Ron Paul

There Ain't No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul: Incoming Freshman Thomas Massie (Endorsed by Paul) Soft on Military Cuts

|

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.

Mike Riggs profiled Massie here back in March.

NEXT: Norway Mass Murderer Complains About Cold Coffee, Lack of Butter, Moisturizer in Prison

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When you finally stop putting up idols you’ll stop being disappointed when they let you down.

    1. ^^^^^ This, this and ALWAYS THIS.

      1. I guess “this” if anyone anywhere round these parts had ever “idolized” Massie. This merely points out someone endorsed by Paul and supported by most of his political fans is falling short on something most Paul fans value.

        1. Are you sure that most Paul fans agree with Paul on this?

          1. I’ve talked to many hundreds of them and diligently read their online chatter for years, and definitely “most” getting close to “all.”

            1. I wasnt talking about them, but more the random mass of Paul voters.

              Im sure the hardcore insiders agree.

        2. Brian, would you rather a Pelosi or Boehner? Perhaps we need to set the purity test aside and support candidates that move us in the right direction?

          1. Not sure of the relevance of this question. I write about the Ron Paul world. (obligatory book mention TK) That one of the leading lights of Paul-endorsed and Paul-fan admired new congressmen seems to believe that military cuts are LESS important than domestic is worth noting. This post says nothing about endorsing any given Party’s control of the House.

            1. Isnt the same true of Rand Paul too?

              I dont remember all the details of his proposed budget, but I dont think it cut military as much as domestic.

            2. Didn’t mean to imply anything about control of the House. Just picked the least libertarian Democrat and the least libertarian Republican I could think of in the House and asked if Massie is better than them.

              Are you saying Ron Paul is your cutoff? Anyone less libertarian than RP is unacceptable to serve in Congress? You can’t be a libertarian if you favor cutting domestic entitlements over the military?

              You know, you can be for cutting the military without thinking sequestration is the correct way of donging it. Which, by the quotations you presented, is what I think he’s saying.

              1. thinking sequestration is the correct way of donging it

                That’s an interesting application of RC’s Law.

                1. It was the spell checker…really!

        3. Maybe nobody idolized Massie, but don’t tell me nobody idolized Ron Paul. In doing so, a Ron Paul standard has been created which every libertarianish candidate will be measure against whether they deserve it or not. That may be fair if you have actual Libertarian party candidates that are winning seats as Libertarians, but I’m not sure it makes sense for Republicans.

          1. Yeah, it does annoy me when libertarians make Ron Paul the threshold for getting their vote. He himself doesn’t hold that standard, as he’s endorsed people in the past who aren’t libertarians, let alone purists. And he himself isn’t a perfect libertarian

            1. I was combing thru the piece and referenced article for the cx to Ron Paul and couldn’t find it. Was it that he’s in Kentucky? But apparently, no, it’s just assumed that Ron Paul is the gnomon, which is annoying. There were always things I disagreed with Ron Paul on, as of course there are plenty of things we disagree with each other on here.

              Meanwhile I see that RLC says they’ll have several more endorsees in the coming Congress than this one. They never compare them to Ron Paul, they just have their own endorsement procedures.

              1. It’s right here:

                “Thomas Massie says something a little disturbing to this Ron Paul fan”

                And right here:

                “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul”

  2. Is it a surprise that a RAND Paul picked candidate is more like RAND than RON?

    1. Ron Paul also endorsed Massie

  3. While Riggs may not have specifically pointed it out, it appears all the cost cutting Massie did in Lewis County was domestic, none on the military side.

    1. Ummm…. OK.

      1. Since of humor missing?

        1. Pretty much. It’s mostly Obama’s fault but I blaim Bush anyway.

          1. I blaim Bush for your terrible spelling skills. :-p

  4. Burn the HERETIC!

  5. Wow man I never thought about it like that dude.

    http://www.Anon-Nerds.tk

    1. We learn, anonybot, we learn.

  6. right now on the political scene there is, alas, no one as Ron Paul as Ron Paul.

