Replies

Ron Paul is a purist whose politics and positions are more dreams than possibilities. Still his domestic tax and security goals could be reached via a process that might take several administrations to reach.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDkyYzdkNDNjM2QzMmI1NGEzZmEzYWRjYzQ0OTgxNmU=&w=MA==

Ron Paul is for abolishing the income tax and the IRS. The practical details for doing so are found here in http://www.fairtax.org but these are not Ron Paul’s details. He is not for a consumption tax, he is simply for ending the Income tax without replacement. That is admirable but not likely to be done in one fell swoop unless there be a revolution.

The FairTax will put the federal tax burden front and center in the minds of all Americans each time they purchase something. After a period of time it will become hardened among Americans and natural to think that something must be done about excessive spending in government, because they will see the direct hit on their wallets with every purchase.

The FairTax replaces the Income tax. It is revenue neutral. But it is visible for all to see and that in itself is scary to Income tax lovers. Because as it stands now the Income tax and all payroll taxes are embedded into the prices of all products and services but there is no breakout as to what percent. In studies the embedded tax burden ranges from 8% to 36% with a mean above 25%. But more data analysis needs to be done and in fact is being done.

Also the FairTax demolishes the entrenched K Street lobbyists that work on tax favors for special interests. This means bribery activity will cease in that part of K Street.

But back to Paul, he apparently will not even consider the FairTax because he thinks the Income tax needs to go completely without replacing it with any form of tax. As I said earlier, that’s a dream and is certainly a worthy goal but not a realistic plank in a single term campaign.

But I thank Ron Paul for being an educator on these issues. He helps to set the stage for real reform.

Where Ron Paul has turned off Republicans is his ability to attract anti-war types. I support the war but early on I wanted GW Bush to have Congress declare war on every nation harboring terrorists including Pakistan. I wanted a no holds barred war that would settle for generations the question of our right to exist.

In Pakistan, I wanted to see Musharif given one and only one chance to round up every terrorist and terrorist abettor in his country, even if that involved hundreds of thousands of individuals. And if he failed, I wanted to see Shock & Awe in Peshwar and any other place where Al Quaeda support was found. And I am sure this would have smoked out Bin Laden. The same for Egypt and Zawahiri, and Iran.

We were attacked. We had every moral just reason to name the countries that were on the the terrorist list and give them notice that Shock & Awe was coming. And we had every moral and just reason to have our representative Congress declare war on terrorism everywhere.

I once read this was what Ron Paul wanted also in some sense. He wanted Congress to declare war, not have the President get bogged down in nation building and police action. I thought how great that was. But when he said he would bring the troops home immediately (if he did say that), then I know he was too purist as to be reckless. Fred Thompson has it right, a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq now would embolden the terrorists more than any other acton could, and we cannot allow that.

So Ron Paul is a purist, too idealistic to be practical. He may indeed be the mindset that our great-grandfathers possessed in a former era, a main road mindset that we need to return to. But the path to the main road is long and Ron Paul leads many to think it’s only an election away.