Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Gary Johnson on Entitlements

I promised some thoughts on Gary Johnson's campaign. I have given him some grief for placing the drug war so high on his list on priorities. However, I am in agreement with those positions, I just don't think that it should be the Tea Party's number one concern. I still think that the war on drugs is inconsistent with Tea Party positions. Most interesting to me is how the candidates are approaching the entitlement spending crisis. From Gary Johnson's web site:

MOST PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON SEEM TO THINK that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is lunacy.

  • Identify and implement common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency.
  • Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost.
  • Repeal ObamaCare, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  • Fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation. It's time for Social Security to reflect today's realities without breaking trust with retirees.
Amen to that brother. However, I think he fudges just a tad on the Medicare issue. People are going to continue to live longer. There are no common-sense cost savings that will reduce Medicare spending unless we turn it into a block grant plan directly to consumers. However, I like his courage in not shrinking from the entitlement issue.

Clearly, we need this man's voice in the debate. Am I all in? No way. Still more research to do. I will also comment more on Johnson later.


  1. Expecting Washington politicians to reform spending is like asking a group of fat men to agree on a diet. You know their heart's not in it and they will absolutely cheat. Sorry, not PC, but I was going to use the whores in church metaphor--same difference.

  2. Except that you just kind of did. Which is totally cool in my book.

  3. Someday you'll have to post on this: either you believe that people are rational and the drug war is a waste of time or you believe that people are rationalizing and inherently fallen, the Christian view, and laws that codify moral values about personal consumption of intoxicants are necessary.

    Right now, you're on the side of "people are rational" for which I can see no evidence.

  4. He looks like a goof ball and fidgets, regardless of what comes out of his mouth. So, game over. Sit him next to Obama at a Town Hall style debate and it won't be pretty. Remember how cool Obama came out next to fidgety McCain? No one remembers the answers to the questions, just the poise of the contenders.

    If we don't look at how a candidate stacks up to the Average American who isn't paying attention we won't win squat in 2012. Most folks vote with their gut, not their brains.

  5. Sarah,
    Tend to agree about voters going with their gut. One of the reasons I liked Daniels is that he seemed to have such a deep command of the issues, that I was sure he would crush Obama in a debate, because he would come across as supremely self confident. What if we could drop Ron Paul's policies into Mitt Romney's body?

    I have explained at length why I am against the war on drugs. Not every Christian value is codified into law, nor is anyone on crusade to do so. I cite drunkenness and alcohol prohibition as well as murder and the right to bear arms as two examples where Christians are not and should not be campaigning to make certain goods illegal. Further, the use of currently illegal drugs does not necessarily imply abuse for everyone involved. It is important that our laws start with the premise of protecting the liberty of the citizens, so the most important are those which involve prohibition against murder, theft, assault, etc.

  6. B-Daddy, you need to spend more quality time with drug addicts.