inviting the Chinese to assert their hegemony in Asia and the Iranians to assert theirs over the Middle East; we would be leaving the Europeans entirely to their own devices (which is never wise); and we would be laying the groundwork for another world war -- one for which we would be almost entirely unprepared. Leave that small matter aside.
There is another problem. As McCormack points out, Paul's numbers do not add up: "The entire annual defense budget, including war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, is less than $700 billion--not $1.4 trillion as Paul claims. More important, by 2025 Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt will consume all federal revenues. In other words, we could eliminate all defense spending and all other federal spending, and we'd still be running a deficit in a little over a decade."
Paul may not be entirely unaware of this problem. He tells us that he wants to have "an adult conversation" about entitlements -- but not right now.
Last week, I laid out the argument for thinking the Congressman from south Texas a scoundrel and a fool, but I underestimated the degree to which he is a fool. In a few days, we will learn what we should think about the Iowans who turn out for the Republican caucuses.
UPDATE: After some reflection, I changed the subtitle from Managerial Progressive to Progressive Utopian. Whatever criticism one may direct at managerial progressives, they are not simply irresponsible. Ron Paul is that -- and much, much worse.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Paul is a bit like Obama in that way--plenty of platitudes and plenty of zeal, but no spreadsheets.
Jul '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
The budget problems begin and end with entitlement spending. Any candidate that doesn't begin from the position of ending or curbing that spending is fundamentally unserious about fixing the problem.
Mar '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
It is more a case of what we learn about the Republican party, whose best members are not running - we can be glad they are not opportunists. Dr Paul is a symptom, not the problem.
There is no problem with the Iowans.
Edited on January 1, 2012 at 11:55pmJun '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
David Williamson
It is more a case of what we learn about the Republican party, whose best members are not running - we can be glad they are not opportunists. Dr Paul is a symptom, not the problem.
There is no problem with the Iowans. · Jan 1 at 2:52pm
Edited on Jan 01 at 02:55 pm
The very best may not be running, but Paul's not even on the just adequate list as far as I'm concerned. What ever is happening outside our borders, he's not interested. That's not security--that's lunacy.
Jun '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Broker the Convention.
Apr '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
We've tried to cut spending by cutting defense, without expensive foreign wars (occasional bombing raids are pretty cheap). I have a member feed post on Newt's attempt. Turned out, it wasn't enough.
On the plus side, although, like Reagan, he's promising to keep the welfare state, unlike Reagan he wouldn't launch a record breaking expansion to it (Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act), or add supporting mandates to hospital care (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), and he promises to do better on immigration. I don't see the last as being as big a welfare issue as some, but it seems like something.
Apr '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Just to be clear, I don't mean to knock the sainted Reagan; I mean the "sainted" in a pretty unironic way. I just don't think that "progressive" is the right term to apply to someone just because they share some of his views (on other topics, of course, Reagan and Paul are considerably more conservative). Indeed, Progressives have often been strongly in favor of a robust defense; other than Hoover, I think all of our past progressive Presidents were. In at least a couple of ways (free trade and a strong international military presence) I'd prefer a traditional progressive Democrat to Paul.
But, then, I'm a keen supporter of the Henry Jackson Society, and am regularly reminded of the strength and decency of the Cold Warrior Democrat community on those fronts (and less frequently reminded of their awfulness on other fronts).
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
James Of England: Just to be clear, I don't mean to knock the sainted Reagan; I mean the "sainted" in a pretty unironic way. I just don't think that "progressive" is the right term to apply to someone just because they share some of his views (on other topics, of course, Reagan and Paul are considerably more conservative). Indeed, Progressives have often been strongly in favor of a robust defense; other than Hoover, I think all of our past progressive Presidents were. In at least a couple of ways (free trade and a strong international military presence) I'd prefer a traditional progressive Democrat to Paul.
But, then, I'm a keen supporter of the Henry Jackson Society, and am regularly reminded of the strength and decency of the Cold Warrior Democrat community on those fronts (and less frequently reminded of their awfulness on other fronts). · Jan 1 at 4:45pm
Yes, the old Progressives -- and Jackson was quite prominent among them -- were good on foreign policy. That is, alas, past.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
I doubt that Paul would not attempt to scale back entitllements after he is elected. He is wise to leave the "adult conversation" about entitlements until then. Many who would otherwise consider themselves "conservative" have bought in to the status quo: It is these he is probably playing to.
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
It's hard to believe he likes the military or defense at all with things like this. If the choice is butter or bullets I think it's obvious which he would choose.
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
One cannot conceivably carry out entitlements reform without first getting a mandate to do so. You are giving him the benefit of a doubt he does not deserve.
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
I have one small problem with this point from Mr. McCormack, which I pointed out to him on Twitter: he concludes the piece by saying that Paul is "the only Republican presidential candidate who has failed to endorse the central idea of the House Republicans' plan to reform Medicare for the next generation", in this case meaning premium support.
