Ron Paul and America’s Financial Future
The national debt of the United States is now over nine trillion dollars, on its way to ten trillion by the time President Bush leaves office. The unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare entitlements programs are several times that amount, in the fifty to seventy trillion dollar range, depending on who is calculating them. David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, puts it bluntly:
Whichever candidate wins the 2008 presidential election will face the beginning of a demographic time bomb, one with devastating effects on the federal budget: Baby Boomers born in 1946 and later will reach early retirement age for Social Security benefits (62) beginning in 2008. The Medicare time bomb will hit three years later when they turn 65. The only significant change to these entitlements programs in recent years was the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which made things much worse.
Despite these facts, most of the presidential candidates appear to be completely ignoring the problem. Democrats are proposing new health care programs, adding over a hundred billion dollars per year in new spending, perhaps offsetting that with higher taxes, but doing nothing to reduce annual deficits in any significant way. Some Republican candidates have talked about various tax cuts, but with one exception, none of them has identified any major spending reductions.
That one exception is of course, Ron Paul. He gets most of his attention for opposing the Iraq war, but he is also the most fiscally conservative candidate by far. While he is calling for the largest tax cuts of any candidate, he is the only one to pair them with significant spending reductions, to balance the budget and stop adding to the debt each year. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget, and his careful campaign spending offers a clear contrast to the mounting debts of Romney and McCain.
Ending the Iraq war and America's current foreign policy of military intervention would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Ron Paul has identified other significant targets for spending reductions as well -- foreign aid, unconstitutional federal spending on education, and the new Homeland Security bureaucracy among them. He would reform Social Security and Medicare without cutting off aid to those who have become dependent on them.
With former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan now predicting double-digit interest rates due to runaway inflation, payments on the national debt could rise to painful levels. If Treasury bill and bond rates exceed 10%, a ten-trillion-dollar debt could mean a trillion dollars a year in federal spending, simply to pay the interest, making it the largest single component in the federal budget.
Again, only Ron Paul offers any substantive change in fiscal policy with regard to the national debt. By guiding the Federal Reserve toward sound monetary policies (or complete abolition), and by dramatically reforming the big-government culture in Washington, Ron Paul would reduce the threat of inflation and higher interest rates. By balancing the budget with significant spending cuts, Ron Paul alone in the presidential field would stop making the problem worse every year.
Comptroller General David Walker has identified the fiscal crisis facing America, and has noticed that most politicians are steering clear of even facing the problem. His summary of what the American people want and need is one reason that Ron Paul supporters remain optimistic about our candidate's chances for a surprise victory in the primaries:
Ron Paul is offering both truth and leadership, and people are starting to notice.
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility.
Whichever candidate wins the 2008 presidential election will face the beginning of a demographic time bomb, one with devastating effects on the federal budget: Baby Boomers born in 1946 and later will reach early retirement age for Social Security benefits (62) beginning in 2008. The Medicare time bomb will hit three years later when they turn 65. The only significant change to these entitlements programs in recent years was the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which made things much worse.
Despite these facts, most of the presidential candidates appear to be completely ignoring the problem. Democrats are proposing new health care programs, adding over a hundred billion dollars per year in new spending, perhaps offsetting that with higher taxes, but doing nothing to reduce annual deficits in any significant way. Some Republican candidates have talked about various tax cuts, but with one exception, none of them has identified any major spending reductions.
That one exception is of course, Ron Paul. He gets most of his attention for opposing the Iraq war, but he is also the most fiscally conservative candidate by far. While he is calling for the largest tax cuts of any candidate, he is the only one to pair them with significant spending reductions, to balance the budget and stop adding to the debt each year. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget, and his careful campaign spending offers a clear contrast to the mounting debts of Romney and McCain.
Ending the Iraq war and America's current foreign policy of military intervention would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Ron Paul has identified other significant targets for spending reductions as well -- foreign aid, unconstitutional federal spending on education, and the new Homeland Security bureaucracy among them. He would reform Social Security and Medicare without cutting off aid to those who have become dependent on them.
With former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan now predicting double-digit interest rates due to runaway inflation, payments on the national debt could rise to painful levels. If Treasury bill and bond rates exceed 10%, a ten-trillion-dollar debt could mean a trillion dollars a year in federal spending, simply to pay the interest, making it the largest single component in the federal budget.
Again, only Ron Paul offers any substantive change in fiscal policy with regard to the national debt. By guiding the Federal Reserve toward sound monetary policies (or complete abolition), and by dramatically reforming the big-government culture in Washington, Ron Paul would reduce the threat of inflation and higher interest rates. By balancing the budget with significant spending cuts, Ron Paul alone in the presidential field would stop making the problem worse every year.
Comptroller General David Walker has identified the fiscal crisis facing America, and has noticed that most politicians are steering clear of even facing the problem. His summary of what the American people want and need is one reason that Ron Paul supporters remain optimistic about our candidate's chances for a surprise victory in the primaries:
You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership.
Ron Paul is offering both truth and leadership, and people are starting to notice.
