Thanks for a great review!
My only confusion is this: You critique Paul as not being “incremental” enough, but then you criticize him for proposing budget freeze as a first step instead of outright departmental abolition. Isn’t that by definition an “incremental” approach?
I agree that Paul should not “poo-pooh” the earmarks issue, even if he is right that spending is happening before the earmark process ever begins.
But I think libertarians and all proponents of limited government should not “poo-pooh” Paul’s focus on fiat money as verging on “crank territory.” Congress would never get away with these massive levels of deficit spending if not for our monetary system. I believe libertarians need to think of the SPENDING as the real tax, and the Federal Reserve System facilitates defecit spending more than anything else.
We all agree nationalized health care (which is a very important industry) and nationalized education (which is a very important industry) are bad ideas. Why should we not apply the same standard to borrowing, lending, and the issuance of currency (which are very important industries).
Thanks again for a GREAT review!!
-Chad
