A lot of the candidates spoke about cutting government spending tonight, which made me smile like a weirdo when he farts. Let’s get rid of the “nanny government” as Guliani says it. Paul talks about getting rid of our “empire” that we can’t afford. The scary thing is, I’m pretty sure every Republican in the last 20 years (including Dubya) has made a campaign promise to reduce the federal budget, yet here we are, with the largest government in the history of the WORLD.
So, who’s serious about reducing the size of government?
Huckabee sounds like he really wants to enact the Fair Tax, which isn’t designed to reduce the receipts going to Washington but would because people would have more of a choice about what they send there. However, every other word Huckabee says involves some sort of help that the government will provide all those poor people who need it—that may win the hearts of people in Iowa, but it’s also going to raise the size and scope of government.
Guliani has had some strong talk about fiscal responsibility—caps on government hiring and retiring benefits, but doesn’t see the debt as the problem it is.
Tancredo seems like he’s on board with the Fair Tax as well, but he seems willing to spend at will on the defense.
Hunter likes the flat tax and is strong about cutting spending, but he may be beholden to the military.
Thompson, McCain, and Romney are too institutional to seriously change the size of government.
Keyes had solid principles, but I haven’t seen the meat of his proposals.
Though Paul talks mainly about military spending, he’s also a small government guy. In an interview with John Stossel recently, he went down the list of the government agencies that could be deleted from existence without hurting us and in fact helping us. Now, that’s what I’m talking about!