For Conservatives, There’s Nothing Not To Like About Ron Paul’s Economic Plan

I hope the other candidates are paying attention:

GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul will unveil his economic plan Monday afternoon, calling for a lower corporate tax rate, cutting spending by $1 trillion during his first year in office and eliminating five cabinet-level agencies, including the Education Department, according to excerpts released to Washington Wire. …

Mr. Paul does get specific when he calls for a 10% reduction in the federal work force, while pledging to limit his presidential salary to $39,336, which his campaign says is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.” The current pay rate for commander in chief is $400,000 a year.

The Paul plan would also lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%, though it is silent on personal income tax rates, which Mr. Paul would like to abolish. The congressman would end taxes on personal savings and extend “all Bush tax cuts.”

He would also allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without additional taxes. Some lawmakers have recently proposed such legislation as a way to spur job growth. Its critics argue that a tax holiday for companies with money abroad has not historically led to domestic investment.

But the plan, at its heart, is libertarian. While promising to cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year, Mr. Paul would eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development. When former Massachusetts Gov. MItt Romney unveiled his economic plan last month, he said he would submit legislation to reduce nonsecurity, discretionary spending by $20 billion.

Mr. Paul would also push for the repeal of the new health-care law, last year’s Wall Street regulations law and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 2002 corporate governance law passed in response to a number of corporate scandals, including Enron. …

When it comes to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Mr. Paul wants a system that “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.” He also wants to run Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor, and “other welfare programs” through block grants to states.

This is a platform I could get behind, if only electing Ron Paul didn’t also mean electing his foreign policy platform. I want someone who recognizes that sometimes we need to be proactive about the threats that face this country, rather than simply reactionary.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • flamemeister

    Sounds excellent.  All the Paulbot harping on his “anti-war” stance and “constitutionalism” moved me not at all.  After at least a hundred years of pissing on the Constitution, it will take at least three generations of dedicated effort to restore the Constitution as a real and effective guide for American governance.  As I tell my Ron Paulite friends, preaching on constitutionalism at this time is like having a magnificent building on fire with the Fire Chief instructing his crew, saying: “The plans for this building are inside, but they are lost.  Your first priority is to find the plans and not focus on fighting the fire until you do.”

  • Rolf

    This is the kind of economic plan I am looking for.  The Federal government must be downsized and that requires the outright elimination of several agencies.  You cannot tinker with these agencies because they are populated by bureaucrats with a big government agenda.  I believe every agency should have a ‘sunset’ provision so it has to come back to Congress to justify its existence. 

    We will not get this type of leadership from Romney and Paul’s plan will be labeled as radical, but consider this excerpt from the 1996 Republican Platform:

    “As a first step in reforming government, we support
    elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development,
    Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of
    agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in
    focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National
    Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.”

    Of course the Republicans never follow through on the Platform, but this was when Bob Dole was the candidate for heavens sake.  Who knew that Bob Dole was channeling Ron Paul!


  • robert108

    His insane support of Iranian nukes disqualifies him, no matter what pretty words he may speak on domestic policy.

    • Jamermorrow

      You should go to Iran and stop them. I would fully support your self financed expedition to Iran to stop their Nuke program. 

      • robert108

        Now you’re just  being silly; I won’t vote for the nutbag who supports nukes for Iran.  What part of that don’t you understand?
        “I would fully support…self financed…” Which is it?

        • Jamermorrow

          I know you are a tough guy and could easily woop up on Iran by yourself. I mean they are worthless Muslims. Just go to Iran and destroy their Nuke program. It can’t be that hard because Muslims are not real people.  Or did you want the U.S. Military to do your dirty work while you watch on TV?

          • robert108

            You’re the one advocating aggression towards Iran.  That’s also insane, so I can see why you appear to be as nutty as Paul  Birds of a feather, make up stuff together.

    • Brenarlo

      He doesn’t support Iran getting nukes, he understands why they want nukes.  So stop lying lefty lying liar.

    • Richard Haydn

      Hey robert108,
      You seem to spend a lot of time posting against Ron Paul around the web.  Are you “for” anyone or any particular plan? “support of Iranian nukes”, sure Rob, he wants to help build them.  Please tell us who you think is best to lead this country and what their plan is.   

      • robert108

        I don’t “spend a lot of time posting against Ron Paul around the web.”  so you start with a false premise.  War is a binary exercise; you either win or you lose, and Iran getting nukes is a step toward us losing to the jihadhis.  I don’t support anyone who wants us to lose, or who is so naive that they think having an enemy who has sworn to destroy us should have nukes.  IMO, that’s just insane, and I don’t want someone insane running this country any longer.  The one we have now has already done enough harm.

  • Ggulrud

    One of the things that made my vote for the McCain ticket palatable was his father and grandfather had died at an ‘early’ age.  McCain seems to have lucked out with Mom’s cardiology.

    Paul is like 76,  Reagan was like 69, the oldest elected first-timer to date.   Paul is a protest vote.

  • Jack Daniels

    Sounds great.  But when given all the facts new Presidents are stuck with expenses and programs they can’t eliminate.  Obumble failed to learn any facts and is struck with Gitmo, and is assuring failure in Afghanistan rather than face facts. 

    So, I want to know where that trillion dollars is coming from.  Right now the only sure target under Obumble is the military. 

    I’d get rid of the EPA and leave enforcement to the states, but how much will that save?  But getting rid of the EPA will free up millions for investment that’s currently being spent in legal fees for BS lawsuits and added expense unnecessarily by EPA radicals and current Obumble directives. 

    The Department of Interior is where the BIA falls under & we have to find another way to manage our treaties with Tribes.  But what expenses can we shed? 

    Education all goes back to the states, so it’s just a shift of expense but will likely lead to far more efficient use of money and better results. 

    I’d also stop Tittle IV-D money, as in Title IV-D of the social security act, from being spent on TANIF and foster care in order to badger states to do what common sense prevents them from doing but money can persuade them to.  That would save billions and allow states to be more responsive to their citizens needs.

    We have gone through upgrades of the VA hospitals, so we have modern facilities, but the lack of a budget for over 900 days has led to hiring freezes, so they’re short adequate staff in some locations.  Fill spots so not only services for veterans can be delivered, but excess capacity can be used to reduce Medicaid and Medicare expenses in the communities where they exist.  The cost of VA staff will be offset by elimination of sticking private healthcare with the unreasonable reimbursement rates shoved down their throats and the simultaneous fraud they system encourages.  That would save hundreds of millions.

    I’d immediately end or refocus efforts in two wars that have failed miserably – the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.  I’d focus on the insidious drugs that destroy bodies, minds, and can’t be used in moderation if ever used (i.e. meth)   The War on Poverty has only created generations of whole families dependent on AFDC, then TANIF, food stamps, housing allowances, heating allowances, etc, without demonstrative improvements in employable skills.  I won’t pay anyone able to work to stay home, but rather pay a business to take on an apprentice and community colleges to tailor training to the skills needed in a community.  Everyone seeking a welfare check will be tested for drug use.  You’re not going to use the safety net as a hammock to lay around in all day and get high instead of being productive.  That would save billions.

    I would prevent further drain on our resources by securing the borders to assure anyone entering the US is legal and contributing without coming only to be a drain wherever they settle and I’d stress assimilation rather than maintaining their own language and other conduct that impedes success and adds expense to the cost of government and doing business.  That would save billions.

    99 weeks of unemployment?  Drug testing, apprenticeships, or completing basic training and career field training in a branch of the military so that we have a right-sized reserve component instead of the same dedicated Guardsmen getting deployed every other year for 12 months, or every years for 6 months with two months of training prior to each deployment.  Unemployed guardsmen or veterans?  Fill the support positions we currently have contractors filling in deployed locations instead of the soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman who can do the job for 1/3 the cost – all so we can say we have fewer boots on the ground. That will save billions in reducing expenditures on contractors alone.

