Is it wrong to agree with Rand Paul? Not when he talks about government spending, it isn’t.
Bookworm on Mar 10 2011 at 9:17 am | Filed under: Government
I find Ron Paul abhorrent, and I worry about Rand Paul, who seems like a slightly more polished version of Daddy. Nevertheless, even creepy people can be right, as Rand Paul is about government spending.
His point, basically, is that Republicans and Democrats are battling over bandage quality, rather than actually treating the wound. The only place in which Paul departs from reality is to complain that military spending has slightly more than doubled since 9/11. He seems to forget that, since 9/11, the military has been fighting a very active, two-front war. That’s going to require more money than a peace-time military.
Email This Post To A Friend
24 Responses to “Is it wrong to agree with Rand Paul? Not when he talks about government spending, it isn’t.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why do you find Ron Paul abhorrent? Strong word. Many of his ideas are well beyond main stream; but I don’t recall anything particularly abhorrent. I think he adheres to the fine old American precept of Isolationism. That certainly has some appeal. I guess he crosses the line by advocating that folks who are int the country illegally should not be rewarded. Maybe I don’t pay enough attention to him.
Rand Paul doesn’t seem to be in the came class as his Dad. I am not sure that he has said anything particularly controversial–except to hard core Statists.
As I say, I don’t pay close attention to either; so I will read with interest, the comments from those who do.
I happen to love Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on everything but I think most of his ideas are in line with our founding fathers’ vision of what they intended for our country. Every idea he puts forth he backs up with constitutional reasoning. So now I’m intrigued why you would find him “abhorrent”.
I can’t say I know much about either of them. I know that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and as such, I think he’s unrealistic about our interactions with other nations, but other than that, I don’t know much about his positions. I know that Rand Paul was endorsed by his local Tea Party group, and they worked hard for him. So far, he looks a bit “nerdy” and is not what I’d call a polished speaker, but that doesn’t have much to do with what he intends to work towards politically.
I also think Ron Paul, for some reason, has attracted a devoted following that is on the “cultish” side of the spectrum. I’d be more concerned about his followers than about him – though I don’t know how affected he is by them. For all I know, he might not really interact with them at all. I just don’t know.
I’m somewhat the same. I find him occasionally a touch weird, but nowhere near as weird or extreme as what currently occupies the white house, and of course “a touch weird or extreme” is barely a blip on the radar compared to what appears to be the clinical insanity of most of the democrat leadership – or even cowboy poets.
Some of it just isn’t real any more – some of it never was. For example, the Founders did indeed advocate a robust isolationism for America. Unfortunately reality wouldn’t play, and, like everyone else who ever lived, they shortly discovered that though you can fence yourself in, you cannot forever fence the world out. As early as Jefferson we were sending the Navy halfway across the world to the shores of Triploi. The pirates recognized – even applauded – that America wanted to be off in a corner being isolated, but they applied no such stricture to themselves. We are not Switzerland: we stand astride a continent, and for us isolation was never practical, never workable, doesn’t work now, and in future will work even less.
Ron Paul is unelectable, no doubt. That’s more a function of a corrupt media and a generally witless citizenry than it is of anything he’s said himself. (The media have rendered Sarah Palin, New Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee unelectable, and they will repeat the favor soon for Romney. Paul seems extreme for these timid times, but he hews to history. Regrettably history is past, and no one is able to be what they once were. I’m sure the Brits would like to have a strong economy and to still be ruling three fifths of the world, just as Paul’s adherents would like to be left alone. That’s history, and it’s not coming again.
Paul’s a touch extreme, and maybe all the things he’s accused of being are accurate, but abhorrent? I don’t know. Like much else, it depends on where you stand, I suppose.
This article is good: In 2007, Ron Paul became the most attractive candidate around for neo-Nazis (although they would have done better to put their money on Obama). As the article makes clear, that wasn’t Ron Paul’s fault. Nor is his isolationism a fault, as long as it’s even handed. What was wrong, what made him a big problem for me, was that he kept the money.
That was in 2007. Paul’s magnetism for anti-Semites — and his willingness to accommodate them — was still on display last month.
His ideas are either fine or, as you guys said, just kind of weird. I don’t actually quarrel with a lot of his libertarianism, and I don’t even mind cutting foreign aid to Israel, as long as we cut it equally to Israel’s enemies. Indeed, I think we would do well, in this time of budget austerity, to cut enormous amounts of foreign aid. We can’t fund the world, whether friend or foe.
What I do mind deeply is the company Ron Paul willingly keeps, and that’s why, as a Jew, I find him abhorrent.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. What he has stated is that we need to remove our troops from all the countries they occupy if they have no business there. There are 195 countries in the world. We have troops in 150 of them. Ron Paul advocates that we don’t need that level of deployment and should return all the troops home. I don’t think that is realistic but I also think 150 countries with our troops in them is a bit extreme. His position is that of non-intervention.
