Club for Growth releases paper on Ron Paul
October 29th, 2007 by Brendan SteinhauserThe Club for Growth has just put out its white paper on Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. [Hat tip to National Review's The Campaign Spot.]
Jim Geraghty quotes Pat Toomey, “his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.”
While that may be true, one has to admire a legislator that actually stands for something and is far less willing to compromise his beliefs than the average politician.
Paul recently won the FreedomWorks online straw poll with over 56% of the vote, which indicates that our members like his record on fiscal responsibility. But the Club for Growth does point out that Congressman Paul has voted against multiple trade agreements, while admittedly imperfect, do move us toward freer trade.
We’d like to know what our readers think. Please comment below!
October 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Revolution, baby!
October 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Well, better a half-hearted approval of Paul rather than the usual hysterical “He’s crazy” kind of stuff. Thanks.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Free Trade” Its free for the other countries and completly lopsided in their favor. We should charge the same tax rate they charge us to import goods into their country. Any product that is restricted, we take 1 of their products and restrict its importation into the US. Do you realize the size of the trade imbalance we have with the rest of the world, especially China??
October 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I like it that Ron Paul is a purist on trade, but a legislator and a President need to also be practical. They need to advance good pro-growth free trade agreement, even if they are “perfect,” to achieve pure free trade. That is why Ron Paul won’t make a good President, with respect to trade. On trade, Fred Thompson is the practical free trader to move us closer to pure free trade. Ron Paul really just sounds crazy when it comes to foreign policy, which he is crazy when it comes to foreign policy.
With respect to our trade deficit: We should NOT focus on “fixing the trade deficit.” What we NEED to do is focus on fixing out budget deficit, and national debt. Also, opening new markets abroad to U.S. goods and services. By doing that the trade deficit will fix itself.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Paul has said that he wants to reduce import restrictions, which very simply operate as taxes on consumers. I have no idea why he wouldn’t want to pursue means which would cut similar restrictions for foreigners, thereby enabling American exporters to sell more goods and services.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Fred, I really think that it pays to have free trade, even if the other countries do not.
We have some real opportunities this fall with free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia. But the Democrats are trying to include “trade adjustment assistance” requirements that are basically handouts.
I am a huge Ron Paul fan, but I do think he should have supported CAFTA.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I disagree with Trey that Ron Paul’s “purist” approach is impractical; rather, it is the absolute essence of practicality. It’s the bargaining and chipping away at the ideal that has led us into our budget mess, our weak dollar and inflation mess, and our foreign confrontation mess.
Regarding amnesty, Paul and Thompson have consistently rejected all forms of amnesty. All the others have supported amnesty, while saying “it’s not amnesty” or tried to squint their eyes and say what they support is something different. It’s amnesty, Mitt!