by Ron Paul
Grover Norquist, the influential conservative activist, recently made some very frank and sobering remarks about the U.S. military budget. Unlike many conservatives, Mr. Norquist understands that American national security interests are not served by the interventionist foreign policy mindset that has dominated both political parties in recent decades. He also understands that there is nothing “conservative” about incurring trillions of dollars in debt to engage in hopeless nation building exercises overseas.
Speaking at the Center for the National interest last week, Norquist stated that “We can afford to have an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we don’t make some of the decisions that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves overseas and think we can run foreign governments.”
He continued: “Bush decided to be the mayor of Baghdad rather than the president of the United States. He decided to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan rather than reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That had tremendous consequences… Richard Nixon said that America’s national defense needs are set in Moscow, meaning that we wouldn’t have to spend so much if they weren’t shooting at us. The guys who followed didn’t notice that the Soviet Union disappeared.”
When a prominent DC conservative like Grover Norquist makes such bold statements, it shows that public support for a truly conservative foreign policy is growing. The American people simply cannot stomach more wars and more debt, especially with our domestic economy in tatters.
The American people should reject the hype about so called defense “cuts” from both side of the political spectrum. When the Obama administration calls for an 18% increase in 2013 military spending, those who propose a 20% increase portray this as a reduction!
Even the supposedly draconian cuts called for in the “sequestration” budget bill would keep military spending at 2006 levels when adjusted for inflation, which is about as high in terms of GDP as during World War II. It’s also more than the top 13 foreign countries spend on defense combined. Furthermore, sequestration only cuts military spending for one year after taking effect. In future years Congress is free to reinstate higher military spending levels– so under sequestration the most drastic case would mean spending $5.2 trillion instead of $5.7 trillion over the next decade.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the Pentagon hawks? Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, America easily would remain the world’s dominant military power. Our problems don’t result from a lack of spending. They result from a lack of vision and a profound misunderstanding of the single biggest threat to every American man, woman, and child: the federal debt.
Processing your request, Please wait....
First of all, I didn’t support our two illegal wars, and had Bush not taken us into them while cutting taxes for the wealthy,we would be on much solid footing with our social programs. If we got rid of every social program our country would be on the same level as Somalia.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The cold war spanned from 1947-1991. Saying “50s” is accurate.
America did nothing to the Soviet Union, didn’t they. Soviet collapsed, not by intervention of the USA, but by internal disputes.
Actually 2% of the American army donated to Ron Paul, not less than 1%.
Do you have a link to the letter Ron sent Reagan? And if he did manage to steer the US from invading the USSR he literately saved the country from a nuclear war.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Continue to support social programs and war. Soon you will be paying $20 a gallon. The federal Government will be 30+ trillion in debt (if it’s still around). Even buying food will be difficult for the average American…all because we didn’t stop spending money we don’t have.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wealth is irrelevant. Social security is a good program but it should be individualized you only get what you pay in. You don’t pay in you don’t get any. You pay little in you get little.The system actually wouldn’t be broken if it was done that way.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul never said the wealthy shouldn’t take social security. It is his money he paid in it doesn’t matter if he has a net worth of $2 or $200 billion it’s his.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because he has been paying into it for so long. He wants to give youth a chance to opt out (before) they pay into it for 50 years. Ron Paul returned $90,000 last year from his office budget to the treasury. No one else does that. What is a $2000 ssi check when you give $90,000 back. Social Security is NOT for the poor it’s for whoever paid into it. If he paid into it he is entitled to it. He also uses the post office that doesn’t mean he cant try to get rid of it.Well that will fail on it’s own
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why Does Ron Paul preach against social programs but has no problem taking Social Security even though he’s wealthy enough not to need it? Don’t give me that crap that he paid into and therefor is entitled to it. It’s called standing on principal and leading by example. Ron Paul is a hypocrit who has accomplished absolutly NOTHING in Washington.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay so then answer this for me. Why doesn’t Ron Paul stand on principle and not secure earmaks for himself. Why doesn’t he refuse to take social security giving the facts he’s wealthy enough not to need it? How about showing a little back bone and standing for what you believe in? These are the things that show Ron Paul is just another Capital Hill hypocrite. Preach one thing, do another.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The soviet Union was the greatest threat in American history. We didn’t fight them and look where we are today. The soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan to long look where they are today.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The military doesn’t agree with what they are doing. This is why the military Suicide rate has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. They see how their government sends them out to fight someone that WE funded. They see all the innocent lives that were lost in Iraq on both sides.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s good were not more involved it could have resulted in a Nuclear war. War isn’t always the solution. Killing innocent families in the Middle East isn’t going to bring back the people that died on 9-11.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly had we been more involved it could have resulted in a Nuclear war.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Talking about R(and) Paul to someone else…I am also paying for stuff in your district that i don’t get to use.If we get rid of the Federal income tax your money will stay in your State.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why would we give money to Mubarak he is a ruthless dictator.We funded Saddam,Osama,Ghaddafi and Mubarak.Nothing good came out of giving them aid.He received 180% of what Obama got from the military it doesn’t matter how many. The point his he got almost twice as much. Ron Paul wouldn’t have let the Soviets take over western Europe. If an ally is attacked without provoking the enemy we back them. If they are not are ally who cares what happens to them.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And Regan followed his advice.
