• Category Archives News and Politics
  • Why are most fiscal conservatives ignoring Paul Ryan’s actual record?

    In the last 48 hours, Paul Ryan has been crowned the great hope of fiscal conservatives. If they honestly believe that, they’re more desperate than I thought, because the only way to see Ryan as fiscally conservative is to completely ignore his record.

    It seems that the presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee is seen as a fiscal conservative simply because of his budget proposal in the House. His proposal would have balanced the budget without raising taxes, but it was an absolute fairy tale of a proposal, partly because it would have required decades of future presidents and Congresses to stick to it as laid out. Is there anybody in the world stupid enough to believe that’s even remotely possible?

    Mainstream political reporters are painting the selection of Ryan as a turn to the “radical right” to placate the Tea Party’s supporters. A writer for Time magazine even said that Ryan was the choice of the “libertarians on the Wall Street Journal editorial board….” (I haven’t run into any actual libertarians yet who are excited about Ryan.)

    There’s only one little problem with this narrative building him up as a fiscal conservative or even libertarian. Ryan’s voting record is full of support for things that no fiscal conservative could support, much less a libertarian. Anybody who believes that his candidacy is a win for libertarians or fiscal conservatives isn’t paying attention.

    One of the most egregiously irresponsible spending measures of the last few years was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which forced U.S. taxpayers to purchase the so-called “toxic assets” of big banks. Pure and simple, it was a bailout for banks to allow them to get loans off their books. Ryan not only voted for TARP, but he enthusiastically supported it. … Is that a fiscal conservative?

    Ryan voted for the auto bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Is that a fiscal conservative?

    He’s voted for Medicare expansion, housing subsidies and extension of federal unemployment benefits. Are those things that actual fiscal conservative support?

    In addition, he’s voted in favor of a national ID, making the PATRIOT Act permanent, surveillance without a warrant and No Child Left Behind. He favored keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. Maybe worst of all, he voted for the so-called “stimulus” plans of 2008 and 2009. That’s right. Ryan believes in the voodoo economics of John Maynard Keynes. Is any of this the mark of a fiscal conservative, much less a libertarian?

    The idea that Ryan is a fiscal conservative or libertarian is puzzling. The facts don’t support the contention. So why are so many people saying it anyway?

    For those on the progressive left, anybody who isn’t on their side is on the “radical right,” so their statements at least make a little bit of sense, even if paying attention to the record would force them to modify their statements. As for conservatives, though, I think it’s purely wishful thinking combined with the irrational belief that they have to support anything and anyone who they see as their only hope against Barack Obama.

    Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency. Obama has no interest in cutting any spending and Republicans are more interested in talking about it than doing it.

    Full article: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=16559


  • U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

    Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

    At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

    The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

    The vision is hard to take seriously. As retired Army Brig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, “I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don’t see the problem.” Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was “purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.”

    The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

    Full article: http://m.washingtont … e-civil-war-of-2016/


  • Increasingly Libertarian Millennial Generation Rejects Obama’s Statism

    That is why Generation Y is decidedly less liberal than four years ago. But don’t expect them to rally behind Mitt Romney. As the Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin says, “This is the most libertarian generation that’s ever existed.”

    Libertarian student groups are thriving on college campuses like never before. The Fifth Annual International Students for Liberty Conference attracted more than 1,000 students to Washington from around the world last February. There are currently more than 325 Young Americans for Liberty chapters nationwide dedicated to individual liberty, free markets, and peace. And Ron Paul knows how to fill an auditorium to maximum capacity at a college campus.

    College-aged people are now experiencing the failures of Keynesian economics championed by liberal professors. Excessive taxation and regulations kill jobs, and increased government spending always hurts economic growth.

    It shouldn’t take a college degree to figure out that every dime the government spends must first be taken from someone else. And politicians can’t spend your money better than you can. That should be Common Sense 101.

    More and more young people realize that Social Security is a rip off. With Social Security facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, young people are right to be pessimistic about the future of the entitlement program. Despite being forced to pay into the mandatory Ponzi scheme, three-fourths of young workers do not expect to see a dime out of Social Security once they retire. More young adults in their 20’s believe they are more likely to see a UFO in their lifetime than a Social Security check.

    Why should young workers who are just beginning their careers —well, those lucky enough to find a job—be forced to pay for the Social Security benefits of elderly millionaires and billionaires?

    Young people don’t love being forced into terrible mismanaged government programs. More young people want the freedom to invest in their retirement as they see fit. Perhaps this is why auditoriums full of college students loudly cheer when Ron Paul proposes that young people be allowed to opt out of Social Security.

    Through no fault of their own, our nation’s youth will inherit the nearly $16 trillion national debt—closer to $100 trillion with unfunded liabilities factored in. No wonder so many young people are fed up with big spending Republicans and Democrats.

    But let’s not panic yet. The kids are alright, after all. It looks like the increasingly libertarian millennial generation might finally be able to get this nation back on track.

    Full article: http://townhall.com/ … bamas_statism/page/2