    DOE has to be billions wasted.  A billion here and a billion there adds up to real money.  It can be done without weakening the military or security. 

    But if we take a Libertarian approach to reduced regulation, we’ll increase productivity and revenue, putting people, not just lawyers, to work creating wealth and tax revenue.  While Ron Paul may not be my guy, (I like Newt & Cain) his economic plan is a sound start.

    • robert108

      So called “recreational” drug use is stupid and destructive, and the American people want it illegal for very good reasons.  If you don’t like the present method of enforcement, then change it for something more effective, but flooding this country with drugs and the inevitable merchandising of drug use is beyond foolish.

  • Jamermorrow

    Ron Paul follows the Austrian School of economics. If you don’t like his foreign policy that is fine. Maybe people should start looking at the Austrian School if they like his economic beliefs. Look at who predicted the housing collapse, the rise of gold, the internet stock bubble, and now the education bubble, health care bubble, U.S. bond bubble.  Even if you don’t like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I encourage everybody to get familiar with the Austrian School of economics. Go to

  • Guest

    Ok Rob – point out what country in their right mind (or minds) would dare attack the U.S? Please, name them with the caveat of these country’s full well knowing if they did – the full force of the U.S Military would be brought upon them – NONE of this policing garbage or “small trike” crap – the full force. Get over your love for the military industrial complex and all those that support it via constantly creating the problem and then running to congress and screaming we have yet ANOTHER enemy. Please Rob, tell me what nations would take us on under these conditions?

    • Jamermorrow

      Americans always have a boogieman. Once the dollar loses reserve currency status we will no long be able to police the world. Our foreign policy will change due to economic problems.

  • Randy G

    If only Paul was not such a nut on foreign policy.

    • Jamermorrow

      Rather dismissing him completely you should read up on the Austrian School of economics. I think any conservative can learn a lot about economics and the problems with government intervention. You will also be able to dismiss liberals on any economic argument. 

      • robert108

        Now we know where you copy and paste your stuff from.  In the real world, you need to augment your textbook theories with experiential knowledge.  Run some successful businesses and then get back to us.
        BTW, a nutbag foreign policy makes domestic policy moot.  Think about it.

        • Garlicsmasher

          lets talk about nut bag foreign policy,The cia backed coup to get rid of Mossedeq a democratically elected leader of iran,the installation of the Shaw  who’s represive regime created such backlash that it offered solace and suppourt to the radical islamists of the country vaulting them to power. B.T.W before our intervention there  radical islam had no mainstream traction in Irainian society. Our backing of Saddam gee that worked out really well. Weapons of Mass destruction oops sorry theyre wasnt any but now that were here we will destabilize a whole region so that haliburton and others can suck the middle class dry.  I happen to have created  and  run two successful businesses for the last ten years and It is my opinion that instead of a system were everyone reads tea leaves to see what kind of monetary highjinx the fed is going to employ to artificially stimulate the economy we are able to plan our business futures based on real nuts and bolts supply and demand economic information. That is how a real free market economy functions we have strayed so far from the path with decades of artifitial stimus ridiculously supressed interest rates that our market strucures are corrupted to the point that with out stimulus they cant stand on thier own and meanwhile the middle class ends up subsidising it’s own dismantalment.  

          • robert108

            Nice try at changing the subject.

        • reverendyo

          Free trade with all, international entanglements with none.  It is a nutbag policy, who would have ever thought up something this bizarre?  Oh wait, Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independance. 

          • robert108

            That’s not the nutbag part, as I have already clearly stated.  Why do you have to lie?

