Third Party's the charm?
by digby
Ron Paul said this yesterday in the New Hampshire debate:
[M]y trillion dollar proposal to cut spending, doesn’t immediately deal with Social Security, it’s to try to work our way out of Social Security.I’m cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to ‘06 budget. And I do not believe that you have to have -- people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the American people, they get their freedom back and get no income back, they don’t suffer any pain.
He also said this to a reporter talking about South Carolina, the most conservative state in the country:
Venturing well beyond what any other GOP candidate would dare, the Texas congressman said he thinks his support can encompass followers in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He told a supporter in Meredith that his appeal extends to "independent people who are sick and tired of the two-party system. The people who are going out on Occupy Wall Street. They are sick and tired of it."
Sounds good.Between that and his national security platform you have to wonder why he's a Republican.
Until you look at the details. Here's Paul's economic plan. Let's just say he's not being entirely forthcoming:
DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:
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.
SPENDING:
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.
ENTITLEMENTS:
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.
CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
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.
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.
REGULATION:
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.
MONETARY POLICY:
Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.
CONCLUSION:
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.
I urge you to click over to the site and see the details. It's quite illuminating.
Paul's plan calls for greatly reduced military spending. How that breaks down is unknown, but I assume that I would agree with most of it. But take a look at the specifics of the tax policy:
I didn't know that Occupy was for lowering taxes for the 1% and corporations and eliminating financial regulations and I would imagine that would come as something of a surprise to most people who identify with that movement as well. But hey, maybe they've evolved.
Despite what he said in that interview. His long held position is that he would allow all the old folks to continue to collect SS (he says they've been "conditioned" to need it) but will end it for younger people. Not "opt out." End it.
Why does he want to end it?
WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.
That's interesting because Paul's philosophy really says that the constitution doesn't have the authority to declare slavery illegal but perhaps that big old war made the difference on that one. And it should be said that he thinks states have a right to have their own social security plans so that's good.
I suppose he's actually being practical in saying that the elderly who haven't been "conditioned" to spend their last years in penury because they can't work will be allowed to collect. But you younguns should be ok because you are going to spend your lives in a dog eat dog, every-man-for-himself world and you're all going to be tough old birds who can scrap out a meager living ragpicking at the (gigantic, toxic) landfill --- or you'll be rich, I tell you, rich! No matter what, at least you'll have your pride.
The fact is that he's being very cagey about the details of his economic plan, which seems a little bit odd considering that he's the man of principle who sticks to his guns and tells it like it is. So, I have to wonder if he isn't truly planning a third party run. His extreme economic views are certainly his big selling point to the Republican base so why would he soft peddle them and evoke the much loathed Occupy movement.
Adele Stan is following the Paul campaign on the ground and she wrote this a couple of weeks ago:
At last week's Iowa debate, when asked if he would endorse the GOP nominee, Ron Paul dodged the question. I expect he will again endorse the Constitution Party's nominee [as he did in 2008] -- especially if it's him.
While a third-party run by any of its early primary winners could cause problems for the Republican Party, if Paul is the third-party standard bearer, it's a circumstance that could prove vexing as well to the Obama campaign, siphoning off the most enthusiastic sort of young voters that Barack Obama relied on for his 2008 triumph. And in 2012, Obama will need every vote he can muster.
If he's talking about attracting Occupy protesters in the context of the South Carolina primary, it's hard to figure any other way.
The Constitution Party is on the ballot in 38 states, by the way.
.
