There Ain't No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul: Massie Soft on Military Cuts

Lucille

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,019
There Ain't No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul: Incoming Freshman Thomas Massie (Endorsed by Paul) Soft on Military Cuts
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/09/there-aint-no-such-thing-as-a-new-ron-pa

Newly elected Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie says something a little disturbing to this Ron Paul fan about how he intends to handle the "fiscal cliff" issue as he enters Congress. He'll be in earlier than other incoming freshmen, since he also won a special election to replace a retired Rep. Geoff Davis.

From an article in Gannett's Cincinnati.com site, after Massie says he's for sequestration and against letting tax cuts expire, except for the "payroll tax holiday" for Social Security, since he argues that you can't keep promising the same Social Security benefits while putting less money into it:

Massie doesn’t believe the sequestration cuts go far enough.

Congress needs to cut $1 trillion to cover the federal budget deficit. He supports U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s budget plan that cuts non-military spending back to 2008 levels, including cutting foreign aid from $25 billion to $5 billion.

“I’m for the automatic spending cuts,” Massie said. “I support the Republican position that there should be more distributed toward the domestic spending–those cuts should be–instead of military spending, but if we can’t come to some bipartisan agreement on redistributing these cuts, than we already have an agreement. Republicans and Democrats agreed to this as part of raising the debt ceiling. The only thing that’s changed is that Jan. 2 is almost here, and now they’re faced with actually doing what they said.”

There is, of course, no good reason on fiscal conservative, Constitutionalist, small government grounds to privilege military spending over domestic spending, and Ron "blowback" Paul would never say such a thing.

The Paul movement has had to give its support and enthusiasm to politicians who are not Ron Paul as he retires; but as I noted in my book Ron Paul's Revolution, right now on the political scene there is, alas, no one as Ron Paul as Ron Paul.
 
This is my own personal (very unofficial) opinion from observing Thomas' race: I think some (maybe a lot) of this is political posturing. Thomas surrounded himself with Ron Paul anti-war people in his campaign. Not just soft supporters either....but real intellectual anti-war people. And I can tell you first hand that they endorsed him fully.

Let's remember that the 4th district of Kentucky is not libertarian-central. This is still the land of Bush-era neoconism (but I see some positive changes happening).

There are other ways in which Thomas has not been completely on board with the freedom message (for instance: audit the fed, don't end it), but I'm still waiting for him to actually VOTE on these issues, not just make statements. I will either praise or criticise the votes, because let's face it, that's where the rubber meets the road.
 
This is my own personal (very unofficial) opinion from observing Thomas' race: I think some (maybe a lot) of this is political posturing. Thomas surrounded himself with Ron Paul anti-war people in his campaign. Not just soft supporters either....but real intellectual anti-war people. And I can tell you first hand that they endorsed him fully.

Let's remember that the 4th district of Kentucky is not libertarian-central. This is still the land of Bush-era neoconism (but I see some positive changes happening).

There are other ways in which Thomas has not been completely on board with the freedom message (for instance: audit the fed, don't end it), but I'm still waiting for him to actually VOTE on these issues, not just make statements. I will either praise or criticise the votes, because let's face it, that's where the rubber meets the road.

Counter-argument: if we can't even get neocons to agree with us on taxation, then there's literally zero common ground from which to build coalitions. The only outcome will be us compromising from our positions and moving in their direction (like opposing the payroll tax cut, or supporting flat taxes).
 
Counter-argument: if we can't even get neocons to agree with us on taxation, then there's literally zero common ground from which to build coalitions. The only outcome will be us compromising from our positions and moving in their direction (like opposing the payroll tax cut, or supporting flat taxes).

I agree. There are just magnitudes of differences between freedom and conservatism. I look at Thomas's YAL scorecard and endorsement, and I like what I see. That is why I think I am holding my criticism until I see the actual votes. If the votes are wrong, I will definitely criticise them.
 
Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.

I want to see Massie's votes.
 
Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.

I want to see Massie's votes.

Not really, out of media outlets they have been the most supportive...

As for massie, i'll wait for the votes but this is not encouraging...
 
Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.

I want to see Massie's votes.

I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.
 
I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.

That is indeed concerning and the reason that the liberty movement should be working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable like Ron Paul suggested rather than working diligently to elect rulers.
 
I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.

I was not a fan of the "Payroll Tax Holiday! Whee!" to begin with. Massie is speaking truth - you can't cut taxes without cutting spending and expect the deficit to get smaller.
 
Massie at least said these cuts didn't (would not) go far enough. TM only said he would rather see those automatic cuts heavier on domestic spending as opposed to military. Not that damning.
 
WTF? Massie completely right!

“I’m for the automatic spending cuts,” Massie said. “I support the Republican position that there should be more distributed toward the domestic spending–those cuts should be–instead of military spending, but if we can’t come to some bipartisan agreement on redistributing these cuts, than we already have an agreement. Republicans and Democrats agreed to this as part of raising the debt ceiling. The only thing that’s changed is that Jan. 2 is almost here, and now they’re faced with actually doing what they said.”

It doesn't make sense to cut military and domestic spending evenly, because the spending on them isn't even to begin with. And the military is something the government is supposed to fund, not all this domestic spending.

Massie stills wants to reduce the military budget, but he wants to reduce the domestic budget more proportionately which is the correct position.
 
Frankly, given that this is based on an article in Reason magazine, can we really trust the details to be accurate? Let's hold fire and see what actually happens when it's time for the voting to begin.
 
GOP should let the tax cuts for everyone expire and let the sequestration take effect, elections have consequences.

if the GOP rewrite the tax code then they fall into the Democrats trap for higher rates on those earning over a certain amount
 
Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?

Howzabout we wait till the man actually *does* something objectionable (as opposed to merely talking) before we start grousing about "political posturing," hmmm?

Otherwise, how are we anything but "political posturers" ourselves?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.

Brian Doherty has an interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda. And that's who wrote this piece. So this isn't really "more of that" (though I certainly understand the suspicion).

Frankly, given that this is based on an article in Reason magazine, can we really trust the details to be accurate?

I used to subscribe to Reason - for many years - but I'm no apologist. I no longer have any use for the rag, and haven't for a while. (I'm a libertarian, not a libertine beltarian.)

The only thing I regret about giving up Reason is Brian Doherty's stuff. One of the reasons I subscribed in the first place is because Doherty moved from Liberty to Reason.

Doherty is a solid Ron Paul guy (which ought be obvious, given that he's criticizing Massie's rhetoric for not being *enough* like Ron Paul's, instead of *too much* like Ron Paul's).
 
Back
Top