Not a single shot was fired
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol
Ron Paul follows the Constitution… Yea.. such an idiot..
moron..
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ron paul is an idiot his ideas dont make any sense obama is far more surperior than this old fooll obama is gonna pay my bills with his world changing ideas i love obama i hope all you libertarian loosers burn in hell with your fag republicans. also guns are the greatest
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
During the 80s when the Cold War was at its height, Ron Paul was preaching do nothing to the Soviet Union, do nothing to help Europe and he sent a letter to Reagan threatening to leave the party because he didnt like where the country was going. I wasnt talking about the 50s. I was talking when Ron Paul was elected.
so less than one percent of soldiers donated. Thanks for proving me right that the military stays out of politics.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because tax-money gotten from that district is distributed fairly around the country. That’s why it’s fair, they aren’t “stealing” your money.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The times are different, one form of politics can’t work in all situations. Saying “the Sovijet were bad back in the 50s and because of that Ron Paul would be a bad president.” Doesn’t hold any ground.
For what it is worth Ron Paul got over 34.000 military donations (not dollars but individual soldiers who donated), while Obama got around 20.000 and Romney less than 5.000.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul would have let the Soviet Union take over Western Europe during the Cold War. Ron Paul has managed to defend every thug criminal tyrant and every other person who wants to destroy America.
tell me how many soldiers donated to Ron Paul. I am still waiting for you to post than number. As I said, the military largely stays out of politics and the fact you arent posting those numbers should tell you that I am right.
What is wrong with giving money to Mubarak?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul did not simply want proper procedure. He wanted his libertarian agenda pushed. Procedure is just his excuse to do nothing. Ron Paul defended OBL during a debate.
We can get rid of the entire military budget and all overseas spending and we are still running a budget deficit. These wars have not ruined our economy. Out of control spending on Social Security, medicare, and medicade have ruined it. That takes over half our budget, not military and overseas spending.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First of all, Ron Paul is not a senator, he’s a congressman in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Second, he’s paid to represent the people of his district, not secure earmarks. Third, the federal money that he uses in his district doesn’t all come from his constituents. It comes from MY taxes as well, so basically I’m paying for crap in his district that I don’t get to use. How is that fair?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because his job as senator is to represent the people in his district. It doesn’t mean he agrees with it.He is doing what he is getting paid to do. Ron Paul’s district is majority Democrat. The only reason he got elected there is because he is honest and he does his job. This is why i support Ron Paul he follows through with what the people want. The federal government helping farmers in Pakistan grow mangoes is much different than a Senator representing his district.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Especially a city at the bottom of the economic collapse
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not sure. But how does one rail against pork spending but then earmark millions of federal taxpayer dollars for his own district?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Obviously this guy has never been to a large city.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We give Egypt 2 billion a year and they don’t even like us. how do you give someone 2 billion dollars when you are -20 trillion?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The things you listed total 45.7 million. 3 Trillion blown on Iraq. We give Columbia and Jordan each 500 million in aid. We gave Egypt 1.5 billion a year while Mubarak was in power. Now we give just about 2 billion.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
These things are all within the United States. A commuter rail is not wasteful spending. Local and state Governments are not 20 trill. in debt therefore they can spend more. I would rather pay for a “trails and sidewalks” program in the U.S. than a”trails and sidewalks program”in Iraq. Spending money on clean energy is not waste.I would rather give money to low-income families for daycare than to Mubarak.I would rather pay 11 million for job training than pay to arm rebels backed by Al-Quida.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
next time im down there ill snap some pics for you
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Why would there be pictures of someone starving in Detroit. There is homeless people all over. They cannot find jobs because these wars have ruined our economy. People don’t even need to be starving for there to be a problem. Americans need to come first. The U.N. shouldn’t be telling our government what to do.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Ron Paul voted to get Osama. Clinton had the chance to get Osama twice.Ron Paul simply wanted a proper procedure. The president does not have the authority to go to war on his own. Mitt Romney never voted to cut the military budget. Therefore you do support debt. If the military budget is not cut that equals debt and a decrease in the standard of living for the United States.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul wouldn’t have put Osama in power in the first place.Clinton had the chance to get Osama Bin Laden twice. All i know about military donations is that it’s almost twice the number of Obama. We have no reason to be in Afghanistan Osama is dead.
We also gave money to Mubarak and Ghadaffi. We gave money to Saddam before we fought him. See a pattern here?…As for military donations Ron Paul received $170 on average from military personal. $170 in a year is not all their income.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
change.org/petitions/governer-richard-scott-tell-rnc-to-allow-ron-paul-to-speak-at-rnc-convenction
TYPE ON GOOGLE THAT LINK AND SIGN PETITION SO PAUL CAN SPEAK AT RNC!!!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0