RFK Jr. Pays Lip Service to the Debt While Pushing Policies That Would Increase It
It's good to hear a candidate actually talk about our spending problem. But his campaign promises would exacerbate it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won applause at the Libertarian National Convention by criticizing government lockdowns and deficit spending, and saying America shouldn't police the world.
It made me want to interview him. This month, I did.
He said intelligent things about America's growing debt:
"President Trump said that he was going to balance the budget and instead he (increased the debt more) than every president in United States history—$8 trillion. President Biden is on track now to beat him."
It's good to hear a candidate actually talk about our debt.
"When the debt is this large…you have to cut dramatically, and I'm going to do that," he says.
But looking at his campaign promises, I don't see it.
He promises "affordable" housing via a federal program backing 3 percent mortgages.
"Imagine that you had a rich uncle who was willing to cosign your mortgage!" gushes his campaign ad. "I'm going to make Uncle Sam that rich uncle!"
I point out that such giveaways won't reduce our debt.
"That's not a giveaway," Kennedy replies. "Every dollar that I spend as president is going to go toward building our economy."
That's big government nonsense, like his other claim: "Every million dollars we spend on child care creates 22 jobs!"
Give me a break.
When I pressed him about specific cuts, Kennedy says, "I'll cut the military in half…cut it to about $500 billion….We are not the policemen of the world."
"Stop giving any money to Ukraine?" I ask.
"Negotiate a peace," Kennedy replies. "Biden has never talked to Putin about this, and it's criminal."
He never answered whether he'd give money to Ukraine. He did answer about Israel.
"Yes, of course we should,"
"[Since] you don't want to cut this spending, what would you cut?"
"Israel spending is rather minor," he responds. "I'm going to pick the most wasteful programs, put them all in one bill, and send them to Congress with an up and down vote."
Of course, Congress would just vote it down.
Kennedy's proposed cuts would hardly slow down our path to bankruptcy. Especially since he also wants new spending that activists pretend will reduce climate change.
At a concert years ago, he smeared "crisis" skeptics like me, who believe we can adjust to climate change, screaming at the audience, "Next time you see John Stossel and [others]… these flat-earthers, these corporate toadies—lying to you. This is treason, and we need to start treating them now as traitors!"
Now, sitting with him, I ask, "You want to have me executed for treason?"
"That statement," he replies, "it's not a statement that I would make today….Climate is existential. I think it's human-caused climate change. But I don't insist other people believe that. I'm arguing for free markets and then the lowest cost providers should prevail in the marketplace….We should end all subsidies and let the market dictate."
That sounds good: "Let the market dictate."
But wait, Kennedy makes money from solar farms backed by government guaranteed loans. He "leaned on his contacts in the Obama administration to secure a $1.6 billion loan guarantee," wrote The New York Times.
"Why should you get a government subsidy?" I ask.
"If you're creating a new industry," he replies, "you're competing with the Chinese. You want the United States to own pieces of that industry."
I suppose that means his government would subsidize every industry leftists like.
Yet when a wind farm company proposed building one near his family's home, he opposed it.
"Seems hypocritical," I say.
"We're exterminating the right whale in the North Atlantic through these wind farms!" he replies.
I think he was more honest years ago, when he complained that "turbines…would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard… Nantucket….[They] will steal the stars and nighttime views."
Kennedy was once a Democrat, but now Democrats sue to keep him off ballots. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls him a "dangerous nutcase."
Kennedy complains that Reich won't debate him.
"Nobody will," he says. "They won't have me on any of their networks."
Well, obviously, I will.
I especially wanted to confront him about vaccines.
In a future column, Stossel TV will post more from our hourlong discussion.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"This is soo baaad." Takes another hit on that pipe.
- every drug addict, ever.
Reminds me of the week sarc gave up drinking.
He didn't even last a week.
And every right whale exterminated creates 22 new jobs!
RFK Jr. Pays Lip Service to the Debt While Pushing Policies That Would Increase It
So, just like Trump then. Maybe Trump should have picked him for VP after all.
Can’t say it’s true of KamKam though, she doesn’t even pay lip service. (Well, to the debt.)
But as I recall, there *is* one candidate who doesn’t pay mere lip service to getting spending under control, and who actually has some pretty serious libertarian policies. Unfortunately, he’s gay, that means we can’t vote for him. Oh well. Guess we have to vote for the pussy grabber instead.
Unfortunately, he’s gay, that means we can’t vote for him.
No, no, no, no, no! It’s not because he’s gay. It’s because he’s a Democrat pedophile who supports the gay agenda (whatever that is). Not because he’s gay. How do we know he’s a Democrat pedophile who supports the gay agenda? Same reason we know all illegal immigrants are all criminals who will all vote for Democrats, along with all their children and all their children’s children. It’s in their blood. It’s genetic. It’s cultural. We just KNOW. But not because he’s gay. That would be bigoted and prejudgemental. We know because gays, like illegal immigrants, are all the same. Anyone who says different is a liar.
