PDA

View Full Version : Something to email to old-school conservatives: "The Futility of Correctness"




stewie3128
12-11-2007, 01:30 AM
I just sent this to my family, who are all old-school conservatives - paleocons if you will - but who still vote for the major Republican party nominees out of loyalty to the party. What I try to demonstrate to them is that Ron Paul is the candidate who supports all the things they know deep-down are right, because what he says are the basic truths that Conservatism and Libertarianism are based on. Feel free to email this to your Conservative friends and family who you hope to convert to RP. I'm working on one for Liberals too (I vascillate wildly between the two camps myself). I've entitled this one "The Futility of Correctness."
=====

The Futility of Correctness

In this bipartisan Presidential election season we're confronted with the evils of two lessers: the two major parties in Washington. Their corruption and self interest has resulted in a series of contemptible binaries: "more welfare for the poor" vs. "more welfare for the poor and for bloated companies" for example. Big government vs. bigger government. As well-meaning Conservatives, we should be outraged by the choice between "awful" and "worse," and in the 80s, we might have. Not any more, though. Over time, we've simply accepted that government will play a more active role in our lives and in the life of commerce, though the Republican rhetoric of personal opportunity and initiative still survives.

In this election, we have only one shot to put substance back behind the rhetoric - to stop the growth of government at the expense of individual liberty dead in its tracks. That shot is Ron Paul's candidacy. His positions are informed by libertarian principle and defined by the Constitution. I'll summarize a few here, with comparisons to other candidates.

*End the US occupation of Iraq immediately.

Even to those of us who supported the toppling of Saddam's regime, it's evident that we can't financially afford this venture any more. It's crushing our currency and undermining the strength of the economy. In order to fund our presence in Iraq, the government has had to print more and more money out of thin air, each dollar of which dilutes the value of our existing dollars. As a result, our dollars are worth less against other currencies, and investment in our currency is stifled, because of the growing evidence that we don't have the actual equity to back up the loans other countries make to us. We have reached the point where countries who used to peg their internal bank activity to the US Federal Reserve, such as Saudi Arabia, no longer do so. It indicates that the American dollar's position as the international community's currency of choice is in grave jeopardy - all because we're spending more money than we actually have.

Now, contrast this principled and utterly reasonable position with the financially irresponsible positions of the rest of the Republican (and all of the viable Democratic) field: indefinite occupation of Iraq at indefinite expense. The very best that can come of such a policy is another Korea-style occupation of at least 55,000 troops at similar cost in perpetuity. Our military is already stretched far too thin, the equipment, including our flagship F-15s, are starting to fail from fatigue, and we can no longer recruit even enough enlistments to keep our current numbers of troops in the system, much less make additional commitments. So with the programs of Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney, all we would do is continue to accrue a crippling debt of not only dollars but also manpower.

This position on Iraq is also informed by the Constitution, and even what we initially voted for in George W. Bush in 2000. He talked about a "humble" foreign policy, one of not engaging ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations, and of avoiding nation building. The Founders themselves wrote and spoke of avoiding entanglements and alliances with other countries. As Paul says "we should be trading with these countries, not bombing them." And though it feels good to exert our military might on our enemies, it is strategically contrary to our long-term interests. Dr. Paul supports pulling our presences out of all foreign countries with the exception of Afghanistan - and only leaving our forces there to hunt for Bin Laden. Doing so would free up hundreds of billions of dollars per year either to be spent on domestic issues, or simply to be cut from the Federal budget.

Of course, this all runs contrary to the course of conventional wisdom, on many levels, so is more or less ignored in the mainstream media.

*Transition us out of the financially unsustainable Social Security system toward private accounts for the next generation.

As Dr. Paul says on his website: "Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. ... Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending. The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals." He has proposed legislation that removes all taxes on Social Security benefits, which only makes sense. If the government is giving you a check, they shouldn't be withholding money from it. And, given that you've already paid in more than you're getting out after inflation, you're actually being swindled twice. This makes no sense from any angle.

