Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, in a statement regarding the recently released 2013 Federal budget, calls for an end to the hypocrisy of massive government spending and its negative impact on national security.
Paul writes that conservatives rightly complain about the more than $1 trillion deficit outlined in the budget, but that the same “conservatives” also complain that more money needs to be allocated for what the candidate refers to as overseas adventurism.
Citing “Attack of the Porkhawks,” an article written by the Cato Institute’s Doug Bandow, Paul argues that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: More money equals better results. The Federal education system clearly disproves the theory, writes the candidate.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.
Though the Republican establishment and mainstream media continue to defend the notion that Paul’s foreign policy is nothing short of insane, the candidate continues to enjoy comfortable support from many people with close ties to national defense. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit, endorsed Paul several months ago; and members of the armed forces overwhelmingly support the candidate.