You joke, but I can't say this often enough: even Dave Smith, Mises Caucus Champion, said in his podcast that he AGREED with Chase Oliver on most policy issues, but he still wasn't going to vote for Chase because of his cultural associations with the left (in Dave's view). The fact that Chase wore masks voluntarily during the pandemic is PROOF that he is unfit because he believed the left-wing narrative about masks. It literally doesn't matter that Chase would abolish the welfare state. He would abolish the welfare state while wearing a mask, and that's what makes him unacceptable.
You two clowns are still pushing your 'it's cause he's GAY!!' smear, I see.
It is because he's gay. But not because he has gay sex. Because it means that he's a 'woke progressive', right?
Nobody said that, Lying Jeffy, but your smear is the only way you and your pet drunk can defend that pseudo-authoritarian Branch Covidian over the stupid shit he said during the Covid panic.
that pseudo-authoritarian Branch Covidian
Huh. So you think Chase Oliver is a "pseudo-authoritarian Branch Covidian"? What makes you think that?
Is it because he supported government mask mandates? No, because he didn't.
Is it because he supported government vaccine mandates? No, because he didn't.
Is it because he supported the lockdowns? No, because he didn't.
What did he do? Oh that's right, he voluntarily wore a mask.
You are proving my point. The Dave Smiths out there won't vote for him because in THEIR mind, he is no different than those on the left who DID support the authoritarianism, because he believed the leftist narratives about masks.
It is the same with his homosexual identity. Because he flies a Pride flag, he is no different than those on the left who support insane woke LGBTQ ideas.
It is 100% about culture and identity with you all. I'm right: Chase Oliver's big problem is that he would abolish the welfare state while voluntarily wearing a mask and flying a Pride flag. That is why you won't vote for him.
Jeff/sarc . What a couple of losers.
Perhaps he should have made being a libertarian, and actual libertarian policies central to his platform, rather than being a gay Democrat who joined the Libertarian party.
I mean, even Reason doesn't think much of him and they love Democrats and gays more than actual libertarians.
The gay candidate isn't even featured at an ostensibly friendly site (this one), why would anyone assume he's even running?
Why would anyone care if he's 'running'; it's be sorta like me waving may arms and claiming I'm trying to fly.
RFK Jr. is nothing but a Democrat enviro-mental psycho pretending to be a Libertarian. Why Stossel would even waste his time on the P.O.S. is beyond me.
Still would rather have him than Kameltoe in the Oval Office
light is the best disinfectant
JFK Jr speaking to the debt is a good step, but he like other politicians he needs to finish the thought.
My current thoughts on who I will vote for in the election.
Major Party Candidates
Trump : He the best candidate from the two major parties. I don't trust that he will be any different than the mediocre president he was for his first term. He is definitely not the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler like the corporate media lapdogs of the Democrat party claims.
Biden:Harris: ??? Is a sorry excuse of what is wrong with politicians where the gaining power at all costs for personal gain over weigh any consideration of the voters. The absolute level of fake-ness is astounding and the attempts to "Program" the voters is so ridiculously out in the open, it's "Weird" how anyone of sound mind could fall prey to their tactics.Minor Party Candidates
Chase Oliver.: Reasonable on economics. Woke leftist on social issues. Not likely to gain enough support to even be a blip on the radar. There may be better options to vote for with my protest vote.
Jill Stein: Not likely to gain enough support to even be a blip on the radar. Not worth voting for even as a protest vote.
Cornel West: Not likely to gain enough support to even be a blip on the radar. Not worth voting for even as a protest vote.
Randall Terry: Not likely to gain enough support to even be a blip on the radar. Not worth voting for even as a protest vote.
Independent Candidates
RFK Jr.: Good on some things and bad on other things. Is a work in progress and he needs to finish his thought to the logical conclusion. Has the most potential to be more than a blip on the radar for a protest vote.
Pretty good summation. Kamala is dangerous on every issue from individual freedom to WW3. Trump at least can slow down the collapse of the empire. RFK is right on enough things to be far better than Kamala. The rest are of no consequence whatsoever.
"...I don’t trust that he will be any different than the mediocre president he was for his first term..."
Name a better POTUS in the last 100 years, and show your work, or STFU.
He said nothing to contradict that. You really need to stop attacking people who agree with you that Trump is the best realistic option because they dare to doubt his actual effectiveness. "Most libertarian president" is a super low bar to clear.
+1
'"Stop giving any money to Ukraine?" I ask.
"Negotiate a peace," Kennedy replies. "Biden has never talked to Putin about this, and it's criminal."'
Previous Presidents negotiated with Putin and got treaties to respect Ukraine's borders. PUTIN BROKE THOSE PROMISES. What is the point of negotiating for more false promises?
Robert Kennedy Jr is not a serious politician, certainly not the politician his father was. He was an alternative when the race was Trump/Biden and people were unhappy with the choices. He was the alternative, but that has changed. He has little left to offer and certainly nothing in the way of policies. They seem a hodge podge and little more than talking points. John Stossel seems to have proved that point.