“The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.” — Ron Paul
Or, in the words of Jefferson. “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” This is pretty much the same position as Ron Paul. Yes, let’s have fair and open trade with any country that want’s to do business with us. But let the other countries do what they want as long as they are peaceful and don’t try to drag us down whatever rat hole they want to go.
Another thought Book. I certainly advocate a strong military; but, our defense spending is simply out of control. The one saving grace is that unlike the Education, Energy, Labor, HHS, HUD, & much of NASA, the Defense department does have a mission.
I believe that Bush and Rumsfeld would have brought some sanity to the process, if their attention had not been diverted. Until we seriously review just what we expect of our Defense, and tailor capabilities accordingly, it will continue to be a “goody store” for Politicians and major contractors.
One program that I have followed; the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35). It has been at least a decade in development and cost untold billions. Where is it? Now, there are hints that one version may never reach the USMC. After heated debate, lobbying and angst, the notion of developing a second engine (as a payoff to Politicians) has finally been abandoned. Typical of past lame defense thinking was the Six hundred ship Navy. Brilliant thinkers rose to prominence advocating for it; Senator Jim Webb (D-Va) resigned as SECNAV because Reagan abandoned it. People still lament that we do not have 600 ships. Never mind that the Navy could never recruit enough man power for a 400 ship Navy.
Oh, I know that I am a serious Contrarian. I don’t even think the manned space program is a worth while expenditure of public funds.
Oldflyer: If military spending is out of control, it needs to be reined in. A bloated military is almost certainly an inefficient one, both on the battlefield and off. I just want it to be smart cutting, that acknowledges cost increases due to two wars. The way Rand phrased it — that spending doubled in a decade — seemed to ignore that changed reality.
Randall: I’m of two minds about the isolationism thing. We are busy-bodies, and that’s a problem. We do fund everything, and that’s ridiculous. On the other hand, the 20th century has taught us the regional warfare vanished with the the telegraph and the airplane. Things that happen abroad affect us at home, whether or not we want that to be the case. As long as we’re grossly dependent on Muslim tyrannies for our fuel needs, and as long as our trade goes to the four corners of the world, what happens there affects us here. We’ve got a stake in matters. That we should be less involved may be a good thing. But that we should be non-involved is a mistake.
I suspect that we would (and do) agree on many issues. But don’t judge Ron Paul too harshly. I would encourage you to go visit his site http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ There are many great articles out on that site for you to digest. CFL was created after the 2008 campaign.
(I should say at the outset that I have never paid attention to Ron Paul, so I don’t have anything to say about him.)
I’m of two minds on America’s role in the world. On one hand, I am wary like Oldflyer and Book of a bloated military whose officer corps is mostly politically correct martinets, time servers and paper shufflers. Ever since Colin Powell started being held up as the epitome of the modern military leader, I’ve been in uh-oh mode. Oldflyer’s comments on the agonizing slowness of developing the F-35 is one example of how sclerotic our military establishment has become.
Would paring the defense budget clear out deadwood and make our military more fit? I’m not sure it would. Fat-cat military people are astute politicians, too. They will almost certainly lobby to have the more aggressive or innovative programs cut first—the ones that may help save us in a time of great crisis. That’s simply how most military minds work. How do we get around that formidable built-in barrier to streamlining? Dunno.
Yet: The world needs America the same way it needed Great Britain 100 years ago and Rome 2,000 years ago. A reliable, trusthworthy hegemon that can keep the sea lanes open and pirate-free, and that can land a crushing blow on the world’s psychopaths when necessary. Thanks to Obama, a truly cowardly, dithering man-boy, that hegemon is gone. When you have France—France!—threatening to take military action in Libya, you know that America has abdicated what is now its existential role.
There is simply no way we can return to the state of blissful yeomanry, protected by oceans that once took months to cross, and fueling ourselves with energy from our abundant forests and coal seams rather than oil from 8,000 miles away. There is no other hegemon available, and no would-be hegemon can offer the world the simple level of decency that America does. God forbid that the butchers of Beijing or the trousered apes of Europe ever become what the world must depend on for peace.
Randall Woodman, if it helps…our “presence” in all these countries doesn’t necessarily mean we have bases.
We have troops in that many countries because we have small Special Forces and Delta Force units operating in the hinterlands of Africa and Asia, hunting down Islamist Jihad units. That counts as “presence” but I think that we would agree that they are providing valuable functions.
I am with Charles M and other who believe that Rand Paul’s foreign policy ideas are plain unworkable. I am with Book in believing that he has very interesting libertarian economic and government ideas.
Careful Book. In the past, most of the expense of the wars was off budget. As you know, we did not budget for wars; they were fought with supplementals.