    I’m okay with that as long as the different Ron Paul-ites can compensate for each other’s weakness(es). That is, Massey may be soft on military spending, but that’s all right as long as some of the others aren’t. It’s the same for the other guys and their disappointments. It’s much easier to get a bunch of guys who MOSTLY agree than a bunch of guys who ALWAYS agree.

    1. Massie.

      Just pointing it out because hopefully we are talking about him for a while. And its going to get annoying if everyone spells like John.

      1. Psh, who cares what Jon thinks.

  7. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!!!!

    Whatever. Nobody’s perfect. Including St. Ron Paul himself.

    1. Exactly. Paul wasn’t that great on immigration, iirc.

      1. I voted for him three times in the last six years, in spite of his newsletters.

  8. So, basically, we’re not going to see any substantive cuts, and we’ll continue to spiral down into fiscal oblivion? Just so we’re clear.

    1. Isnt that the opposite of what he is saying?

      He is saying he would prefer to tilt the balance, but he is fine with letting the current agreement ride.

      1. Yes, but when this comes down to a fight between the Reps and the Dems, the Reps are going to be stubborn on protecting military spending and the Dems are going to be stubborn on protecting entitlement spending.

        In the end, nothing will get done until members of both sides break with party ranks.

        1. Well, it sounds like he is willing to break. He would support a change that shifts the balance, but if that cant be agreed to, he will break with the GOP and support the current agreed upon change.

          We will have to wait and see what he really does, but that is what he is saying.

        2. Isn’t the solution obvious?

          Draft anyone receiving money from the government. That way they’re military, and both Rs and Ds can agree to keep giving them money. And since every dollar the govt spends multiplies into $3 or $4 (or more!) we’ll have record levels of GDP in no time.

        3. I don’t see why the Rs can’t at least be a little nuanced on military spending. Yeah, I know a lot of it is being spent in the middle east. And that is hard for Republicans to cut given their base (not saying I agree with them, just that’s how it is).

          But the Pentagon is largely one massive bureaucracy. Why not say, yeah let’s cut some military spending by starting in Washington, D.C. Then maybe roll back a lot of the Europe stuff. Hell, even Rumsfeld floated that idea and got hammered by the Dems. That would seem to be a way to get some leverage and cuts.

          1. “But the Pentagon is largely one massive bureaucracy.”

            One small quibble – the Pentagon is largely one massively fucking huge bureaucracy.

            Cuts in Korea and Europe should be offered up first, then Desk jockeys in the DoD. OK, Mr. President and Harry Reid, ball is in your court – what domestic spending will you now offer?

            1. Japan then Korea then Europe.

              1. Can’t they all happen at once?

                1. Can’t they all happen at once?

                  Theoretically? yes.
                  Realistically? Unfortunately, no.

    2. Luckily, our fiscal oblivion will be heavily rationed and regulated.

      1. Will chocolate rations be increased from 30 grams to 25?

  9. replace a retired Rep. Geoff Davis.

    ???

    As opposed to the other Geoff Davises who didnt retire?

  10. He’s impure! BURRRNNNNNN HIIIIMMMMMMMM!!!!!

  11. The first thing that needs cutting is not military spending, its military commitments.

    Cutting military spending without cutting commitments will get us into wars were are not prepared to fight. Cutting commitments first makes cutting spending much easier since if you don’t plan to defend Europe or Asia its much easier to come up with military spending you don’t need.

    The problems is that the politicians love handing out blank checks around the world

    1. Right. I don’t really have a problem with what Massie said here.

    2. He does support significant cuts in foreign aid. While I would prefer going from $25B to $0, $25B to $5B is a good start.

    3. The first thing that needs cutting is not military spending, its military commitments.

      AMEN BROTHER!

