Peter Schiff on Mitt Romney the progressive redistributionist.
Contrary to popular rhetoric, Romney (1) doesn’t want to reduce net revenues to the federal government because he (2) doesn’t want to cut government, and he particularly wants to (3) fund medicare now more than Obama and even (4) make benefits progressive so the poor receive more than the wealthy (even increasing lower-income benefits)… but he might (5) lower taxes a little bit on the middle class and pay for it by (6) making the rich pay more because, as he says, he wants to “maintain the current progressivity” in the tax code. Indeed: Romney understands how the big government he loves must be paid for, which is why he is against “austerity measures.”
If all of this sounds like Obama, it’s because there’s little substantive difference between the red and blue statists.
As much as I support Ron Paul I think writing in his name will effectively be meaningless.
I get that he’s stumping for votes, but is he really saying this non-ironically?
Why bother with a lesser evil?
Alex made a longer reply - and I don’t want to be unfair in my response - but seeing as how I’m at the beach and the kids want to go play, I’m going to just cut straight to his final argument (which makes possible his preceding arguments that Romney is no worse than Bush Sr. in “buying time,” and that Rand’s support is a good strategic move):
How can you say [Republicans and Democrats] have “little substantive difference?”
Well, let’s compare the presumptive candidates, Romney and Obama.
Romney is a central-banking Keynesian corporatist who supports The Fed and (some, though admittedly not all) bailouts. Romney believes that economic stimulus can be engineered by government spending. His presumed cabinet and advisors will, like the current administration, be filled with Wall Street lobbyists (both have been heavily supported by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, though Romney has a long way to go to reach Obama’s 2008 totals). Romney does not understand that price inflation is merely, and always, a by-product of monetary inflation (expansion of the money base). He is supportive of automatic increases to the minimum wage. He agitates about foreign countries “stealing jobs” and threatens free trade by continuing or erecting protectionist policies. He is willing to wage war, even humanitarian and so-called “preventive” war, and will leave “all options on the table.” Indeed, he plans to increase military spending and his budgets will continue the current trend of outrageous expansion. He is a drug-warrior supportive of prohibition and passing legislation against peaceful people for their “own good.” He opposes online gambling. He presided over one of the first “cap and trade” legislations in the country. He supports the Patriot Act and the NDAA. He’d continue, and perhaps even intensify (if that’s even possible), the current administration’s harsh immigration and deportation policy. Like Obama, Romney supports REAL ID. He supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” and will continue “extraordinary rendition.” He wants to increase Guantanamo’s capacity and keep prisoners from legal counsel. Romney may be willing to make tiny tax cuts, but he does not question the legitimacy of the income tax. And, of course, we all know that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. He wants to increase subsidies to “power generation, fuel cells, nanotechnology, and materials science” industries.
Any of that sound familiar? It should, as it’s essentially Obama’s record.
I will grant that there are a handful of ways in which Romney is maybe marginally an improvement over Obama, but those tiny differences cannot trump the statist whoppers listed above.
Follow-up: see continuation of this conversation HERE.
Rothbard on Endorsements
Murray responds to a question regarding his “endorsement” of Johnson over Goldwater in ‘64. This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in ‘92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.
The article provides a contrasting of/comparison given the two evils presented. Rothbard ends by saying:
- “A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will—at least partly—hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism. When oh when do we get to start?”
That revolution commenced with Ron Paul’s 2007 presidential campaign, and arrived largely in full force this year. Foreshadowing this, Rothbard was asked in ‘89 who he would support in the ‘92 election. He goes on to discuss Ron Paul who could “knock the socks of Bush”.
So, what’s the difference between Rothbard’s “endorsement” and Rand Paul’s?
Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard’s actions with that of Rand’s are severely lacking.
And, as I noted last night, Rand is no Rothbard.
Yes, Rothbard did endorse George Bush. NOW HE’S A TRAITOR AND HE HATES FREEDOM AND WANTS YOU ALL TO DIE IN A GULAG!
JUST LIKE RAND PAUL!
JUST LIKE ANYONE WHO WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY!
Your juvenile hyperbole aside, this is certainly a black eye in Rothbard’s record (who, like every man who ever lived, is not above criticism). But to be fair: 1. Rothbard called Bush a “bozo” during the very same endorsement (which he referred to as “not very soul-satisfying”) and 2. Rand is no Rothbard. Had Rand been more tempered in his support, and if Rand contributes a mere fraction of what Rothbard has in the fight for individual liberty, then his faux pas can perhaps be just as overlooked.