I believe this is incorrect. While Michele Bachmann voted for Ryan's plan, she specifically placed an "asterisk" on her vote (her word, not mine) and expressed concern about the Medicare portion of the matter, saying “I’m concerned about shifting the cost burden to senior citizens.” Which, even if premium support is the right way to go, it unquestionably does.
Additionally, Rick Perry has not explicitly endorsed premium support as a solution. His plan only includes Ryan as one option "Lawmakers like Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim DeMint, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman have recognized the importance of tackling Medicare’s fiscally unsustainable future and put forward serious, credible proposals that deserve to be fully considered and debated as the nation moves forward to reform Medicare." This is good but is clearly NOT an endorsement of premium support.
Dec '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
How is it the natural right of the United States to exercise hegemony in Asia or the Middle East? We don't live there. We don't own the real estate or the natural resources.
It's true that at great cost we've managed to lord it over those regions since World War II, but now we're broke.
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Dr. Rahe, I was just talking with Byron Horatio on the Member Feed. He has some interesting things to say from the pure military point of view. I commented to get him to give us more. Maybe Dr. Victor Davis Hanson could give us some input.
I don't think we can let Paul and the isolationist loons take control of the military budget. The Obamite saboteurs are doing plenty to destroy the defense of the country now. We need positive input to know where to steer the country's defense.
PS. I promised you my analysis of Kant's Perpetual Peace, my homework assignment. I turned it in. It's on Member Feed if you want to take a look.
May '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
He's all hat, and no cattle.
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Nobody's Perfect: How is it the natural right of the United States to exercise hegemony in Asia or the Middle East? We don't live there. We don't own the real estate or the natural resources.
It's true that at great cost we've managed to lord it over those regions since World War II, but now we're broke. · Jan 1 at 6:44pm
We have a natural right to self-defense -- which, in the absence of a sovereign able to protect us from harm, includes the right to anticipate attacks of all kinds and to pre-empt. I take it that you have never read Thomas Hobbes or any of the other figures who have written about international affairs from the perspective of natural right.
As for the cost, the money that we have spent influencing the international environment has been well spent. Or would you prefer a repeat of the Second World War on a larger scale?
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
James Gawron: Dr. Rahe, I was just talking with Byron Horatio on the Member Feed. He has some interesting things to say from the pure military point of view. I commented to get him to give us more. Maybe Dr. Victor Davis Hanson could give us some input.
I don't think we can let Paul and the isolationist loons take control of the military budget. The Obamite saboteurs are doing plenty to destroy the defense of the country now. We need positive input to know where to steer the country's defense.
PS. I promised you my analysis of Kant's Perpetual Peace, my homework assignment. I turned it in. It's on Member Feed if you want to take a look. · Jan 1 at 6:45pm
Thanks. Will do.
May '10
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England: Just to be clear, I don't mean to knock the sainted Reagan; I mean the "sainted" in a pretty unironic way. I just don't think that "progressive" is the right term to apply to someone just because they share some of his views (on other topics, of course, Reagan and Paul are considerably more conservative). Indeed, Progressives have often been strongly in favor of a robust defense; other than Hoover, I think all of our past progressive Presidents were. In at least a couple of ways (free trade and a strong international military presence) I'd prefer a traditional progressive Democrat to Paul.
But, then, I'm a keen supporter of the Henry Jackson Society, and am regularly reminded of the strength and decency of the Cold Warrior Democrat community on those fronts (and less frequently reminded of their awfulness on other fronts).
Yes, the old Progressives -- and Jackson was quite prominent among them -- were good on foreign policy. That is, alas, past.
TR and Wilson also fall under the taxonomy of "old Progressives". You mean to say that they were "good on foreign policy" as well?
Jan '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
For those who prefer to look into what a candidate stands for independently, rather than accept the reporting of the Weekly Standard as Professor Rahe does, here is a comprehensive source:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
You might enjoy comparing it to The Tea Party Budget put out by FreedomWorks:
http://www.freedomworks.org/the-tea-party-budget (Download the pdf)
Ron Paul has made clear again and again that he wants to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those who were promised those programs and have come to depend on them.
Does anyone running - or not running - have a different, superior idea that they've developed?
One last thing:
On Tuesday the voters of Iowa will tell us what they think about the candidates after a long season of debates, public meetings and advertisements. But for Professor Rahe, this will be not be an election - it will be an event for him to pass judgment on the voters of Iowa.
Now there's a Progressive viewpoint.
Jul '11
Re: Ron Paul, Progressive Utopian
Does that fact that Mitt and Newt seem bought and paid for factor in to Paul's popularity. People smell something rotten in Denmark. You can dissect Paul all you want and come up with some pretty negative and valid reasons to dislike some of his policies, nonetheless he is outside of the gang of crooks from a perception standpoint. Our country is sick of insider crooks. I think a Paul presidency would be problematic to say the least but I'm pretty sure it would be less corrupt than the past three. If conservatives want to beat Obama, they need to prove he is more crooked that whoever runs against him. I am curious if I'm the only one who thinks Obama is a Chicago crook. I am curious if anyone has the guts to try and prove it.
Edited on January 2, 2012 at 5:17am