New Study: Ron Paul is the only candidate who would cut spending

Of all the Republican and Democratic candidates for president, only one is proposing to actually cut government spending.

That one is Ron Paul.

The rest – Republicans and Democrats alike – are proposing to *increase* government spending by anywhere from several billion to hundreds of billions of dollars.

That´s the startling conclusion of a comprehensive new study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF).

NTUF is the research arm of the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizen group founded in 1969 that works for lower taxes and tax reform.

Their new study provides cost estimates -- based on hard data -- for more than 450 proposals by the presidential candidates. (A link to this study is at the end of this article.)

NEW CAMPAIGN THEME SONG: "HEY, BIG SPENDER!"

The study finds that Ron Paul stands entirely alone among the candidates in calling for spending cuts. In fact, Paul´s proposals would cut the bloated federal budget by a whopping $150 billion.

The rest of the candidates might as well adopt the old hit song "Big Spender" ("Hey, big spender!") as their campaign theme.

The other Republicans strut around the campaign circuit, describing themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and boasting about cutting back government.

But the NTUF exposes them for what they are: advocates of an even bigger, even more bloated, even more intrusive federal government than we have today.

John McCain´s proposals would result in a $6.9 billion spending hike.

Mitt Romney´s programs would result in a $19.5 billion spending hike.

Mike Huckabee´s proposals would result in a $54.2 billion spending hike.

As for the Democrats:

Hillary Clinton´s proposals would result in a $218.2 billion spending hike.

Barack Obama´s proposals would result in a $287.0 billion spending hike.

THE RON PAUL DIFFERENCE

The NTUF study notes that only Ron Paul is proposing to eliminate whole departments he considers wasteful, unnecessary and unconstitutional. Among them: the departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, and Homeland Security.

He would also end "corporate welfare," or government handouts to business.

Paul is also calling for the responsible phasing out of Social Security and Medicare, the out-of-control entitlement programs that are racing to financial meltdown. Paul would oversee a transition to safer, far more rewarding market alternatives, while protecting those dependant upon these programs.

Under the limited constitutional government Paul envisions, there would be no need for an income tax. Indeed, Paul has several times proposed legislation – the Liberty Amendment – that would actually eliminate the hated income tax and the IRS by cutting federal spending.

Finally, his call for ending America´s self-assumed role as policeman of the world would save trillions of dollars over time, as well as American lives.

RON PAUL: THE GREATEST FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

In his ten terms in Congress Ron Paul has compiled the greatest anti-tax, anti-spending record of any member. His record is legendary. He has always voted for lower taxes and less government spending.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.

Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay.

Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket.

And in a remarkable show of personal integrity:

Paul does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

Paul returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

For his extraordinary record, Paul has won praise and awards from tax-cutting organizations. Among them is the annual "Taxpayers' Friend" award, given by the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union. For this award, NTU examines every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy. Their award is given only to the small percentage of members of Congress who vote for reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.

Paul has won the Taxpayers´ Friend award every year he has been in office.

RON PAUL: A WASTED VOTE?

Some fiscal conservatives may strongly agree with Ron Paul, but wonder if voting for him in upcoming primaries is a wasted vote, since thus far he has lagged in the primaries.

The answer is no, for several reasons.

Ron Paul´s support is still growing every day. His campaign has more money on hand that McCain or Huckabee. He is campaigning aggressively across the country. It´s not over.

Win or lose, the more votes Ron Paul gets, the more the other candidates realize there is a sizeable constituency for his views. Your vote for Ron Paul sends a message, loud and clear, to them. In this way, a vote for Ron Paul is the most powerful vote you can cast.

A primary vote is not a horse race. You´re not trying to pick the candidate you think will win. You´re voting for the candidate who best represents your views -- the one you would most like to see elected. If that´s Ron Paul, that´s where your vote should go.

Most important, in my view: The Paul campaign is winning recruits every day to his libertarian message of free markets, limited government, individual freedom, civil liberties, and peace. Every day Ron Paul campaigns, this exhilarating new movement – which has the potential to dramatically change America – grows. Young people especially are flocking to the Ron Paul Revolution. What an exciting development! And every vote and every dollar helps Paul build that movement.

YOU´VE BEEN WARNED

For once, we have a major party candidate who really wants to take a meat cleaver to the federal budget.

The NTUF study makes it crystal-clear: voting for any candidate other than Ron Paul is voting for an even bigger, even more intrusive federal government than we have today.

You can't say you weren´t warned.

END

SOURCE: National Taxpayers Union Foundation study: www.ntu.org

REPRINTS: This article may be reprinted as long as credit is given to the author. Thank you.