The libertarian backlash is easily mocked by partisans who put animus and anxiety about the other guy over principle because libertarians have proven to value the ideals over the man, and in so doing libertarians have exposed those same partisans as ideological invertebrates.
The R’s and D’s can continue to fight over lesser evils. I, for one, will maintain that there’s little substantive difference between the red and blue statists.
We must always remember what all politicians are: mafia bosses. Even the great Ron Paul still gets a paycheck that is derived from the theft of the masses. I support Ron because of his incredible unwavering support of the non-aggression principle, but he is by far the exception to the rule. As much as I love Ron, I’m not going to blindly approve of actions he might take that violate what I know to be true and just. If Ron Paul did something “bad”, I would be among the first to denounce him. In this case, Rand’s endorsement of Romney is inexcusable given the fact that his father is still technically running and Gary Johnson is still in the mix.
To quote Captain Mal: “May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.”
Ron Paul[’s] brilliant speech, “Bad Dream”
Just How Libertarian is Gary Johnson?
Despite some seemingly genuine libertarian impulses, he unfortunately lacks the intellectual backing to form a proper philosophical foundation - particularly with regards to money and economics. I do have to give him credit for “evolving” his stance on war (at least rhetorically), which was previously more tolerant of interventionism.
But he hasn’t even read Economics in One Lesson…
- The Democrats. Obama ran a largely insurgent campaign in 2008. This meant that the people who cling to the coat tails of whomever they think will win all flocked to Clinton. The end result was that Clinton got an unmanageable operation full of egos with impressive resumes. Now all those egos are going to try to get Obama reelected. They’re a liability.
- Appalachia. Obama is not doing well in West Virginia and Kentucky primaries—even where he’s largely unopposed. That’s not too much of a problem. He wasn’t expecting to win there anyway. Unfortunately, the demographics that really don’t like Obama spill into parts of Ohio and Virginia where Obama does want to win. Some of the opposition has to do with race. Some of it has to do with messaging problems. Much of it has to do with a (reasonable) sense that Obama is not-too-keen on coal-mining.
- Wall Street. A lot of the investment bankers liked Obama in 2008. He was fresh. Technocratic. The kind of guy they could support. They were smart. He was smart. It was a good match. Except .. for some reason Obama isn’t going to let them loot the country like Romney would. This has made some people with a lot of money uncomfortable.
I like how Squashed rights off the entire midwest as racists who don’t understand Obama’s “message.” Did it ever occur to you that we don’t support his actual policies?
Here’s a brief list of why I wont be supporting Obama (and also why a lot of other college aged voters I’ve had contact with wont be voting for him).
- Gitmo is still open.
- We are still at war in the Middle East (even more so than when Obama was inaugurated).
- Drone strikes are increasing.
- Patriot Act reauthorization.
- Escalation of War on Drugs.
- Increased subsidies for “green” energy while obstructing coal, natural gas, oil exploration (hey at least one thing you said was right).
- Escalation of the deportations of illegal immigrants.
- The realization that he is just another politician who does not have the interests of the people in mind.
Note that none of these things have to do with a failure to message or the color of his skin. It’s because he fucking sucks as a human being and not to mention as a president.
I’d also like to point out that Romney and Obama agree on everything I’ve listed here except for maybe on energy.
Typical Obama Apologetics, putting “the blame of Obama’s failures squarely upon the shoulders of the unthinking masses, too stupid or self-centered or racist or confused to properly support the true savior.”
And to insinuate that Obama is no friend to Wall Street - who was bank-rolled by Wall Street, has repeatedly gifted Wall Street with bailouts, and whose administration is filled with Wall-Streeters - takes some serious chutzpah.
A partisan with any sort of intellectual integrity (I guess such a thing is an oxymoron) would start a list of Obama’s re-election hurdles with Obama himself, for reasons that include what Nate listed above. The peace president who loves war, the transparency candidate who’s denied more FOIA requests than anyone, the whistle-blower supporter who’s locked away Bradley Manning, the champion of minority causes who’s deported more immigrants in three years than Bush in eight, the constitutional scholar who signed the NDAA, Patriot Act, ACTA, and the death warrants of Americans “tried” without due process… Obama is the biggest hurdle to his own re-election. Luckily for him and his supporters, they’re right that the masses tend to be un-thinking - which is why I consider his re-election likely. But fret not, Obamaites: if Romney does win, nearly nothing will change. The support for leviathan’s expansion will continue on schedule.
This is good.