Ron Paul’s Pipe Dreams
Many liberals like Ron Paul for his consistent opposition to the Iraq war and for his strong defense of civil liberties. Many conservatives like Ron Paul for his unquestioned fiscal conservatism and his time-tested Constitutional purity. Yet in both groups, many voters who agree strongly with Ron Paul on issues important to them dismiss his chances of effecting the changes he calls for, calling them "pipe dreams."
Sure, it would be nice to repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS, small-government conservatives insist, but "it'll never happen." Yes, Ron Paul would like to repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, progressives admit, but how will he get Congress to go along? According to his otherwise admiring critics, he won't be able to cut government spending as much as he plans to, to restore the Bill of Rights in its entirety, or to end the dollar's slide and reestablish sound monetary policies.
Skepticism toward campaign promises and political goals is always a good policy, but abandoning a candidate who agrees with you on your key issues is not. Simply because Ron Paul wants to accomplish more than you think he could deliver, why vote for someone else who isn't even trying?
If Ron Paul falls short of his goal of cutting spending enough to repeal the income tax, we'll still be far better off than if another candidate takes office and doesn't try at all. Without the individual income tax, federal revenues would only be cut back to 1997 levels. Was the government too small ten years ago? If Ron Paul can only cut spending by 20%, instead of the 40% or so that would be necessary, would you turn down a 50% tax cut? If Ron Paul really falls short, and only cuts spending by 5%, aren't we still a lot better off than if another candidate takes office and increases spending by 5 to 10% every year?
Even Ron Paul admits that abolishing the Federal Reserve overnight is unlikely to happen. He wants to legalize competition with commodity-based currencies, to keep the Fed on its toes. His fiscal policies -- lower spending, balanced budgets, and no new debt -- in themselves would help to reduce some of the Fed's counterproductive meddling in our economy. Again, if Ron Paul can only reduce inflation to a small degree, isn't that a big improvement over some other candidate making inflation worse?
As for civil liberties, Ron Paul as President could make major improvements, even without the consent of Congress. He wouldn't be calling for new government surveillance programs, and would veto any attempts to renew past legislation that violates the Bill of Rights. He could unilaterally call off any secret arrests, torture, and renditioning being conducted by the Executive branch. He could instruct the Justice Department to give all suspected criminals full due process of law. If you care about civil liberties, why vote for a candidate who does not?
And last but not least, Ron Paul's foreign policy prescription is anything but a "pipe dream." As Commander in Chief, he could order the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. He could order the US Navy to leave the Iranian coast and return home, diminishing the risk of another unneeded war. He could end the nonsensical and failed boycott of Cuba, allowing free trade and travel with one of our closest neighbors. He could begin bringing troops home from around the world, and announce that he is open to peaceful dialogue with all nations, saving American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and strengthening our national defense. Would any other candidate do any of the above?
Ron Paul is indeed promising a "revolution" -- a new fiscal policy, a new monetary policy, a more restrained central government, and a new foreign policy. The likelihood that he will be unable to accomplish everything he sets out to do should not diminish anyone's enthusiasm for supporting him in the least. If everyone else is headed in the wrong direction, why not join the one candidate who is trying to turn things around?
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
Sure, it would be nice to repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS, small-government conservatives insist, but "it'll never happen." Yes, Ron Paul would like to repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, progressives admit, but how will he get Congress to go along? According to his otherwise admiring critics, he won't be able to cut government spending as much as he plans to, to restore the Bill of Rights in its entirety, or to end the dollar's slide and reestablish sound monetary policies.
Skepticism toward campaign promises and political goals is always a good policy, but abandoning a candidate who agrees with you on your key issues is not. Simply because Ron Paul wants to accomplish more than you think he could deliver, why vote for someone else who isn't even trying?
If Ron Paul falls short of his goal of cutting spending enough to repeal the income tax, we'll still be far better off than if another candidate takes office and doesn't try at all. Without the individual income tax, federal revenues would only be cut back to 1997 levels. Was the government too small ten years ago? If Ron Paul can only cut spending by 20%, instead of the 40% or so that would be necessary, would you turn down a 50% tax cut? If Ron Paul really falls short, and only cuts spending by 5%, aren't we still a lot better off than if another candidate takes office and increases spending by 5 to 10% every year?
Even Ron Paul admits that abolishing the Federal Reserve overnight is unlikely to happen. He wants to legalize competition with commodity-based currencies, to keep the Fed on its toes. His fiscal policies -- lower spending, balanced budgets, and no new debt -- in themselves would help to reduce some of the Fed's counterproductive meddling in our economy. Again, if Ron Paul can only reduce inflation to a small degree, isn't that a big improvement over some other candidate making inflation worse?
As for civil liberties, Ron Paul as President could make major improvements, even without the consent of Congress. He wouldn't be calling for new government surveillance programs, and would veto any attempts to renew past legislation that violates the Bill of Rights. He could unilaterally call off any secret arrests, torture, and renditioning being conducted by the Executive branch. He could instruct the Justice Department to give all suspected criminals full due process of law. If you care about civil liberties, why vote for a candidate who does not?
And last but not least, Ron Paul's foreign policy prescription is anything but a "pipe dream." As Commander in Chief, he could order the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. He could order the US Navy to leave the Iranian coast and return home, diminishing the risk of another unneeded war. He could end the nonsensical and failed boycott of Cuba, allowing free trade and travel with one of our closest neighbors. He could begin bringing troops home from around the world, and announce that he is open to peaceful dialogue with all nations, saving American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and strengthening our national defense. Would any other candidate do any of the above?
Ron Paul is indeed promising a "revolution" -- a new fiscal policy, a new monetary policy, a more restrained central government, and a new foreign policy. The likelihood that he will be unable to accomplish everything he sets out to do should not diminish anyone's enthusiasm for supporting him in the least. If everyone else is headed in the wrong direction, why not join the one candidate who is trying to turn things around?
