About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

If You Have A Problem With Paul's Proposal, You Don't Understand The Depth Of The Problem!

As Michelle Malkin points out during her discussion of the GOP presidential front-runners (Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich), every "single one of these front-runners is a pro-TARP interventionist with a variety of problematic Big Biz/Big Government impulses and alliances."

Why, then, are these men the frontrunners? Are Republican voters serious about what needs to change in this country, or are they simply engrossed in political gamesmanship?

Ron Paul has recently released his "Plan To Restore America." Please read this plan. I'm going to reproduce it below.

Remember how we were disappointed with Congressional Republican plans to cut government during the Debt Ceiling "crisis?" The federal budget cuts proposed by Boehner were illusory gimmicks spread out over 10 years. We called him on it and he was exposed as an establishment RINO.

RINO! It's a word we despise because it describes Republicans who pretend to be fiscal conservatives, who pander to us by fearmongering the seriousness of the problem of big government, but then whimp out and refuse to confront that problem.

Read Paul's Plan. It does not whimp out. It does not run over 10 years. The cuts are deep, significant and serious. It is a plan we have demanded one of the candidates produce. Well, one of them has.

I have read and heard comments from conservatives (Sean Hannity, for instance) who say they support Paul's fiscal positions but cannot support his foreign policy and, therefore, cannot support Paul.

With all due respect, these comments are illogical. Think about it. Such comments are based on one of two possible faulty assumptions. First, they assume that the economic plans which tinker around the edges of the problem will solve the country's financial problems, making foreign policy matters vastly important. Does anybody believe this?

Does anybody believe that Mitt Romney's 59-point economic plan will save the dollar? Or that Herman Cain's 999 tax plan will drastically cut federal spending which we all agree is the root of the problem? Or that Rick Perry's silly plan to drill, baby, drill is the panacea for our obscene levels of public debt? Or that Newt Gingrich's new Contract with America is sufficient to solve the problem? Where is Bachmann's or Huntsman's or Santorum's cut-deep-and-serious plan? They don't exist.

Second, those who disparage Paul because of his foreign policy, may be operating under the alternative, faulty assumption that the United States can remain a super-power once it is fiscally broken and bankrupt. They seem to think that this country's unmatched military might can remain unmatched after the dollar collapses. They seem to think that China, Russia, Israel, Canada, Australia and Europe will still care what American foreign policy is after America becomes another hollowed out and defanged superpower reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.

I do not agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy in it's entirety. I agree that the United States needs to pull back from its military bases scattered throughout the world. I believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must come to end and the troops brought home. I believe that the military budget must be cut, must become lean and mean. However, I do not believe Ron Paul's assumption that if the US pulls back its horns, the Islamic states, China and Russia will do the same. However, dealing with these threats as the US does now has not worked.

I believe we should secure our borders, maintain a potent military and strike back hard and fast at whoever messes with us. It's the way we discipline our children and our dogs. It's the way we should defend ourselves against aggressors.

But all this is secondary and moot if our country goes bankrupt and becomes a third-world economy. The first rule of triage is to stop the bleeding. Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America will stop the bleeding. Only then, after we're alive and well, should we concern ourselves about how we deal with our threatening neighbors.

Ron Paul's Plan (See Paul's website for the specific numbers and the complete Plan):

America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms.


Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done.


Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.


Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.

Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.

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.


Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.


Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.


Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.


skudrunner said...

Paul is the only one who is truthful enough to admit it cannot be done overnight but will take many steps and years to balance the budget. The remainder of the candidates will accomplish balancing the budget in a single bound, which is an impossibility and would create a financial disaster.

The "progressives" are all for equality in education and income until you ask them to contribute.

Sherman Broder said...

Thanks for your continued comments.

As I see it, Paul's plan is superior because it balances the budget by cutting spending. The other candidate plans balance the budget by "revenue neutral" solutions, i.e., by keeping spending at relatively high levels and raising revenue to balance it.

Government spending converts private property into public property. That is unacceptable.

Country Thinker said...

Your observation regarding Paul's foreign policy is spot-on.

LD Jackson said...

Sherman, this is a great post. Early in the campaign, I was actually leaning towards Ron Paul. He lost me when he made the statement during one of the debates about it being our fault that 9/11 happened. I understand what he was talking about, but it simply didn't set well with me.

What it boils down to is this. I agree with him almost 100% on his economic policies, but my position on his foreign policy would mirror your own. I am thinking the direness of our economic situation has to outweigh any disagreement I may have with his foreign policy.

Sherman Broder said...

Thanks Country Thinker and LD Jackson for looking up my blog and leaving your thoughtful comments.

I visit your blogs regularly and respect your opinions.

CT, I'm looking forward to buying and reading your book.

LD, my first choice must be Paul. In a pinch I could support Cain. That is, of course, unless the campaign of my alter ego, Sherman Broder, picks up steam!

Thanks again.