      1. Analyze the potential threats.
      2. Determine at what level you want the military to be able to respond to those threats.
      3. If you cannot afford it, reevaluate 2.
      4. Fund the military to accomplish 2.
      5. If the situation doesn’t rise to the level of 2, you probably don’t need to be going to war over it.

      1. Or this:

        1. Abolish the standing army, always an enemy to liberty.
        2. Rely on the Army Reserve and the National Guard to deter would-be aggressors.
        3. Bring the navy back to defend our shores.
        4. Bring the air force back to defend our skies.

        1. Technology has made 1 impossible. Training to stay proficient is now a full time job. Perhaps certain specialties could get away with it

          Agree with rest. (Note, all of this falls under my number 2 above)

  12. Is that the newly elected lesbian Congresswoman?

    1. Thanks, pal. I almost choked to death on lunch – remember kids, lunch and hysterical laughter do not mix!

    2. I can see why you’d say that, but actually Tammy Baldwin is pretty attractive…for a politician.

      1. Baldwin has been in congress for…20 years?

      2. No, she’s NOT! (attractive, that is.)

        1. http://images.politico.com/glo…..ap_328.jpg

          You’d do her, don’t lie.

    3. You forgot James Buchanan.

  13. Massie says he’s for sequestration and against letting tax cuts expire, except for the “payroll tax holiday” for Social Security

    In other words, it’s okay if MY taxes go up, as long as venture capitalists like Massie’s don’t.

    1. AFAIK, SS is collected on the first [whatever the limit is] of congressional pay. So he will pay the max Social Security.

      1. 113,700 is max for paying SS tax.

        Congressmen make 174,000, so he will be paying the full amount of SS tax next year.

      2. He started a dotcom back in the 90s which he sold for $10s of millions during the boom. He hasn’t had a real job since then, so it’s really irritating when someone who already pays a much lower tax rate than me (since they only pay capital gains) wants to tell me it’s important my tax rate gets kicked up 3% while his already lower rate stays essentially the same.

        When the Republicans talk about lowering tax rates, the increasingly seem to only mean the politically connected corporate cronyists, and then they wonder why the middle class wage earners don’t vote for them.

        1. But it IS his tax rate NOW.

          He is talking about the rate going forward and he will be paying it too.

        2. Considering the rates they talk about lowering are higher than the rates that others pay, I dont see how that is a bad thing.

          Unless you think progressive taxation is a good thing. Then you are fucking scum.

          1. No, but I also don’t believe in regressive taxation.

            The fact that my average tax rate is already higher than Romney’s is ridiculous. Yet the whole campaign all I heard was Romney bitching that he should be paying even less and that I should be paying even more.

            1. Well, if you are paying taxes, he doesnt think you should be paying more.

              But I dont see how lowing, for example, the 35% tax bracket down to, say, 33% (matching the next lowest bracket), would hurt you any.

              1. By itself it doesn’t, but that’s not happening in a vacuum. He’s proposing to offest the revenue by bumping up payroll taxes, which does hurt me.

            2. Romney’s tax rate is low because it is Cap Gains.

              For a better explanation of why Romney’s tax rate should be low, I’m going to refer you to Chapter 32 of Human Action by some dude named Mises. It is title “Confiscation and Redistribution” and deals with why taxes on capital accumulation are bad for the economy.

              1. Even if we accept that argument for capitalization in general, that still leaves a question of why the wages of investment fund managers (as opposed to the wages of every other professsion) should be treated as capital gains and not income.

  14. Attempting to get outraged here…attempt failing…

    He didn’t rule out military spending cuts. His words were pretty mild.

    1. Yeah, I disagree with him, but he wasn’t saying he opposes any and all cuts to military spending. He said he’d be fine with going ahead with sequestration (which according to Romney and other Republicans would “devastate” the military) if no deal could be worked out

  15. If he’s for actually cutting spending, he’s an improvement. No one can be the next Ron Paul.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.