    • Richard Haydn

      Yeah, what a nut case.  I mean we only spend close to 700 billion dollars a year policing the world.  We wouldn’t want #2, China to catch up.  They spend a little over 100 billion.  What would Germany and Japan do if we were not there to protect them?  They spend considerable less as a percentage of GDP than we do.  We need to support our friends, even if that means borrowing from China to keep our 700-1000 bases going strong around the world.  And $500.00 a year for every man woman and child in the US to support Isreal.  But to be fair, we also pay their enemies.  The nerve of this guy.  I am scared to death that Iran will attack us at any moment.  Not sure if they have much of an air force or navy, but lets not take any chances.  How many divisions do you think it will take.  Screw the casualties and the cost, we cannot allow them to get a nuclear weapon. Yes, we will need to kill many women and children and risk the death and maiming of our own.  But can’t you see, we have to get them before they get us. They are sure to use there some day to be build nuke just before they are annihilated by the rest of the world.  You know, they’re  crazy too.  Yep, this Ron Paul guy is an absolute nut case.

      • robert108

        If you’re crazy enough to think that the only way to prevent Iranian nukes is all out war, you are as nutty as Ron Paul.  obama blew a chance to support the Iranian people in their wish to overthrow the mad mullahs, and the Dems undermined President Bush in his attempt to establish Iraq as a modern nation next door to Iran, to furnish a positive governing model and as a refuge for Iranians wishing to be free.   It’s just crazy to support a regime that has already made a commitment to our destruction to have  nukes.

        • reverendyo

          Tell us Robert, your plan to keep nukes out of Iran?  Get the UN to do it, whoops already done that and failed,  Run sactions against them, whoops already tried that, so either we bomb the shit of them or let them in peace and worry about defending our nation instead of being the world’s police force for the UN.  What is your plan?  

          • robert108

            None of your desperate attempts to change the subject and demonize me changes the fact that, when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul is a nutbag.

          • Jamermorrow

            Our foreign policy should be send big rober108 to the middle east to kick ass. He is so bad ass makes Chuck Norris and Rambo look like pussy’s. He don’t care about the Persians history he can take them all by himself. No what he really wants is for poor American kids to go to Iran and die because he is afraid of the boogieman. 

          • robert108

            For a Ron Paul nutbag, you have a very creative imagination; it’s no doubt derived from your own fantasies.  Anything to change the subject from Paul’s nutbag foreign policy pronouncements.
            You’re the one who is always inventing boogeymen, troll.  The Boogie Man was John Lee Hooker.

  • Randy G

    And the Paulbots multiply. As I said, fiscally he is sound, foreign policy sucks, and thinking of teaming with Kucinch in his cabinet makes him full blown fruitloops.

  • Neiman

    I don’t like the grumpy old man and his Libertarian beliefs, the only good thing I can say is, Paul is probably the only candidate that will truly try to keep all his promises, to the letter. The bad thing, alongside his isolationist, ignorant foreign policies, is that such drastic cuts, while satisfying the blood lust of many conservatives, absent wisdom, I think, will drive our economy into the gutter completely and spark violent revolution. The American people, while generally against Washington and for limited government, will not tolerate massive firings while unemployment is so high or anyone suffering great pain when there are still alternative, more humane ways to the same ends.

    Waste of time really, he will NEVER even be nominated by the GOP, he will go down loved by the rabid Paulites, admired by many conservatives, but remembered as a grumpy, dyspeptic clown on the fringes.

  • reverendyo

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are children of God.  Matt 5:9.

    • Neiman

      The Gospel is called the Gospel of peace, because it tends to reconcile men to God and to each other. Hence our Lord here terms peace-makers here as the children of God because they offer the Gospel of Peace.I doubt Ron Paul is going about preaching the Gospel that thereby, some men are restored to peace with God through His Salvation.There are times when bad men would use violence to force their will upon others and as a matter of self defense other men are required to engage in counter violence (war) to establish peace. There are other men, Ron Paul, that would suffer those living under murderous tyranny to suffer alone, without lifting a hand in their defense. If a man is attacking a woman, no real man would ignore their plight or wish them well, no they would stand between the two prepared to fight in her defense and when we see people suffering unbearable torture/murder by evil men, no decent human beings would stay home and do nothing, good men go and deliver those in bondage to evil. Ron Paul would sit at home and say, that is none of our business.

