redblueamerica.com

Cross-posted at Infinite Monkeys

I was going to spend more time building a case for Ron Paul's economic policies, but how could I do better than this article by Donald Luskin at National Review Online. Ben was kind enough to link to it in his comment to my post over at RedBlueAmerica and I'll highlight it here:

If you crack the nut shell and look objectively at what Paul is really advocating, conservatives will find that Paulonomics looks an awful lot like Reaganomics. Paulonomics emerges as a refreshing return to conservative roots: small government, low taxes, deregulation, and sound money. If Paulonomics seems nutty, that may say more about the sad state of events today, with “big government conservatism” having become the new touchstone.

Indeed. When Bill Clinton said, "The era of big government is over," who knew the REPUBLICANS would be responsible for turning that statement into a lie?

The core concept of Paulonomics is the reduction in the size and cost of the federal government...

A lot of Republican politicians say that want this, and the Republican rank-and-file certainly used to. But Paul doesn't just say it, he lives it. During his ten terms in Congress, nobody has even come close to voting as consistently against federal increase.

...Paul would outright eliminate what he believes are wasteful and counterproductive federal programs, such as the departments of Education and Energy. Nutty? Most Republicans wouldn’t dare talk about eliminating the Department of Education in the age of “No Child Left Behind.” But Paul reminded me in a recent interview that it wasn’t so many election cycles ago that scrapping this department was an official plank of the GOP platform.

...Paul would decommission Social Security and Medicare by honoring obligations to those who are utterly dependent, but letting young people opt out of both systems entirely. Nutty? Let’s be honest: Most conservatives want to do exactly this, but are afraid to say so in a political environment where even mandatory personal accounts are vilified as a “risky scheme,” as Al Gore famously put it.

Why isn't it okay to talk about this anymore? I'll point you back to the first paragraph I quoted.

...Paul points out that today’s level of federal tax revenues, without the income tax, is sufficient to meet all the government’s expenses as they stood not so many years ago. The problem is that the size, scope, and cost of government has grown so much. Would it be such a nutty trade-off to roll back the clock on government expenditures if it meant eliminating income taxes for all Americans?

When I first heard that the income tax could be completely eliminated and the government could still fund itself at 1997 budget levels, I was shocked. Then I was angry. How can this be so? In ten years the government has grown that much? They could have frozen expenditures at 1997 levels (which were still too high) and gradually reduced the income tax to zero over ten years? Can you imagine what that would have done for the economy?

Luskin continues, but I'll let you read his statements yourself. Then look at Paul's positions on Debt & Taxes, Social Security , Taxes on Tips , and Sound Money - each position page contains an overview, plus links to writings, videos and other information on the subject. This guy knows his stuff.

Then, for those who wax nostalgic for a time when "Republican" could mean less government and more freedom take a look at this video. (or watch it above)