http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-trillion-dollar-man-232900554.html

COMMENTARY | I have followed politics for a long time, and there is never a shortage of politicians promising the world and not delivering. After my recent review of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan I detailed why this plan is "all sizzle and no steak" and how an additional 9 percent federal sales tax would give the weak consumer driven economy an immediate heart attack. I believe we already collect enough in taxes, seemingly more than enough, and our problem is almost entirely based around our federal government's spending habits.


Voters should take 10 minutes to read The Plan to Restore America proposed by presidential candidate Ron Paul. Many of Paul's closest supporters might not think it goes far enough, while others who don't mind a ballooning national debt might think it cuts too much and that is why this is the best plan for restoring America.


It's well balanced. It cuts most federal spending back to the levels of 2006 (I'm sure we can all remember life way back in '06) and it saves tax dollars by ending the wars and stops providing any foreign aid. However, Social Security gets increased funding each subsequent year in the Paul presidency as does Medicare, military retirement funding and veterans' benefits.

More importantly this plan is necessary. Without real major changes in defining what the role of our federal government ought to be, we will not be able to achieve prosperity in America again. Even Rush Limbaugh agreed in saying, "Genuine, big spending cuts are the only thing that is going to bring us back into some semblance of ideas. Now, these aren't (just) Ron Paul's ideas. They are ours."

This Trillion Dollar Plan is not a guess, nor a long-term projection. It doesn't make a weak yet hopeful promise to see results 10 years down the road, it delivers immediately by making the cuts in one budget year and would provide a surplus budget before the end of his first term in office.


I like when promises come in written form and from the only honest and consistent candidate running for president in 2012. And since the budget would be in surplus during Paul's first term it would make it easy to judge his presidency when it comes time for re-election. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and my taxes aren't higher, I'll know that you are the real deal; a characteristic that I wouldn't apply to either Barack Obama or George W Bush.

When judging what is truly important this election cycle voters should be focused on two things: Is the candidate trustworthy, and does the candidate know how to fix what's wrong with America? After reading this Plan to Restore America, I feel I have found the answer to both, and I believe that you will too.

One of the least-well known of Murphy's Laws says "Everyone has a get-rich quick plan that won't work." That Murphy's Law also applies to Ron Paul's 'Restore America' plan.

It's way too Captain Obvious and short on credible details. Such as 'honoring our promises to our seniors' while 'allowing younger workers to opt out.'

Fail.

It won't work in this Universe. It's like saying 'all we need to solve our energy crisis is for someone to make Cold Fusion actually work.' Nice trick if you can pull it off, and who knows, someone might?

But that's not the way the smart money bets.

Another one: Lower the Corporate Tax rate to 15%. This is another dodge that promises a lot but is nothing more than a Libertarian feel-good platitude. For most corporations, the ACTUAL rate when all their government corporate welfare and tax breaks are factored in is already below this.

A third: eliminating government regulation. Dr. No is like a Speak-n-Say kids toy on this one-- you pull his string and regardless of the topic, he'll say "NO!" Doesn't matter if it's nuclear power, enviromental, financial, whatever-- let the foxes patrol the hen house. We already know how that works when the Bush administration dismembered the financial regulation infrastructure-- you have bankers becoming banksters.

Sometimes if takes a big mean farmer with a big-*** shotgun to keep the nestegg-sucking dogs out of the chickenhouse. Ron Paul has his head in the Ayn Rand sand on this and other similar situations.

-Kerry O. "...I wrote this myself and approved this message. And I challenge others to not be Fox News sock puppets."

Ummm would it be safe to say you have a 'thing' for Ron Paul?

Where do you find the authority for government regulation of business in the Constitution? (the closest you'll find is the interstate commerce clause) If you've ever read Ron's economic works, he's thoroughly opposed to the big banksters and opposed the bank bailouts. The RAM plan is not 'pie in the sky'-it is restoring Constitutional limits on the regime that have been thoroughly eroded by fascists for 100+ years.

~ Dr. No is like a Speak-n-Say kids toy on this one-- you pull his string and regardless of the topic, he'll say "NO!"~ You say that as if it were a bad thing. Yes-men in the regime have been a big source of our current problems. They let the corporate foxes into the henhouse and pillaged the people-transferring vast sums of wealth from the poor and middle class to the big banks.

