Tag: Ron Paul

Categories
National politics

Ready to Vote

Votes will start to be counted this week. The Iowa caucuses take place on Thursday as a wide open presidential election promises to dominate the news coverage for another 10 months. I have already done individual endorsements of the candidates and an advance ranking of what candidates I liked best. Now, with actual votes on the line, here is my final position on the candidates I could vote for. In alphabetical order I could vote for:

    • Joe Biden
    • Mike Huckabee
    • Barack Obama
    • Ron Paul
    • Mitt Romney

The Republicans include a Small-Government Constitutionalist that the media does not understand, and hence does not cover (Ron Paul), a man who knows how to get things done (Mitt Romney), and a more articulate champion for “compassionate conservatism” than our current President (Mike Huckabee). The Democrats include a fresh face of optimism (Barack Obama) and a man who is everything that Hillary pretends to be – experienced and essentially moderate (Joe Biden).

Many people say this is a change election (I’ve heard that before but we’re still doing the same thing in Washington) and if your view is to change Washington then the order of candidates (from most change to least) would have to be:

    • Ron Paul
    • Barack Obama
    • Mitt Romney
    • Joe Biden
    • Mike Huckabee

Based on my positions (where change is not the only factor) I would support the candidates in this order (My support from 1-10):

    1. Ron Paul (10)
    2. Mitt Romney (7)
    3. Joe Biden (6 – I like his positions better than Obama)
    4. Barack Obama (6 – I like his tone and his chances in the primaries better than Biden)
    5. Mike Huckabee (4 – if you think our current domestic priorities are acceptable then Huckabee would be better able to sell them than Bush has been)

While everyone who doesn’t support Ron Paul will argue that he hasn’t got a chance, I argue that his real support is much broader than any other candidate (with the possible exception of Obama). The problem is that his supporters as a group may not be reliable about getting to the polls (it’s hard to say because they are such an unorthodox group politically). I think that if Ron Paul can place at least 3rd in Iowa behind Romney and Huckabee (I say third because the caucuses are more complex than a simple primary) and second (or possibly even 3rd) in New Hampshire behind Romney or McCain then the media will have to pay more attention to his showings in those states which will have surprised the media and the general public. This increased coverage will make those who might not have supported him before less apprehensive about voting for him and he will have a very real chance (unless Romney wins both of those states outright).

Obviously I want Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination but I would be extremely happy to see an Obama/Biden ticket in November. Then I could have a decent choice even if the Republicans choose an unacceptable candidate like Giuliani for the general election.

Categories
National politics

Ron Paul Running Mate

I have often wondered who Ron Paul would choose as a running mate. I got my answer from Phil Harris. Alan Keyes joined the race for the Republican nomination long after I stopped doing candidate endorsements, but when I looked at his positions I found someone who was ideologically very similar to Dr. Paul on most issues.

Dr. Keyes is light years behind Dr. Paul organizationally and financially, nor does he inspire the same fervor among his supporters, but he seems to bring a similar love and understanding of the Constitution. Another advantage would be that Dr. Keyes, being black, would quell the baseless fears of those who dislike the small financial support that Dr. Paul has received from members of some white-pride types of fringe groups. Dr. Paul would demonstrate that their prejudices are not connected to him.

I’m not saying that this would happen, only that I have finally seen someone who would seem like a good running mate for Dr. Paul.

Categories
National politics

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

  • To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Categories
National politics

Smart Presidential Candidate

LaVarr Webb commented today in Utah Policy Daily on a great column by David Brooks at the New York Times called The Happiness Gap. Brooks was talking about the gap between how happy people are with their own lives and how optimistic they are about government. I think Brooks is right that people are beginning to see through the fallacy that government solutions can fix personal problems, or that one level of government can solve the problems in another level of government. The more we trust to the federal government the more apparent it is that the federal government is not equipped to solve problems created by poor state governments. The same logic holds true with each level of government – state government can’t solve county problems, county government can’t solve city problems, etc.

The thing that really got me was Webb’s concluding paragraph:

I’ve written many times that the job description of the federal government has gotten so immense that it’s impossible to accomplish, hence the deep cynicism about the federal government. The nation’s founders intended for the national government to focus on a few things and do them very well. We need a national resorting of the roles of the different levels of government. A smart presidential candidate would do well to pick up on the mood of the people. (emphasis mine)

Webb was right on except that his last sentence left one thing out – there is a presidential candidate who has picked up on this mood. Ron Paul’s campaign is based on the principle of resorting the roles of the different levels of government – primarily reducing the role of the federal government and allowing states to take their proper place in addressing more of the issues they face. Right now the federal government is doing so much that it can’t even adequately address those issues that are properly in the sphere of the federal government, like national security and immigration. So he may not have known it, but Webb just endorsed Ron Paul as a smart presidential candidate.

Categories
National politics

Another Reversal

I’ve had another change of position which is sure to make me popular with some people. When I originally looked at endorsing Ron Paul I had some reservations. Over the five months since then those reservations have disappeared. My current position is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that would bring real change to the White House. There are reasons to choose another candidate, but if you are looking for substantial change instead of new approaches to politics as usual then your only option is Ron Paul.

I am not blind to the challenges that he faces, but Ron Paul has been gaining momentum in the form of supporters (converts such as myself) and cash – he is raising as much money as John McCain and spending much less so he is prepared to keep running for a long time. Ron Paul also has something else in his favor – none of his supporters are passive in their support.

It’s funny that the only candidate who would really change things is one who has been in Congress for two decades.