Why Ron Paul Matters
An excerpt of a few of the meaningful ways Paul breaks away from the pack, by Cato's Edward H. Crane in the WSJ:
Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:• Tax and spending. If ever there were sound and fury signifying nothing, it has to be the recent "debate" over the budget. Covered by the media as though it was negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles, the wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats centered on the nearly trivial question of whether the $12 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade should be reduced by 3% or 2%.
Mr. Paul would cut the federal budget by $1 trillion immediately. He can't do it, of course, but voters sense he really wants to. As Milton Friedman once explained, the true tax on the American people is the level of spending--the resources taken from the private sector and employed in the public sector. Whether financed from direct taxation, inflation or borrowing, spending is the burden.
...• Civil liberties. Libertarians often differ with conservatives over issues related to civil liberties. Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution. He would work to repeal significant parts of the so-called Patriot Act. Its many civil liberties transgressions include the issuance by the executive branch of National Security Letters (a form of administrative subpoena) without a court order, and the forbiddance of American citizens from mentioning that they have received one of these letters at the risk of jail.
The Bush and Obama administrations have claimed the right to incarcerate an American citizen on American soil, without charge, without access to an attorney, for an indefinite period.
President Obama even claims the right to kill American citizens on foreign soil, without due process of law, for suspected terrorist activities. Meanwhile, the Stop Online Piracy Act moving through the House is a clear effort by the federal government to censor the Internet. Mr. Paul stands up against all this, which should and does engender support from limited government advocates in the GOP.
The thing that RP gets that most of the budget items are written as "can", "may", "authorized", "allowed" and not as "shall", "required", or "must".
What that means is that the president, as the person executing the budget, does not have to spend all or any of that money on a particular budget item. For example he doesn't want to fund the study of the snail darter in the pacific northwest, or this chunk of the EPA, etc. he can do a signing notice that these funds are not released.
Congress would have to specifically pass a bill requiring the president to fund the particular item. That would put congress in a bind by forcing them pass that legislation for the stupid stuff.
Jim P. at January 1, 2012 5:48 AM
JimP: How do your reconcile your comment with the Constitutional duty of Congress to handle Federal money?
Radwaste at January 1, 2012 6:14 AM
The House has the power of the purse. All spending bills, technically, start there. Then the bills are passed to the Senate for advice and consent. The Senate can then pass it or say they want to add in or take out. (Like they ever take out. ;-)
This is where the conference committees come in. But technically the House could tell the Senate to stuff it.
Then after that process is done it goes to the president's desk. The president then signs it, vetoes it, or signs it with signing notes and executive orders.
The House can write specific sections to require or deny spending on a particular item but that is rarely done except for things like the defense budget bills to build boats and planes.
Look at the Iran-Contra -- that was a line item in the budget. Budgeting for B-1 went through the same rigamarole.
General budget bills to finance the alphabet soup of agencies are just that. And then the individual agencies can reprogram the money after the bill is signed. The alphabet soup works for the president -- not congress. So the president can order them to not spend money.
Jim P. at January 1, 2012 6:58 AM
What Paul says he would do and what he would actually do in office probably differ drastically. Also surprised you support him, Amy. I enjoyed many of his ideas for awhile till I started researching and found plenty of evidence that he's little more than a conservative bigot. He's not much on civil rights at home and not long ago claimed life in America was much better when "gays were in the closet" and that "coming out" is what caused an aids epidemic. I think he's a nut when you scratch the surface. I so wish we had another candidate!
Amy at January 1, 2012 10:42 AM
In the meantime, Ron Paul will direct more federal dollars to his district than almost every other representative. He's a lying hypocrite.
Joe at January 1, 2012 10:52 AM
So the president can order them to not spend money.
Really? This sounds similar to the line item veto, which I believe is unconstitutional. Can you point us at a good source for this?
Christopher at January 1, 2012 11:32 AM
found plenty of evidence that he's little more than a conservative bigot.
I found plenty of evidence that debunks your claim. Listen and learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U
That's Nelson Linder, the head of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, who's known Dr. Paul for a couple of decades.
John C. Randolph at January 1, 2012 12:21 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/why-ron-paul-ma.html#comment-2887703">comment from AmyAlso surprised you support him, Amy.
First, because I say his ideas are important, why do you assume I "support" him? I find some of his views and his apparent personal feelings about gays disgusting.
The candidate I like is Gary Johnson. Unfortunately, he has all the charisma of a wet bedsheet.
(It's kind of amazing that people assume I support someone merely because I expose some of a person's ideas to air. I also think Michelle Obama is very attractive and has a terrific sense of style -- and is an ass on food policy.)
Amy Alkon
at January 1, 2012 12:59 PM
Dr, Paul would cut the budget by a trillion dollars immediately. Good for us, bad for connected insiders. Given the choice to have government services or keep my own money, its keep my own money every time!
Kurt at January 1, 2012 2:53 PM
Amy, your post is titled "Why Ron Paul Matters". The text of the post excerpts a similarly titled opinion piece which is clearly favorable to Paul. Edward Crane, to his credit, dutifully condemns RP's now-infamous newsletters at the end of his piece; your post does not even do that. Your criticism is appended as an afterthought in the comments.
If you enumerate a list of reasons "why Ron Paul matters", and they are all favorable to Ron Paul, a person can reasonably infer that you support Ron Paul. Either your claim to be "amazed" at this is disingenuous, or you are a lot less smart than I've been giving you credit for.
As for myself, I believe Ron Paul "matters" for a number of reasons - none of them good.
Asher Abrams at January 1, 2012 3:08 PM
Why Ron Paul Matters
Gary Johnson: Ron Paul For Grownups
Just Call Him "Ron Paul Bachmann"
These are the last three blog titles with Ron Paul in the title and subject.
Tell us again how its easy to infer a statement never stated.
Also why is it you can think Ron Paul matters and still not support him, but Amy cant?
lujlp at January 1, 2012 5:32 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/why-ron-paul-ma.html#comment-2888143">comment from Asher Abrams"Why Ron Paul Matters".
Yes, and he has some ideas I approve of and some I'm opposed to, but in general, he makes the loser pretend-small government Republicans look like the slightly less big governmenters than the Democrats that they actually are by comparison.
This is a good thing.
Previously, as luj notes, I called him Ron Paul Bachmann, because the dimwit neither believes in evolution nor understands -- as a medical doctor -- what the term "theory" means in science.
I love how people extrapolate what I must think out of what I haven't said. Do you do that just out of the blue, or do you employ a Magic 8 Ball?
Amy Alkon
at January 1, 2012 5:56 PM
"I'm Libertarian" - The socially acceptable way to say "I hate you and would laugh if your house burned down"
Wyzdyx at January 1, 2012 6:27 PM
@Kurt - What federal government services would you lose if the federal budget was cut by $1 Trillion? I don't receive any federal services; in fact, the ones I receive are "disservices" like SWAT teams to arrest people who sell me raw milk and the TSA to take naked pictures of my wife and daughters.
@Wyzdyx - Libertarians want to help people, but they want to do so voluntarily and not when coerced by the authorities. Is it charitable to hand over your money when there's a gun in your belly?
Peter at January 2, 2012 9:21 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/why-ron-paul-ma.html#comment-2889322">comment from PeterI'm sure they'll keep funding the DEA nannies whose job it is to keep legitimate prescriptions from being filled -- if only they can keep college kids from getting their mitts on unprescribed Adderall and upping their B to an A. (Sorry, but is that a problem or something we should be celebrating?)
Amy Alkon
at January 2, 2012 9:23 AM
"What that means is that the president, as the person executing the budget, does not have to spend all or any of that money on a particular budget item. "
The Supreme Court said otherwise in a 1973 case involving President Nixon.
Cousin Dave at January 2, 2012 4:22 PM
Leave a comment