You can hate Ron and libertarians in general all you want, but Ron's been proven right time and time again. Serious libertarians (not the Reason/LP types) thoroughly oppose the merging of business and government (which Moussolini called Fascism). There's a BIG difference between corporatism and laissez-faire capitalism (as in night/day difference).

What's that last bit about "Fox news puppets" about? Faux news has long hated Ron and libertarians (and common sense in general).

Does Ron GUARANTEE that the RAN plan will be implemented? No-it has to go through congress.

BTW-do you know where the "Dr No" nickname came from? It came from his voting no on every unconstitutional measure that came before him in congress. It's not a gimmick made up for the campaign.

(btw, I am a non-political libertarian in general, and would prefer Misesian micro-secession. The reason I take interest in the RP campaign is that it brings common sense and sound reasoning-which libertarians have been trying to teach for years-into public conversation)

Where do you find the authority for government regulation of business in the Constitution? (the closest you'll find is the interstate commerce clause) If you've ever read Ron's economic works, he's thoroughly opposed to the big banksters and opposed the bank bailouts. The RAM plan is not 'pie in the sky'-it is restoring Constitutional limits on the regime that have been thoroughly eroded by fascists for 100+ years.

The Constitution does not secure to anyone liberty to conduct his business in such fashion as to inflict injury upon the pubic at large, or upon any substantial group of the people.

You can hate Ron and libertarians in general all you want, but Ron's been proven right time and time again. Serious libertarians (not the Reason/LP types) thoroughly oppose the merging of business and government (which Moussolini called Fascism). There's a BIG difference between corporatism and laissez-faire capitalism (as in night/day difference).

Ummm would it be safe to say you have a 'thing' for Ron Paul?

You know as well as I do that fascism is inherently big-business-friendly, so I doubt it was fascists who 'eroded' the rights of business owners over the last 100 years. I'd like to issue a counter-challenge: where in the Constitution does it find, as Mitt Romney stated, 'That Corporations are People, too'?

As to where in the Constitution one finds authority for government regulations, it's writ huge in the separation of powers, giving the Congress the right to make laws, the Executive Branch to carry them out as they see fit and the Supreme Court to judge their Constitutionality, NOT people like Ron Paul. To wit, from a Supreme Court decision, Nebbia vs. New York:



So if this is his mission, and it sure seems like it is, maybe he should make it known that what he REALLY wants to be is a Supreme Court Justice.




You and I have often agreed on this site about some things and differ sharply on others and I agree with you on this one. I used to think that Ayn Rand's 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' was really on to something until I began to experience American Economics close up-- as a small business owner, a professional and a consumer.

I found the world is a messy place incapable of the kind of control that everyone craves in one form or another. There are paradigm shifts that Capitalism has no way of controlling or mitigating the bad effects of, and Atlas Shrugged was a heart-warming fairy tale about romancing Capitalism that could never happen in the real world.

For one reason, Ayn Rand's world didn't include children.


-Kerry O.

If any Repub should get the nomination, it should be Ron Paul.

His being elected pres. would be a blessed relief from Barry and his lies.

Rand hated libertarians. She called them (incorrectly) the "hippies of the right". Some objectivists fancy themselves "libertarian", but Rand's Objectivism is not libertarian. Modern Objectivist rags like "Reason" constantly insult and misrepresent libertarians.

You're right that modern American Economics isn't rational. That's because it's fascist, not capitalist. Any semblance to capitalism was destroyed by the abandonment of a gold standard in favor of fiat money. (it was Tricky Dick Nixon who closed the "gold window", btw)

"Atlas" is an okay novel (and Rothbard liked it) but it is not libertarian. There's a great satirical play about Rand by Murray Rothbard called "Mozart Was A Red". You'd like it. Check it out on Youtube.

Rand hated libertarians. She called them (incorrectly) the "hippies of the right". Some objectivists fancy themselves "libertarian", but Rand's Objectivism is not libertarian. Modern Objectivist rags like "Reason" constantly insult and misrepresent libertarians.

You're right that modern American Economics isn't rational. That's because it's fascist, not capitalist. Any semblance to capitalism was destroyed by the abandonment of a gold standard in favor of fiat money. (it was Tricky Dick Nixon who closed the "gold window", btw)

"Atlas" is an okay novel (and Rothbard liked it) but it is not libertarian. There's a great satirical play about Rand by Murray Rothbard called "Mozart Was A Red". You'd like it. Check it out on Youtube.