So, before retooling the system for the next generation, Ron Paul has introduced legislation ensuring the solvency of Social Security, whereby any money that is paid in to the Social Security fund is used only for Social Security. Needless to say, this is not a popular idea in Washington. The rest of the Beltway is more interested in continually raiding those funds, stealing from the cookie jar, to pay for their own priorities. Such a proposal is labeled "radical."

We *could* fund Social Security handily if the Federal government were to live within its means. The reason we need multiple workers paying in to the system to support a single beneficiary is because the government spends more than what it takes in, from all directions. By balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and locking funds paid in to SS to actually being used for SS, the system would be solvent.

For those workers who are not yet set to rely on SS for their retirement, RP supports cutting payroll taxes deeply to allow younger workers to seek better return on investment in the private market.

What are the other candidates' plans? Raise taxes, cut benefits, make promises we can't keep, or some combination of all three. These are not solutions. The Social Security insolvency problem has been created by grossly irresponsible government deficit spending, and can be solved with responsible budgeting and expenditures. Which brings us to taxes...

*Eliminate the Federal income tax.

Did you know that if we eliminated the personal income tax right now, the Federal government would still bring in as much money as it did in fiscal year 2000? Surely, we could go back to year 2000 levels of spending. But Ron Paul wants to do even better: Eliminate the income tax, and reduce taxes on business as well, encouraging hiring, economic development, commerce, and international investment in the American market. Jobs and investment are flowing overseas because it is substantially cheaper to set up shop elsewhere, even if it means an inferior product. If levels of bureaucracy and taxation are business-advantageous, jobs and commerce will necessarily flourish in the United States. Contrast this with other candidates' tax records of at very least voting for tax increases, and in most cases actually effecting many. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has never once in his 10 terms in Congress voted to raise taxes.

Dr. Paul's response to most of our problems is, essentially, let the markets do their work. As Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural address, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Eliminate the pollution of the Federal government in everyday affairs that has led to these issues by limiting the Federal government to its Constitutionally mandated powers and responsibility. As the 10th Amendment explicitly states that those powers not assigned to the Federal government are necessarily devolved to the states and the people, our government needs to rediscover its Constitutional place, and stop trying to take over our lives, our economy, our liberties, and the rest of the world.

As a Conservative, I suspect that everything I've said here resonates with you in a distant memory of what we once stood for. Hopefully, I'm preaching to the choir of conscience that we have - limiting government, protecting liberty, keeping taxes low, and letting people live their lives as they see fit. I have come to believe that, without a doubt, Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who actually still believes in these things enough to do anything about them.

I know that Dr. Paul is the right candidate, with the right views and the best record. Deep down, you probably suspect that too. But he has not been done any favors in the media, and as a result, the old-world polls haven't reflected his actual popularity. But the structure of polling questions and the selective pool that the pollsters choose should not determine our next President. The office of the President should go to the candidate most able to lead, and most able to do what is right for our country and for our liberty. His record speaks for itself, as do his voluminous speeches before Congress and on the committees he serves in. Please read his positions that I've linked to below - these are not second or thirdhand positions retold and spun by pundits, these are his own words.

Finally, I've reached the awkward "move to action" portion of any political correspondence, so here it goes: The grassroots Ron Paul movement is planning a major fundraising day on December 16th, with a shoot-for-the-stars goal of $10 million in a single day. When we last did this on November 5th, we made $4.3 million, setting a new record for single-day online fundraising, and drastically improving Dr. Paul's status in the mainstream media. December 16th is going to be our day - the date of the Boston Tea Party - to make a statement to the government and to the world that liberty is still worth defending, and is still the will of the people. Just as important to this drive as raising a lot of money is raising it from a lot of donors. So it doesn't matter how much you can give, be it $5 or $2300, please show your support by donating to the campaign this Sunday at http://www.ronpaul2008.com

And if any of what I've written here resonates with you, please feel free to forward it to your Conservative friends.

From the horse's mouth:

On Bloomberg TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUO9r36bVsQ

Important speeches and writings: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

On the issues from the official campaign website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

His weekly column on his Congressional website: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm