Ron Paul is Right: Don’t Abandon What We’ve Achieved

“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

In his recent appearance on Jay Leno, Ron Paul made it clear that we should continue the fight to reclaim the Republican party from the socialist RiNOs…not abandon it for the ever-failed Libertarian party, right when we’ve achieved so much.

After the fiasco of blatant rule-violation and corruption at the Republican national convention, some Libertarian party members tried to convince us to abandon our efforts of six years, and join the LP.

In a bizarre parody of gradeschool rumor-mongering, they even created the impression that Paul was planning to announce a run third party run, or endorse the latest Libertarian candidate-of-convenience, Gary Johnson, in his coming appearance on The Tonight Show.

Many Paul supporters, myself included, pointed out that Ron had known what we faced from the start, and wouldn’t waste all we’d gained at the last minute.

Well, last night he did indeed appear on Jay Leno. Sure enough, he did NOT endorse (and even avoided mentioning) the LP, and specifically dismissed a third party run for legal/logistical reasons…

…and, most importantly, he pointed out:

“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

Paul understands this, because he did run third party, as a Libertarian in 1988, and got (literally) one tenth of the votes he did this year.

The Libertarian party candidates, in fact, never significantly increase their vote tally, from one election to the next. Part of this is because the system is rigged against them, but part of it is also because of the incompetence and corruption of the party, itself…note that the Green and Reform parties have gotten as much as 100 times as many votes as the LP.

We advocates of liberty have achieved more in the GOP, in just a handful of years, than the Libertarian Party did in four decades, by a factor of ten. We need to continue building on what we’ve accomplished, not abandon it for a tactic with a two generation history of failure.

“But the Republican party just proved itself so corrupt, at the convention”, one might object.

Yes, but we knew that going in…and, anyway, I experienced the exact same suppression of delegates, candidates, and floor efforts when I was a delegate to the 1996 Libertarian National Convention…so if you don’t like that kind of corruption, the LP is not an option.

Yes, the leadership is corrupt; but they’re also old. While they may not be as pure as Ron, there is a new generation of open Paul-supporters who are clearly the next generation of leadership, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee, all of whom have expressed outrage at the anti-Paul tactics at the convention.

And don’t forget that Ron Paul’s goal, in running this time and in staying in to accumulate delegates, was always to change the party’s platform and attitude, and he accomplished this, despite the corrupt leadership.

For example, the platform has now been changed to include the gold standard, and auditing the Fed, two of the issues Paul considers most important.

Ron Paul never seriously expected to get nominated. He explicitly explained, all along, that he had changed his mind and entered the race because he realized how much good he could do by influencing the political debate and the party…and he, with our help, has succeeded.

I have warned, all along, that obsessing over somehow seizing the nomination was going to give people the impression — when it inevitably did not happen — that we lost, right when we have won exactly what Paul aimed for.

Don’t let that be what happens. Don’t throw away six years of enormous progress in taking back the party, because the RiNO leadership turned out to be exactly as disgusting as we always knew they were.

The Fake Spending Cuts

If they're so interested in balancing the budget, why are they increasing spending and calling it a cut?

The Federal government has not had an actual, official budget for many months.

When it was time for a new budget last year, the one proposed had so much pork and needless spending hikes in it that even the Democrats who controlled both houses could not get it passed.

And neither they nor the Republicans have succeeded in passing a budget, to this day. They have instead, kept the government funded with “Continuing Resolutions”, temporary agreements to “continue” spending at current rates while the budget is debated.

In 1995, such continuing resolutions actually helped reduce the National Debt, because they held to current levels of spending for months, instead of the next year’s increases.

And people assumed that this is what was going on this year…but they underestimated just how corrupt the Congress has become. Last year the Democrats controlling Congress did not agree to traditional Continuing Resolutions, maintaining current spending…their “resolutions” were actually based on the proposed budget that most members of Congress were rejecting.

Flash forward to the last few weeks:

The Republican leadership has made a big deal about having made two billion dollars in “cuts” from the Continuing Resolution…and when that one ended, six more billion from the next CR.

They have been claiming credit for “ten billion dollars in cuts”. This would, if it were true, be the first time in something like 60 years that the budget was actually cut, instead of the rate of increase simply being adjusted.

Even the 1995 Republican Revolution only cut the amount spending was increased. This was called “cuts” by the most ridiculous Liberals of the time, because they seriously think that increasing spending the “planned” amount is not an increase, at all. So if you plan to increase spending 3%, and then increase it 2%, that is a “cut”.

This is what I had feared the “cuts” in the Continuing Resolution actually were; just reductions in the increase.

But it’s worse…as I noted above, the CRs were actually based on the rejected, larger budget. And the Republican leadership is corrupt enough to reduce only those proposed super-increases, leaving the temporary budget still higher than last year, then claim credit as if they’d actually cut spending.

This explains more clearly, to me, why 54 Republicans, mostly TEA Party types, refused to vote for the CR.

%d bloggers like this: