This is intended to be emailed. Please copy it and email it to your usual suspects.
Please put aside your preconceptions for a moment.
In 2011 we are projected to take in $1.9 trillion, and spend $3.3 trillion. This is a gap of $1.4 trillion, or about $116 BILLION a MONTH. Our national debt already exceeds $15 trillion, and is equal to the entirety of our annual economic output. Debt loads this size have historically inevitably led to economic catastrophes. Obamacare and the entry of the Baby Boomers into our Social Security and Medicare rolls will only accelerate this process, which is already unsustainable.
What in your estimation constitutes a rational, proportional response to this situation?
Mitt Romney has pledged to cut $20 billion from our annual budget, and in effect appoint a committee to study the issue. Does this sound like a solution that is on par with the size of the problem?
Supposed "conservative" Newt Gingrich called Paul Ryan's budget plan--which is at least trying to wrestle with the problems we face, "right wing social engineering". Here is what is interesting about that statement: Ryan's plan doesn't even balance the ANNUAL budget until 2040 . During that period, our debt will continue to increase, year on year. Predictably, Gingrich makes no commitments at all with respect to budget cuts.
Ron Paul has pledged to cut annual expenditures by $1 trillion his first year. He is going to abolish the Departments of Education, HUD, Commerce, Energy, and Interior. He is going to abolish the TSA, which is strip searching everyone who flies that it wants to.
He is going to lower the corporate tax rate to 15%. This will have ENORMOUS and IMMEDIATE stimulating effects on our economy.
Self evidently, he will reverse Obamacare, and substantially every Executive Order Obama issued, along with implementing a legal framework removing the ability for the Executive Branch to impose laws without consulting Congress.
He is going to audit the Federal Reserve. For those who complacently assume that the Fed is benevolent, consider the following: our next generation aircraft carrier, the Ford Class, will cost some $10 billion each. Ben Bernanke, without asking any elected officials' approval, created (just in the second round of so-called "Quantitative Easing"), from scratch, $600 BILLION--the equivalent of 60 state of the art aircraft carriers. And we don't even know who got the money. We have no way of knowing. But we can assume it went to the already rich, and not to ordinary Americans, who will be hurt by the inflation that clearly will follow whenever the economy recovers. This is absurd.
With regard to foreign policy, talk with a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. Ask them what good we are doing there. Ask them if they think we should be there. If you can find one who thinks that we are protecting America--now, after 10 years of war--then go buy a lottery ticket because it's your day to defy the odds. Paul gets more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined. They are tired of fighting, and it is hard to blame them. It is impossible to measure progress. They sweep an area, destroy weapons caches and arrest some people, then three months later things are the same as before. Although only one percent of the population, veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars constitute 20% of the suicides.
With regard to electability, Ron Paul consistently places within a couple points of Romney when matched against Obama. He can count on everyone right of center to vote for him simply because they cannot stomach Obama. But he also appeals to large swathes of the Left, who share with the Right a fear of government power grabs, and who have a distaste for foreign wars.
In this CBS Poll(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/01/09/Who-Would-You-Vote-For-in-November-if-the-Candidates-Were.gif), Paul is in a statistical dead heat with Obama, as is Romney, since the margin of error is larger than the difference between them.
PAUL IS ELECTABLE.
Here is the question: do you want to sacrifice genuine conservatism--low taxes, huge decreases in the size and power of the Federal Government--for a one or two point advantage in the polls, and for a candidate NOBODY--except the banking community--is enthusiastic about?
Please ponder this carefully before you vote in your primary, and please pass this email along to everyone you think might have an interest in reading it.
End note: I have ignored Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum, because their poll numbers--and showings to date--simply do not support the thesis that they can actually win in a national election.