|
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Someone should try and put together a computer simulation to see how good or bad his ideas would turn out, if he was ever elected.
He does want change, but for some people it is to much change in the wrong direction.
I know some people who will vote for him, seeing he wants to audit / end the FED, kill off the TSA and plus stop the US being the police of the planet. |
There are far too many variables to construct a working model, but happily it's unnecessary, since Paul's plan is so radical and impractical as to be a thoroughly predictable, and entirely hypothetical, catastrophe.
Paul's appeal is that he stands for highly general ideas that are appealing (and not without good reason) to many people and that are generally underrepresented in the existing political establishment. For instance, there's nothing inherently wrong with suggesting that we shouldn't invest in military misadventures around the world, and something like the TSA -- a highly salient example of government waste -- is easy to attack (though eliminating it's miniscule $8b cost is hardly a substantial step towards balancing the federal budget).
Unfortunately for Paul and his supporters, there's a rather large chasm between general ideas and specific substantive policies, and Paul does not seem to be able to bridge that gap in any coherent way.
For example, just on the first page of his "Plan to Restore America" Ron Paul promises to reduce government spending by, inter alia, eliminating the Department of Commerce and "abolishing corporate subsidies" under the heading "spending." On the very same page, under the heading "taxes," however, Paul suggests drastically reducing the corporate tax rate in order to make America "competitive in the global market," and allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxes to "[spur] trillions in new investment."
So, instead of subsidizing corporations (to make the competitive in the global market) we're going to lower their taxes... to make them competitive in the global market? And we're going to axe the Department of Commerce, thereby eliminating the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but give corporations tax breaks on repatriated cash so that they can invest in... what exactly?
Similarly, Paul promises to "[cut] government waste," yet he calls for spending freezes in nearly every federal department. Spending freezes result in programs being abandoned part-way through, and corners being cut in continuing programs that may ultimately cause them to fail. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like policy that would increase waste, not "cut" it.
Under the heading "regulation," Paul also suggests requiring "thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats." So, under his plan, Congress is going to enact statutes delegating quasi-legislative authority to federal agencies on the theory that they're institutionally better-suited to conducting the kind of detailed and thorough investigation necessary to enact specific regulations within their field of expertise. Then, once the regulations are issued, they'll be sent back to Congress to re-thoroughly-investigate them. Well, that sounds perfectly logical, highly efficient, and not likely to generate any government waste.
It's not merely bad policy; it isn't even coherent! It's non-sense designed to confuse, bamboozle, and give false hope to people desperate for radical change and all-too-eager to accept the first promise of a quick fix floated their way.
Not all of Ron Paul's ideas are bad, and the people who support him are probably mostly good people. Maybe, some day, someone will come along who can take the good ideas that Paul and his supporters have and turn them into proposed policies that actually make sense. If they do, they might even earn my support (especially if the competition remains as inept as they are right now). But, unfortunately, that time isn't now, and Ron Paul isn't that person.
|
