Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

You really don't understand. He does not have to end it to marginalize it.

Appoint an administrator that will run off the career government employees, hire sycophants, re-write rules, change policy, change procedures, the types of things an adminstrator can do to weaken a department are endless.

Go back and read what Bush did to the Department of Justice.

Here, I'll help: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923239

 

No kidding. Look at what Perry has done to Texas and the state government. And not only the state government, but local government as well. Cut off the money to local governments, and they either raise taxes to cover the loss, or slash budgets and services. Guess which has been happening. And Perry has been highly disruptive to the function of state agencies, repeatly pushing for privatization that only makes money for his cronies in the private sector, who are busy writing checks for his campaign slush fund in gratitude. As a "cheaper alternative to the state bureaucracy," privatization has been an abject failure, and has driven away many of the best and brightest in state government.

Ron Paul, in my opinion, would be a disaster of epic proportions for Federal government. Some may see this as a plus. I do not.

 

...and the department would flounder without an administrator.

 

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Paul explicitly stating in 2008 that he just wouldn't appoint anyone to be the Secretary.

Besides, everyone knows what Paul is like, never compromise and all that. After all, this is the guy who's proposed 421 bills in his period as a Congressman..... and has had only 1 pass, and that was about some government property in Galveston or something miniscule. He'll just appoint libertarian crank after another.

 

I don't think you're going to find a lot of folks buying the rationale of "yes, he's a dangerous crank, but his dangerous crank vision wouldnt' ever be implemented...so we should support him due to some of the byproducts of his dangerous crank vision that aren't as dangerous or crank-ish, which will prolly be implemented so PAUL 2012."

 

Is this where I point out that Paul's proposed budget contained the complete destruction of Medicaid?

Also, I'll ask: how is Paul going to end this Empire? It's not just withdrawal from Afghanistan, after all.

 

And you think that'll cut it? You honestly think a couple bases in Kuwait and Japan are what's keeping us from paying for Social Security?

 

Ron Paul proposed a plan that would cut defense spending, put those cuts into entitlements, making them solvent, and allow people to opt in or out of these programs on a voluntary basis. Nobody else has a plan. They see entitlements bankrupting the federal government in the future, but nobody is seriously addressing it.

 

I am aware of it. But slashing defense makes up 40% of his budget cuts. The rest? 30% of it is pretty much the destruction of Medicaid ( amusing that the elderly who'll vote don't get their stuff cut as opposed to the poor), and the rest is the destruction of all those departments which you said he won't be able to destroy.

 

It may have already been posted (and it is Kos) but...

Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:05 AM PST.

A pragmatic critique of Ron Paul's economic plans
by tytalus

It interests me that Ron Paul, of all the conservative Republicans vying for the nomination this year, seems to get a pass when it comes to the issues supposedly important to the majority of Americans. Why is it that when Ron Paul comes up, it's not his proposals for the economy, unemployment, and the federal budget that we talk about?

Best I can tell, Americans seem interested in the economy and jobs and having a government that tackles these problems. In terms of what problem facing the country is most important, these are the issues that dominate the polling results.

The Ron Paul discussions of late, on the other hand, seem to be dominated by foreign policy and civil liberties issues. The wars? Let's see...3%. Civil liberties? Is it even on the radar? Can I use 'moral/ethical decline' for 3%? Well, damn. I care about these things; but it seems clear that when it comes to the election this year, it's not going to be driven by these issues. Not unless the economy expands like the early universe and unemployment drops in a big way.

An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

"Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran..."

Oh, be quiet, Glenn Greenwald. I will get to your red herring in due time.

Let's look at Ron Paul's prescription for the federal government, his "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA". I am reluctant to link to his drek but it seems proper to cite sources. He would like to achieve a balanced budget in just a few years by slashing spending, federal jobs, repealing legislation, and of course -- because it is such a revenue-builder -- cutting taxes.

Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education departments, gone. Social Security, gone, although he hasn't the courage to state it plainly ("Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.") Medicaid, welfare, gone, in the form of block grants to the states, who will find something better to do with the cash without a federal mandate. Regulation we like, on balance ("Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley."), gone.

How much fun it would be to have no Energy department, and with it no regulation or enforcement of nuclear waste disposal! Sure, let's kick HUD to the curb, that won't disproportionately hit the poor, the elderly, and discriminated-against minorities, will it? What about Commerce, the one Perry could remember? Who needs patents, trademarks, and government-regulated standards for industry that even the Founders thought useful? (oops. don't mess with the Founders.) And sure, I can see why they don't care about the Department of the Interior. Conservation of land and natural resources, who needs that?

Perhaps I should just let Education slide under the assumption that most liberal readers might like a Cabinet-level department created by Democrats and opposed by Republicans...

And of course, taxes:

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Yes, because personal savings account rates are so fantastic. So corporate taxes -- which corporations do their utmost to not pay, anyway -- will be lowered, making it easier for more corporations to protect their profits from the mean, nasty gov't. Meanwhile, the Bush-era tax cuts will remain, and with the abolition of the estate tax the wealthy class will be further entrenched, protected from ever having to support the government whose largess they enjoy.

Ron Paul endorses further measures on his 'economy' page, like eliminating income and capital gains taxes entirely, along with taxes on fuel to fund road construction. So let's not worry about infrastructure at all. In fact, let's finish defunding it! Roads? Oh, someone will build those...yeah, that'll restore the country to economic prosperity, let's go back to roads of tar and chip, gravel and dirt. Somebody better start building wagons. Hey, it's manufacturing, jobs...hey, here we go. Recycling in action.

Do I need to add that there was some sarcasm intended in the previous paragraph? I think I'd better. I actually don't think those are good ideas. Dirt roads and wagons. The recycling thing was a joke. I definitely like to recycle. I produce more recyclables than trash these days.

Ron Paul's page on taxes mentions him wanting to repeal the 16th amendment, but even he understands that to be so pie-in-the-sky that he advocates slashing spending instead. Sure, let's go back to a time before the 16th amendment...

"In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., the Supreme Court declared certain taxes on incomes — such as those on property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.
...
Members of Congress responded to Pollock by expressing widespread concern that many of the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.[14]"

Interesting. How familiar this refrain seems to me. Now why would Ron Paul advocate something like that?

So I can believe that Republicans might actually go for Ron Paul's proposals, and pretend that it'd be good for the economy, somehow. But who here wants that?

Anyway. I meant to get to Glenn Greenwald's red herring in due time, so here goes. Although he clearly wishes to foist the 'lesser of two evils' argument upon the Obama supporter (me for example), just as clearly, he wishes for the reader to concentrate on my choice and not his. This, after all, is the lesser evil he is willing to continue along with.

"...in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court."

Greenwald's support for Ron Paul implies that these items are things he is willing to do without. And make no mistake; Ron Paul's clearly advocated for cuts to the social safety net, destroying federal departments and the regulation they enforce, he's perfectly willing to oppress women's reproductive freedom based solely upon his personal beliefs, and the Supreme Court certainly isn't going to swing left or moderate with him running the show.

What about the list of Greenwald's accusations? Can Ron Paul single-handedly restore civil liberties voted through Congress and signed into law? If he sails into office with Republicans achieving domination in Congress, can he expect to see a vote to repeal the Patriot Act that they created? What exactly can Ron Paul do about minority inmates held in state prisons, many of whom may be there due to Republican obsession with drug wars and being 'tough' on crime? What can Ron Paul do about a federal budget bloated with defense spending and bank bailouts, supported by his own party? Would he employ the veto pen...and would they override him?

Oh, they'll be more than happy to pass his tax cuts, and Republicans in general don't seem to give a damn about the rights of women. But they haven't demonstrated much concern over civil liberties, or budget deficits for that matter, at least not when they're in charge.

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. -- Dick Cheney

When it comes to civil liberties, and the wars, I can state in no uncertain terms that I do not like what Obama has done to continue with the Afghanistan war. I understood what I was voting for in regard to the wars in 2008, however much I did not like it. And his recent signing statement does not make me feel any better about the law -- it just reminds me that the law is dangerous, and that portion of it at least needs repealing. I do not care for the drone army that's replaced some boots on the ground, but fails to be any more precise in its application of force. I am skeptical of the withdrawal from Iraq, considering the mercenary armies raised under the Bush regime, that show no signs of going away.

But I realize that these are probably not the issues upon which the presidential election will turn. That is why I will call red herring on Greenwald & co. Not because I find these issues unimportant; because, like it or not, the majority does not care as much as I do about them.

I realize that the likes of Ron Paul stand little to no chance of achieving significant reform that I would approve of through Republican domination of the political process. I know what he wants to do to the economy, though, and how Republicans would be more than happy to take care of that -- establishing even more protection for the wealthy class than they already have.

So, talk economy and jobs for awhile, like most Americans seem to want. Take a good, long look at what Ron Paul has in store for you. And tell me how much you want that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/03/1051089/-A-pragmatic-critique-of-Ron-Pauls-economic-plans

 

there's certainly a good amount of time and effort being spent contemplating the possible presidency of a man who's even too nutty for the republican primaries -- never mind the general .

guess it is good political discussion -- and it makes sense to guard against creep into the overall mood. (and by 'creep' I mean the ideas...not the man...ymmv).

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ywVXUAjnz5M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

vaids

Excelent,excellent post., truly caught my attention, vaids.

Sam

Also an excellent post, but the drop in the bucket re the 600 deaths is insensitive. It also inevitably leads to more bombers in Times Square as their pissed off relatives and fellow ethnics don't view them as "ants" per Chomsky. From a hard headed perspective, the billions and billions of wasted "security" expenses leads to defunding of social programs, death and suffering, whether one has the simplistic OMG Taxes are theft meme of the Paulites or not..

 

The Kochs love them some Ron Paul. That is hwy they both claim to be libertarians. His policies would make them even richer. Many billionaires would flock to Ron Paul if he had even a .01% chance of winning.