The basic DOD budget for 2010 was $553B. Overseas contingency Ops brought defense spending to $663B. The requested budget for 2011 at $721B, does include overseas contingencies..
Comparing apples and apples that is a 8.75% increase over the expanded 2010 budget. Of course we do not know what supplementals are yet to come; but, we can reasonably expect they will.
The basic 2006 budget was $419B (not including war fighting). The 2010 budget increased the basic budget by 32% over 2006.
The DOD, like all federal agencies has traditionally used base line budgeting, which assumed a 4% increase year over year; thence when departments asked for a reasonable 4% increase they were adding that to the base line. Therefore, DOD has usually increased by about 8% year over year, regardless of what is going on in the world. Then Congress does their little add-ons. A submarine the Navy didn’t want, built in Connecticut. A few P-3 aircraft that the Navy didn’t want, built in Marietta, Ga. We already discussed the attempt to force a second engine manufacturer into the mix on the F-35. A few more of this and a few more of that. We need to strangle this and that.
We now fear the Chinese. The announced Chinese defense budget for 2010 is $77.9B in 2010 U.S. $$. Even if that is only 25% of the actual budget, we dwarf their spending. They are allegedly spending to catch up, but would need to spend 8 times the announced budget to match us.
Oldflyer:
Thank you for that info. And of course, armies should always be at readiness, so it theoretically shouldn’t cost that much more to go to war than not. Except somehow theory and fact never intersect, and entities always demand more money.
Mr. Bookworm works for a huge entity, and manages a department with a ginormous budget. At the end of any year in which he has an excess, he goes on a spending binge to get rid of it. That struck me as insane and wasteful. He explained to me that, if he doesn’t do that, if he comes in under budget, he will be penalized should he actually need more money. It’s much better to protect his department by spending every red cent so that he can at least ensure himself a functional bottom line in subsequent years.
Somehow I suspect our military is functioning the same way — never give up on today’s money, in case you don’t get it tomorrow, when you need it. Always assume that the only way to spend is up. It’s insane. At least my husband works for a for-profit business that has a bottom line to meet. In government, as long as the taxpayers aren’t grabbing their pikes and heading for the Bastille, anything goes.
Bookworm: “It’s much better to protect his department by spending every red cent so that he can at least ensure himself a functional bottom line in subsequent years. Somehow I suspect our military is functioning the same way — never give up on today’s money, in case you don’t get it tomorrow, when you need it.”
You are correct in your suspicions, down to the very lowest level.
Jose is correct. The whole government works that way at every level; municipal, county, state and federal. Now, think about that in terms of base line budgeting. Baseline budgeting is is one entrenched practice that Congressman Ryan is trying to attack.
Does Mr Bookworm work for government? Sounds like it. Most successful private enterprises would not tolerate that behavior–for long.
Oops. I guess I started replying before I finished reading. Must really be a large entity. Maybe his department is in charge of executive privileges; hence the ever increasing budget.
I manage an expanding duchy that has aspirations to become a full-fledged kingdom, maybe even an empire. Given the damage that those nitwit Goths and Vandals did to the economy, we don’t really have a tax base. We could try to pillage and plunder the countryside the way the Muslims do, but we have to live with these folks and our Christian religion, unlike Islam, forbids us to steal.
I’ve tried debasing the currency so I can stretch my Franks (the coins, not my subjects), but the people are somehow wise to that. I think some traitor has taught them how to read a scale.
I’ve thought about borrowing heavily from Abd-ur-Rahman, the nancy-boy general whose butt I kicked at Tours, but he won’t return my calls and keeps killing my messengers. Even if he were to lend me money, my secret plan on paying him back would be, “I owe you how much? Well, camel jockey, come. and. get. it.”
The Germans might help, but they are so busy breaking things that they can’t hear my ambassador above all the racket.
Maybe the Italians. I hear rumors that some very crafty financial types have built a city on the marshes at the northern end of Italy and know how to make money through clever trading. I did try to send an emissary to seek them out, but all I got for it was a postcard from him last year (740 A.D.) that said, “Am stopped on sunny beach of the great Middle Earth Sea. Must regain strength from/for long journey with copious sunbaths and strenuous wine therapy. Women here said to all be sluts—since this region supposedly under your sovereignty, am obligated to conduct investigation to establish truth of that rumor. Will press on to Venice by 750, 755, tops.”
I am a very good general, but not a very good financial planner. I’d appreciate any help or suggestions you can give me.
>>I manage an expanding duchy that has aspirations to become a full-fledged kingdom, maybe even an empire.>>
A Mouse That Roared???
