Ron Paul: Stop Nation Building & Cut Military Spending to Keep Us Free and Safe

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.


  • first, go watch the presidential debate at the Reagan library. Rick Perry said that Ron Paul sent a letter to Reagan threatening to leave the party and Ron Paul admitted it was true then went on attacking Reagan.

    Ron Paul did not manage to avert a nuclear war. Reagan cut all trade with the Soviet Union, increased military spending, increased aid to our allies, all of which Ron Paul opposed. Saying Reagan did what Ron Paul wanted because there wasnt a war is called lying through omission.

  • “Lybia was illegal under Obama”
    Wrong. Read the War Powers Act.

    “We didn’t have social programs until 1935 and before that the country was not like somalia”
    And when capitalism failed and the Great Depression hit, the poor and elderly were left to fend for themselves, hence the need for social programs

  • Ron Paul is a failure (accomplished nothing in cogress)
    Ron Paul is a hypocrite (secures earmarks while railing aginst them)
    Ron Paul is mentally unstable (believes in 18th century solutions to 21st century problems)

    Ron Paul will NEVER be president

  • Lybia was illegal under Obama. We didn’t have social programs until 1935 and before that the country was not like “somalia”. You do realize if you are under 50 you will never get a penny in social security that doesn’t that bother you? The taxes collected don’t even pay for the social programs alone. They are paid for by inflating the dollar and printing more money.

  • Yes he’s entitled to it, I won’t disagree with you there. But given his wealth, Ron Paul has a unique oppertunity to stand on principle and lead by example by refusing to take it. Just think of how much respect he would get from taking a stand like that, but just like Ayn Rand, Ron Paul is a HUGE hypocite.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Exactly had we been more involved it could have resulted in a Nuclear war.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • And Regan followed his advice.
    Not a single shot was fired 🙂