Ron Paul Straight Talk: Small Government Conservatives, Anti-War Liberals Should Join Forces To Combat Warfare And Welfare Spending

0 Shares

As I write this, it appears that the federal government is about to shut down because the House and Senate cannot agree on whether to add language defunding or delaying Obamacare to the “Continuing Resolution”. Despite all the hand-wringing heard in DC, a short-term government shut down (which doesn’t actually shut down the government) will not cause the country to collapse.

And the American people would benefit if Obamacare was defeated or even delayed.

Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care. Denying funds to this program may give Congress time to replace this bill with free-market reforms that put patients and physicians back in charge of health care. Defunding the bill before it becomes implemented can spare the American people from falling under the worst effects of this law.

As heartened as we should be by the fight against Obamacare, we should be equally disheartened by the fact that so few in DC are talking about making real cuts in federal spending. Even fewer are talking about reductions in the most logical place to reduce spending: the military-industrial complex. The US military budget constitutes almost 50 percent of the total worldwide military spending. Yet to listen to some in Congress, one would think that America was one canceled multi-million dollar helicopter contract away from being left totally defenseless.

What makes this military spending impossible to justify is that is does not benefit the American people. Instead, by fomenting resentment and hatred among the world population, our costly interventionist foreign policy makes our people less safe. Thus, reducing spending on militarism would not only help balance the budget, but would enhance our security.

Yet both the House and the Senate continuing resolutions not only fail to reduce military spending, they actually authorize $20 billion more in military spending than authorized by the “sequestration” created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Most of the supposedly “draconian” sequestration cuts are not even cuts; instead, they are “reductions in the planed rate of spending.” This is where Congress increases spending but by less than originally planned—and yet they claim to cut spending.

Under sequestration, military spending increases by 18 percent instead of by 20 percent over the next ten years. Yet some so-called conservatives are so opposed to these phony cuts in military spending that they would support increased taxes and increased welfare “military” spending. This “grand bargain” would benefit the DC political class and the special interests, but it would be a disaster for the American people.

Instead of grand bargains of increased spending and taxes, those of us who support limited government and free markets should form a coalition with antiwar liberals to reduce spending on both the military industrial complex and domestic welfare programs. Instead of raising taxes on “the rich” we should also work to reduce all corporate subsidies. This “grand bargain” would truly be a win-win for the American people.

Sadly, even if a congressional coalition to cut both warfare and welfare spending was formed, it would be unlikely to carry the day as long as the Federal Reserve is willing to enable Congress’s debt addiction by monetizing the debt. But this cannot last forever. At some point the Fed’s policies will result in hyper-inflation and an economic crisis that will force Congress to reduce spending. Hopefully, the growing number of Americans who are awaking to the dangers of our current path can convince Congress to reduce overseas militarism and begin an orderly drawdown of the welfare state before this crisis occurs.

Personal Liberty

Ron Paul

Former Representative Ron Paul has maintained a steadfast consistency in speaking out against executive power, taxation and war. Unlike many of his Republican peers, as a Congressman, he voted against the Patriot Act and against the Iraq war. He has voted against farm subsidies and regulating the Internet, which is in line with his interest in reducing government spending and the role of the Federal government. Paul has also expressed his opposition to the war on drugs, saying that the government's efforts have actually been a war on doctors. These and other controversial opinions have often caused tension with his Republican counterparts. Paul is the author of many books, including End The Fed, Liberty Defined and Revolution: A Manifesto. Along with a lengthy political career as a Congressman and Presidential candidate, Paul has also worked as a respected obstetrician in his home State of Texas. Since his retirement from Congress in 2013, Paul has stayed busy encouraging Americans to fight for liberty by founding the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and his own news channel.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Patriot66

    I always thought the best way to make health care cheaper was to eliminate the insurance companies altogether. Physicians could co-op together and people would pay monthly costs directly to the physicians, rather than an insurance company. The only thing they would need would be software to connect it all together. Waivers could take care of the crazy tort laws now in place. If you didn’t sign, go somewhere else. This would reduce health care by 80%, easily.

    • rbrooks

      you mean socialized medicine?

    • Robert Messmer

      I know that a lot of people don’t like the so-called crazy tort laws BUT (there is always a but, LOL) do you really think that a patient who goes into surgery to have their right leg removed and wakes up in recovery to be told “oops we made a mistake and removed your left leg” shouldn’t have a leg to stand on to recover damages? True case, happened here in Florida. And yes, the patient had to undergo another surgery to have the correct leg removed. If the AMA, the other so-called “professional” groups, and hospitals actively policed their own ranks, probably 90% of the malpractice law suits would be eliminated.

      • Wellarmed

        Would you rather have nobody perform the amputation at all other than a relative who knows nothing about medicine?

        Simple operation protocols can minimize (not eliminate) this type of occurrence. To use it as a method to uphold your position is laughable.

        Accidents happen in all professions including medicine. Human error is a B*^TCH sometimes isn’t it?

        The reality is that any landing that can be walked away from is a good one.

        Please remember that less than one hundred years ago that people would routinely die from NOT having the surgery that you described, or they would have died as a result of the surgery (even on the correct leg) due to an infection ( which is making an incredible comeback ).

        As screwed up as it may sound the patient needs to accept a degree of responsibility in their own care. They must weigh risk versus benefit and come to a proper decision on their own.

        That is the definition of freedom, and it sometimes carries a hefty price tag.

        • Robert Messmer

          Sorry but a doctor not being able to distinguish between left and right is not something that the patient should be held responsible for. The patient had indeed weighed the risk and said yes the infected leg needed to come off. Quite sure he was never told that oh by the way the doctor might not know which leg is the one to be taken off, do you still wish to have the surgery.

    • Wellarmed

      Agreed Patriot66. I am all for employee owned Physician clinics, but individual states would have to sign off on not providing non emergency care to patients who do not agree to the clinic’s term of service (which should include some form of cap on liability).

      I pay my physician in cash/ammo/or vehicle repair. The decision is between me and him how I wish to arrange payment. It is of no business of the Federal Government. My file belongs to me and he understands and agrees to that arrangement or I take my business elsewhere.

      So far as out of state care would be concerned it would be no different than the model of current credit unions that allow branching through a shared network.

      The interjection of the Federal Government into such private matters will be the beginning of the end for our once great nation. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

      I advise all those who wish to remain free to disregard any question on their tax return regarding the mandate to purchase insurance. Even if I had a policy that satisfied the ACA mandate, I would not disclose it as that simple act would be the opening of Pandora’s Box and the end of you calling yourself a free person.

      May the Federal government be shut down till hell freezes over!

  • Ron Paul for President!

    Three cheers, Dr. Paul! I have supported you’re viewpoint since I became “aware” and still support it now!

  • welchg2

    Ron Paul’s advice is very good. This is why I’ve been recommending the Conservative Party of the USA for quite a while now. It supports the true conservative values including avoiding involvement in other country’s wars. This is what we used to practice until World Wars I & especially WWII. Why not at least check it out at http://www.conservativepartyusa.org ? If the platform doesn’t meet your idea of what we need, then you have lost nothing but a few minutes of time! However, I believe its past time to avoid unnecessary wars that have cost us trillions of dollars, not to mention the countless dead and maimed. The only way we can survive and maybe even succeed is to reduce military costs, reduce the size of government, and use our national resources to pay off our massive debts.