I was surprised by the word abhorrent. I read a lot of Ron Paul’s writing on his website. I agree with much of what he says. The auditing of the Federal Reserve is one thing. Actually he is an advocate of eliminating the Fed altogether. The founding fathers they were dead set against a “Federal Bank” in the United States. They saw the control the Bank of England had. It kept the elite in the money and pretty much kept the pedestrians in their place. Thus it was decided not to have a Federal Bank in order to allow the common man freedom to accumulate wealth. The US was Fed free until Woodrow Wilson finally got it instituted. Think about it the Progressive Wilson wanted the Fed. Where does the Fed’s money come from? The Rothschild fortune is rumored to be involved but it is a very hush hush. The Fed has too much power without any accountability. Presidents, no matter what party, generally do what the Fed tells them to do. For all we know George Soros could be involved. That’s the point we don’t know who they are.
I was unaware of Congressman Paul having neither any connection to Nazi sympathizers nor his being anti-Semite. I’ll take your word on that. That would be a turn off for me too however the Congressman does advocate cutting spending and reducing the size of government which from what I read here most of us agree with.
I do know Congressman Paul, like many other conservatives and libertarians, has been marginalized and made to look like a kooky old man by the main stream media. Or was that John McCain?
Clearly my use of the word abhorrent struck a nerve. While I find his extreme libertarianism somewhat impractical, it’s the antisemitic fellow travelers he doesn’t disavow that make me hold him in such distaste. I abhor Obama too, for the same reason (plus a whole bunch of other things).
Book, I too confess ignorance of Paul’s anti-semitic tendencies. I do believe that if someone like Paul; e.g., a major media target, tried to disavow all of the fringe groups that want to identify with him, he would have no time for anything else. In other words, how much responsibility does he have to disavow everyone that tries to attach itself to his name–or that the hostile media attaches to his name? Has he expressed any anti-semitic leanings?
Although, in my opinion, he is too extreme in his Libertarianism to be President, it is pretty useful to have someone like him in Congress to stir the pot.
See this morning that Senator Rand Paul told witnesses from the EPA that the toilet in his house doesn’t work, and he holds the federal government responsible. He also asked why they were pro-choice on abortion, and anti-choice on light bulbs and toilets. Priceless.
On the topic of military spending, this article showed up today and is relevant to our discussion above.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1366
Book: While I find his extreme libertarianism somewhat impractical, it’s the antisemitic fellow travelers he doesn’t disavow that make me hold him in such distaste.
OldFlyer has a point. Should he try and disavow every fringe group that sends him money? I guess that depends if you are the one offended. Their money spends just as good as the money from groups that don’t offend me. Liberty means that there are people who will say and do things that offend you. It also means that you will say and do things that offend others even if you don’t intend to. It also means that those groups that intend to inspire hate better be prepared to get back what they give and if they are offended, too bad.
I am responsible for no one but me. I can’t be responsible for what other people say and do. If some undesirable person or group attaches themselves to me I can choose to ignore them or ask them to leave me alone. As a politician, Ron Paul is put in a position to offend as few people as possible if he plans to get elected. But I’m not sure that is his goal. I think his goal is to educate people to the concepts of liberty and personal responsibility.
>> Should he try and disavow every fringe group that sends him money?>>
Well…it does raise an interesting question…_WHY_ are these fringe groups sending him money? I mean…would you send money to someone who was in favor of … I don’t know…requiring us all to buy Cadillacs? You’d probably say … What???? Why should I? and you wouldn’t send money to them.
So if groups that are anti-Semitic send RP money, I do have to ask myself why they do so. I agree with those who haven’t heard him express anti-Semitic views, but it’s possible that these groups have – or have reason to assume his views. Even that’s a bit suspicious, and due to the charge, I’d expect him to deny it, if in fact he doesn’t agree with it – and as far as I know, he hasn’t.
Of course, >> As a politician, Ron Paul is put in a position to offend as few people as possible if he plans to get elected.>> So…that could be a factor, but you’d think that denial would serve that purpose to a greater extent than letting people think he was anti-Semitic.
You’d think.
Lately, I’ve come to realize that all of the wisdom in the world was distilled into Victorian aphorisms. (And I know many of them pre-date the Victorian era, but they seem to have settled into their final, familiar form during the mid to late 19th century.) The one I’ve been struggling towards here is “A person is judged by the company he keeps.”
If there were a few neo-Nazi nut jobs in Paul’s train, I would say he is smart to ignore them, and even innocent in taking their small amount of dollars and cents. It’s the large number that bugs me. At that point, Paul is keeping their company, and should do something to make it clear that he does not espouse their more repugnant views. That could be a nice speech reiterating libertarian principles, including freedom of association and limited government interference, but nevertheless stating that he has no truck with virulent antisemitism. But he hasn’t done that.
By the way, I want you all to know that I truly appreciate how civil and interesting this discussion has been. This is precisely the type of debate that develops ideas and, perhaps, changes minds, without invective or insult. I haven’t changed my mind about Paul’s fellow travelers, or his passivity regarding them, but I do have a greater appreciation for the purity of his libertarian thinking.