Taking a look at Rand Paul’s stances on economic issues in 2016 presidential bid

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul has officially become a United States presidential contender. After years of speculation, the Tea Party favorite could lead the Republican Party to a White House win in 2016. Despite his flip-flopping on several issues and repeatedly jumping from the libertarian to the antiquated GOP brand, Paul is still a better selection than Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

Paul’s campaign website summarizes his position on the issues. “My policies will defeat the Washington Machine and unleash the creative spirit of the American people,” the website states.

Will his policies actually defeat the Washington beast? Will he conquer the conquerors? Probably not, at least due to the fact that Hillary Clinton will likely win next year because, let’s face it, she’s a Clinton. A name synonymous with cronyism, status quo, lobbing and vast connections.

Here is a look at Paul’s stances on the economic issues as he tries to become President Obama’s successor:

Spending & Debt

Paul’s Plan: to balance the budget, spend only what comes in and cut spending in areas that are better run by the state and municipalities.

Reaction: Without being too much of a cynic, this has long been discussed by many other Republican challengers before the Kentucky senator, and it hasn’t necessarily been a success. Although it is a good policy to maintain, Washington’s record is stellar proof that there is no way it’ll balance the budget or cut spending, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat. Look at the sequester! Elected officials celebrated because they thought they cut spending, but actually increased it over a 10-year period.

If Paul can actually get the Congress to balance the budget and spend only what they have then that deserves the Nobel Peace Prize in itself.

Result: Thumbs up

Taxes

Paul’s Plan: cut taxes for everyone, shrink the size of the federal government, minimize tax regulations and downsize the Internal Revenue Service. He wants to do this by proposing a single flat tax of 17 percent, while eliminating other burdensome taxes, like investments and estates.

Reaction: although the better solution would be zero taxes for everyone, a flat tax is still an improvement from the current tax structure. The only ones that really benefit from a complex tax code are accountants, lawyers and governments. Seventeen percent does sound way too high, particularly for low-income families. Instead he should opt for his father’s, Ron Paul, idea of a 10 percent tax and leaving everyone alone.

Result: Thumbs middle

Audit the Fed

Paul’s Plan: conduct a complete and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve System.

Reaction: there is some dissent in the libertarian community to this proposal; of course the establishment is against it. According to various elected officials, like Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, it would allow Congress to dictate monetary policy. However, if you read the language of the bill all it simply does is tell the American people how many assets were brought, from whom, when and why. It doesn’t transfer the powers the central bank has to Democrats and Republicans.

Result: Thumbs up

Regulation

Paul’s Plan: cut the red tape, reduce the power of regulators and increase transparency of the federal regulatory process.

Reaction: considering bureaucracy and regulations cost the private sector hundreds of billions of dollars each year, this is a wise and prudent policy. Let’s face it: federal regulations have more to do with corporate powers and lucrative government positions. Once again, though, it can be very difficult to implement considering how much power and influence folks at the EPA, and other departments and agencies, maintain.

Result: Thumbs up

Social Security

Paul’s Plan: gradually raise the retirement age, means testing annual income and ensure changes only affect younger Americans as opposed to current retirees and those on the cusp of retirement.

Reaction: indeed, there will certainly be no intention of ending Social Security, an insolvent Ponzi scheme that will self-destruct by the time millennials enter retirement. However, ensuring that it’s there for retirees is another wise move because they have paid into such a system their entire working lives. Moreover, raising the retirement age is something that has to be done by governments worldwide because obviously people are living longer. Remember, Social Security was meant as a fund to supplement retirement income and not actually serve as the sole-source of retirement.

The only sufficient complaint is that he has yet to introduce a plan that would gradually dissolve Social Security and allow younger people to opt out of the system. Saving for retirement, no matter how wise it is, should be something voluntarily rather than coercion.

Result: Thumbs middle

Final Thoughts

Paul has been placed under a microscope since entering Washington, especially by libertarians. Many expected the Kentucky legislator to amiably mimic his father and continue where he left off. Unfortunately, Paul has been more establishment than anything else and has flip-flopped on an array of issues. Nevertheless, he still has done an admirable job of promoting limited government and capitalism, but definitely not at the pace of his father and other Austrian economists and prominent libertarians.

Photo by Gage Skidmore