      You should really stop using God’s Word without understanding its true spiritual meaning.

      • realitybasedbob

        Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the earth. Matthew 5:5

        You’re not a meek man, are ya Old Pal?

        • Neiman

          Well, well, old Gay Bob, the Sodomite is also a Paulite? Very interesting, gone Libertarian.

          To claim to be meek would not express Christian humility, so no truly meek man would make such a claim. “Who are not easily provoked to
          anger; who patiently bear, and put up with injuries and affronts;
          carry themselves courteously, and affably to all; have the meanest
          thoughts of themselves, and the best of others; do not envy the gifts
          and graces of other men; are willing to be instructed and
          admonished, by the meanest of the saints; quietly submit to the will
          of God, in adverse dispensations of providence; and ascribe all they
          have, and are, to the grace of God. Meekness, or humility, is very
          valuable and commendable.” So,we know thereby you are certainly not meek,for being outside Christ you cannot possibly have any fruit of the Spirit, being dead to God and Christ in all things.

          Next, you old Sodomite, you are not a Christian by your own confession and not having the Spirit of Christ thereby, you cannot possibly discern spiritual truth at all, being wholly deaf and blind to the Truth of God.  These passages do not mean what you, a hell bound sinner think they mean at all. But, you will like your father in hell keep misusing Scripture for your won evil ends.

          • realitybasedbob

  ’re not a meek are you?

          • Neiman

            See Gay Bob, you are not able to admit your own lost state, your terrible everlasting fate, but you play the hellish games of your hellish father. So sad!

            To claim to be meek would not express Christian humility, so no truly meek man would make such a claim. But, we certainly know you are not, because you cannot have the fruits of the Spirit, not being part of Christ Jesus. Why don’t you worry about your own lost soul, the great evil in you and stop worrying about me? You are bound over for hell, as a mass murderer, as having led countless souls into hell by your lies and for not being Born Again. If you want to worry over something, that should occupy your every waking moment.

      • reverendyo

        Wow, this is exactly what the Nazi’s said in Germany.  Infact on the belt buckles of the SS were inscribed the words, Gott Mit Uns (God with us).  They beleived the Jews were destroying thier life and they were simply being defensive.    Please do not use the gospel of peace to justify killing people.

        • Neiman

          No it is not EXACTLY what Nazi’s said and even if it was, the enemy of our souls (Satan/RBB) falsely use God’s Word, twisting the truth, making it into a lie. You did not read the whole of my statement or your could not have said something so ignorant.

          I did not use the Gospel to justify killing anyone, that is a lie. I spoke of the Gospel and then as a second topic spoke of killing to defend lives at risk, as in self defense and delivering people living under tyranny. Yes, one can twist anything to make it defend their perverse beliefs, but rational men know the difference from defending one’s family, even a national family when they are threatened by violent men versus using it as an excuse for racial extermination as the Nazi’s and others, like Democrats via abortion have done, but apparently you have no such discernment.

  • Will

    It amazes me all you people who call Ron Paul a nut job on foreign policy. I haven’t seen it answered here and maybe it has been. I rarely visit this site. Why does Ron Paul completely blow all the other Republican candidates out of the water when it come to donations from active duty military. It’s not even close. They are the ones who are putting their butts on the line for this out of control military industrial complex, not you chicken hawks like Port. 

    And to you Flame, to understand the importance of the Constitution when fighting the fire in the building is to follow the fire fighting rules and hit the base of the flame instead of letting the hoses spray water indiscriminately. You think spraying billions of gallons of water indiscriminately is the answer when it is a waste of time and water unless you hit the flame.

    • Jamermorrow

      The Military knows the war has nothing to do with terrorism but with nation building. The Military also knows that it is not worth losing Americans to help people in the Middle East.