Today we begin rating the Presidential candidates with our rating for Barack Obama. The Paul-O-Meter will give us a total score on 20 criteria. The closer a candidate gets to 100 points the more that candidate is like Ron Paul. For each criteria we will give the score and a short justification for that score. Read the results for Barack Obama below.
Ron Paul was interviewed via phone on FOX Business News yesterday. He spoke about capitalism, monetary policy, oil prices, foreign policy, Iran, income taxes, and our costly interventions overseas. Yes, he fit a lot into 5 minutes.
Who needs a Ron Paul endorsement when you have the Paul-O-Meter?
Everyone knows the perfection of Ron Paul. He is already a living legend. All future candidates are damaged goods simply because they are not Ron Paul. There is only one Ron Paul. So to see how other candidates measure up to his perfection we are introducing the “Paul-O-Meter”.
The Paul-O-Meter ranks candidates on a scale from 0 to 100 depending on how closely they are in agreement with Ron Paul on chosen criteria. Since no candidate can possibly equal Ron Paul, the highest score on the Paul-O-Meter attainable for candidates other than Ron Paul is 99. To simplify the ranking, each candidate will be graded from 1 to 5 on each of the 20 criteria. The 20 criteria are listed below, along with a short description for each.
Here is some rhetoric from the past, as in before today. Who said it?
The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal– to subordinate the individual to the State– but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State– not only by making the State his employer– but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave. Moreover, they have discovered– and here is the critical point– that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on….
I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed.
Bob Barr was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on his radio show today. The exchange was only a tad confrontational. O’Reilly used his usual tactic of telling his guest what he believes in and then asking a semi-related question so the guest doesn’t have a chance to refute the original charge. They discuss taxes and government spending among other things.
Walter E. Williams has been one of my favorite columnists over the years. Anytime I open up one of his columns I salivate for the contents. His latest column is another good one. This article finds Williams, as usual, effectively arguing against government intervention in our lives. Here is an excerpt.
Right now Congress tells each American how much should be set aside out of his weekly paycheck for retirement. How can they have the information to know what’s the best use for the $70, or so, taken from you and put into Social Security? Might you benefit more by saving that money to start a business, purchase tutoring lessons for your children, or putting it in a private retirement plan? Unlike congressional control of traffic signals and supermarkets, the effects of Social Security aren’t apparent because we don’t have the information about what people would have been able to accomplish if they were able to keep more of their earnings.
You might argue that saving for retirement is important, but so is saving for a home or your children’s education. Would you want Congress to force us to put money aside for a home or our children’s education?
Bob Barr issued a press release recently advocating pro-choice for education. He touts current private scholarship programs along with state and local voucher programs while denouncing using federal tax payer money to expand and maintain the federal Department of Education.
Atlanta, GA — The federal Department of Education is spending almost $70 billion this year on a function not even mentioned in the Constitution. “The Department should be closed down and the money left with the American people to use for education at the family, local, and state levels,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee.
While spending so much money on programs that should not exist, in 2003 the Congress created a small voucher program started for students in Washington, D.C., which has some of the worst schools in the nation. Now the Democratic majority is planning on killing the initiative, putting nearly 2000 students back into the failed public school system. “The only federal education program Congress wants to get rid of is the one doing the most to help poor kids,” observes Barr.
But since education is not a federal responsibility, “a better way to promote educational opportunity is at the state level,” explains Barr. There are now 22 different choice programs in 14 states. Some of those initiatives provide vouchers; others create tax credits. “I commend Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue for recently signing into law legislation creating a state income tax credit for individuals and companies that donate to groups which provide private scholarships for students,” said Barr.
In fact, “private scholarships have become an increasingly important choice mechanism across the nation,” Barr notes. Examples range from the District of Columbia’s Washington Scholarship Fund to Portland, Oregon’s Children’s Scholarship Fund. “In this way average people who want to improve education can avoid the political obstacles to reforming the public schools,” he adds.
Bob Barr was interviewed by Dennis Miller on his syndicated radio show today. They discussed much about FISA and Barr’s role in the election. Interesting how Miller cuts Barr off at the end of the interview. It was an odd thing to do. Miller apparently believes that Obama and McCain will actually debate the substantive nature of issues like FISA, limited government, taxes, etc.. Miller cut Barr off for suggesting that his own candidacy will move the debate more towards the fundamentals rather than the usual political surface. The overall meat of the interview is pretty good though. The interview is about 14 minutes long (commercials stripped out).
Ben Adler writes on Politico.com about the likely destination for Ron Paul supporters in the November election. In doing so he recaps Paul’s campaign and brings up the racist newsletters again. I guess he needed some filler for his article. Of course he has to use one of the most negative aspects of Paul’s campaign. He also erroneously reports that $5 million was raised in one day for a money bomb, when in fact more than $6 million was raised.
Overall the article concludes that Ron Paul supporters will be split amongst McCain, Barr, and Baldwin via quotes from Ron Paul volunteers and campaign staff.
“Unless McCain does make changes in his platform,” including abandoning his support for the Iraq War and renouncing deficit spending, “I don’t think [Paul supporters] will be voting for him,” said Hart, who hopes to attend the Republican Convention as a delegate for the state. “They will more likely be voting for the Constitution Party or Bob Barr.”
“It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of the disaffected Republicans would cast their vote for Bob Barr because he’s much more conservative than John McCain,” said Jeff Greenspan, Paul’s Nevada state coordinator.
Here is Bob Barr’s excellent speech at the Texas State Libertarian Convention. He is introduced by 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. He covers many topics including, foreign policy, taxes, energy policy, foreign aid, and civil liberties even injecting some humor and Ayn Rand references into his speech at times.
Liberty Maven
“.
