Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America”
By Randall Holcombe • Tuesday October 18, 2011 3:30 PM PDT • 10 Comments
Political platforms tend to be vague promises for something better in the future, and deliberately so. Lots of people favor making things better than they are today, but far fewer will be in favor of any one specific alternative. That’s why “Hope and Change” was such a good campaign platform for President Obama. (I’m not criticizing the president here; I’m just talking about the nature of politics.)
In that context, it is refreshing to see that Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America” makes specific and detailed budgetary recommendations. His plan would immediately reduce federal spending to 17.24% of GDP in 2013, and to 15.5% by 2016. He lays out the budgetary details, saying he will retain Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans Benefits, and will transform other welfare programs like Medicaid into block grants to the states to allow them the flexibility to redesign them as they prefer. Some of the savings would come from eliminating the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. Other savings are specified in some detail on his website. He would cut the corporate tax rate to 15%, eliminate personal taxes on saving, and end the death tax.
Laying out specific proposals like this is politically risky, because even people who favor smaller government will tend to focus on details they don’t like. Environmentalists may oppose eliminating the Department of the Interior, and libertarians may object to retaining Medicaid, even as a block grant.
Other Republicans offer proposals that are much more vague. Rick Perry offers some general policy suggestions that sound good, but lack specifics. Mitt Romney offers many more words, including a 160 page jobs plan, but without budgetary specifics. Newt Gingrich tells us we need a new Contract With America, and Michelle Bachmann says we need to cut spending and government, but without specifically proposing how that would be done. While Herman Cain offers his 999 tax plan with some specifics, he is just as general as the rest of the field on most issues. The message of all of these candidates amounts to Hope and Change after the 12 failed Bush-Obama years.
I’m not criticizing candidates Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Cain. Political campaigns tend to succeed when they steer clear of specifics, criticize the status quo, and say they will make things better. Ron Paul lays out a specific budget for doing so. Conventional wisdom is: Paul’s strategy is not the way to win an election.
With everyone, including President Obama, agreeing that we need to have a plan to reduce federal spending and bring down the deficit, Ron Paul actually has a plan. And, as I read Paul’s plan, it appears to be an eminently sensible way to actually balance the budget—not just reduce the deficit—while retaining those elements of federal spending that many people would most like to retain. In other words, it offers big cuts in the most politically popular way possible.
I am pessimistic about the prospect that Paul’s plan will make him the GOP presidential nominee. We can pretty much count on candidates running on vague promises rather than specific proposals, because that’s what wins elections. But after the election, I’d be happy if the winner, looking for some specifics, picked up some of the ideas Ron Paul is offering now.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Politics, Taxation 
I really like Ron’s ideas its about time someone gave us the facts straight. Now I got some one I would vote for. I just hope people take a look at thre whole picture and make the right choice and not just listen to the media.
Tak | Oct 18, 2011 | Reply
I like Paul’s plan, and I love the fact that it even addresses the national debt, but he is dangerously naive on Iran getting nuclear weapons. It is betting America and the lives of millions of our countrymen on the moral sanity of the mullahs.
Doug Ellison | Oct 19, 2011 | Reply
I too like what Ron Paul is saying. I think different departments within the federal government are just money wasters.
Also because Doug brought it up; I for one am not terrible worried about Iran. Why? Twofold. One is what happened to communist Russia; who had thousands of nukes, making them a bigger threat than a country that doesn’t have one. What happened? Their economy collapsed, and the Russian people grow tired of an oppressive government. Iran doesn’t have an economy. It has oil, but so did the Soviets. The Iranian people are living lives of poverty while showing the world that every time they speak out towards the government they get bet and arrested. My second point is that the Arab people are perfectly able of fighting for their own freedom; just look at the Arab spring. The Iranian leaders are able to stay in power because they, in part, use our troops in the regain as national security propaganda to the Iranian people. If we pulled our troops out of the regain (which would also give the extremists one less leg to stand on) and opened up trade relations, the people would be able to see the prosperity a free society brings. When that happens the Iranian leaders will be doomed.
Seth | Oct 19, 2011 | Reply
Tak, Muslims have neither morals nor sanity. Anyone expecting either of those things from Iran is in for serious disappointment.
Frank Newman | Oct 19, 2011 | Reply
Doug, no worries about Iran. The saudis/other sunnys will take them out before we ever need to pay them any more mind. Or what Seth said. I don’t share Seth’s optimism that the Iranian people will embrace democracy (real democracy, like a republic), but they can do whatever it is they want to do, as long as it doesn’t effect us (U.S.) Pious people aren’t really big on things like liberty and freedom. See the Calvinists.
RFN | Oct 19, 2011 | Reply
Frank, I am a theological Calvinist and I love liberty and Ron Paul has had my support since I heard him say “bring them home” in the 2008 Iowa debate. So I don’t know what you mean that Calvinism which is a theological thought process of salvation has anything to do with voting for Ron Paul. Could you please explain?
Scott Smith | Oct 20, 2011 | Reply
Sorry, Frank that was meant for RFN
Scott Smith | Oct 20, 2011 | Reply
The “Paul Plan” is solid. It is a Republican dream economic plan and it is the reason I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul this primary season.
David | Oct 21, 2011 | Reply
The issue of national defense, including Iran’s nuclear program, is a sensitive subject mostly because the government and the media have been pounding the drums of war for a very long time. However, America possesses more fire power than all of the rest of the world put together. There is no need to fear anyone. We would be better served by concentrating our military funds on technology and systems capable of taking out any trouble from afar. Taking our troops out of harms way is the key. Policing the world is not our job and it is our alliances with foreign countries that keep us at war. This has done nothing to improve the world or our place in it. I believe this is Ron Pauls stance.
Peter Roof | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply
I’m not a Tea Partier, there are elements of this plan I don’t agree with. I believe we need to end Bush tax cuts AND cut spending seriously to entitlement programs to reach fiscal sanity. But as the only candidate who is taking our situation seriously and putting definitive plan out there, he now has my vote.
Take note politicians: no serious plan = no vote
Lance Spellman | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply