U.S. Representative from Texas and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul took a step away from Republican Party orthodoxy on Friday, as he stood apart with only three other Republican members of Congress voting against the attack on Medicare.
The vote was on the 2012 budget, proposed by Representative Paul Ryan. The budget included a plan to completely destroy Medicare.
Ron Paul voted no. So did Walter Jones, David McKinley, and Dennis Rehberg. All the other House Republicans failed to protect Medicare, even though they had spent most of last year complaining that Barack Obama’s health care reform should be repealed because it might have created an abstract threat to Medicare.
So, is Ron Paul all of a sudden an advocate of effective government programs to serve American citizens? No, Congressman Paul’s vote against Paul Ryan’s budget wasn’t really a stand for Medicare. Instead, Paul declared that Paul Ryan’s budget didn’t contain enough spending cuts.
Eliminating Medicare isn’t sufficient to satisfy Ron Paul’s goals for reducing the power of American government. Paul explained that he thinks that the rest of the social safety net has to go too: “Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end.”
A reasoned argument, supported with evidence from the real world, asserting that continuing the welfare state is “not one of our options in the long run” would be of significant interest to me. I would be skeptical of the conclusion, of course, but I am far from an expert, and my mind is always open.
On the other hand, trying to convince me with a bunch of scare tactics and irrelevant ideology is both useless and obnoxious.
Here is one simple fact when it comes to Social Security. It now is paying more out each year than it takes in. This is projected to get worse as more and more baby boomers retire. To make matters worse, the baby boomer generation had far fewer children than the previous generations making it even more difficult to meet the demand. Due to this the unfunded liabilities of Social Security is measured not in the billions, but trillions.
Ron Paul is right. We are so deeply in debt, the greatest reason being “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Even our defense fund, which could use a good trim, pales in comparison when compared to the amount of money it takes to run these two other programs.
A reasoned argument, supported with evidence from the real world, would confront Ron Paul with the obvious fact that Medicare and Social Security have been a successful option in the long run.
Libertarian principles, as embodied in the loosey goosey Articles of Confederation, were not an option in the long run.
Medicare and Social Security is a successful option in the long run? What have you been smoking? What rock have you been living under? Have you taken any math classes in your life? Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt, utter failures. Social Security is paying our more each year than it takes in, how long do you think that can last. With that in mind, do you really want to try to call these programs a success?
There is too much fraud in a government run program, How can you call them a success when they both are Broke?
Ron Paul wants to transition from Medicare & Social Security because they are both Broke. Our Government is broke, we owe 17 + Trillion dollars. No government programs work, there is always too much fraud and no one fixes the problems, they just keep kicking the can down the road. Ron Paul tells the truth but no one wants to hear it. He will get my vote.
Ron Paul for President.