Ron Paul supporters get a lot of flak from traditional Republicans because of Paul’s foreign policy. In truth, it’s not the foreign policy I would choose if I were president, so I’m not going to give it a defense here. Instead, I want to lay out the argument why, even though I’ll disagree with his foreign policy, I still want to vote for him.

I am voting for Ron Paul because he is the only candidate who is serious about tackling our country’s massive fiscal problems. See below for proof.

The CATO Institute put together a fantastic summary of the Republican candidates likely spending positions for each department of the federal government. Ron Paul is the only one serious enough about shrinking the federal government to have produced his own federal budget. As you can see, he has laid out specific cuts to departments and programs. No other candidate is remotely close.

Is this level of seriousness worth letting Iran have a nuclear weapon? Is it worth letting China have free reign in the South China Sea? Is it worth leaving South Korea to its own defenses? I think so. The overseas changes that will occur will not threaten the survival of the United States. Maybe Israel and South Korea will get nuked. There will certainly be more wars and instability. Yet, I am willing to let the world burn to save America. Our debt can destroy this country. It’s the price I am willing to pay, to drastically cut the federal budget.

I don’t want to give Iowa’s caucus undue attention. After all, there never was a President Huckabee or Dole. Still though, those results splashed some cold water on my face. I detest the idea of Romney winning, but the very idea of Santorum as a front runner is madness. So who is the last ‘Not-Romney’ in the race?

Now I’m compelled to take a serious look at Jon Huntsman. I cannot believe I am though. At the start of the race, I swore I wouldn’t. How could I vote for someone who worked in the Obama administration?

To start with, there is this meme running around conservative blogs where people repeatedly change Huntsman’s first name. I’m guessing it’s a knock against his null name recognition, but I wish I could find confirmation on that somewhere. Whatever. It still tickles me.

So what has Cadwallader Huntsman done with himself? I’ll turn to Wikipedia for a life summary.

• Dropped out of high school to play keyboard in a band
• Got GED, went to the University of Utah
• Paused his college education to go on a Mormon mission in Taiwan
• Transferred to U. Penn and earned a bachelor’s in International Politics
• Staff assistant in the Reagan White House
• Deputy Assistant Commerce Secretary for trade development & commerce in East Asia under Bush I
• Ambassador to Singapore under Bush I
• Served as an executive in the family corporation
• Deputy Trade Representative under Bush II
• Elected as Utah Governor, twice
• Ambassador to China under Obama

All this is very impressive in bullet form. Yet, if you think about it, what does it really show? I worry this is a guy who didn’t have to work all that hard. Dropping out of high school to play in a band can be spun as a romantic, adventurous endeavor, but is it really all that risky for a billionaire’s son to do? Then once he graduates from college, his very first job is in the White House? There’s no way he got that on his own merits. Then once the Republicans are out of power, Eustace Huntsman goes to work for the family mega-corp. That’s hardly the hallmark of a self-made man. He certainly had a lot of help from his father. It makes me suspect he is lazy and uncreative. I can’t say for sure though. He did get these helpful career boosts but perhaps he went on to shine in these roles.

I think it’s best to judge him by his actions as governor. Even if the Huntsman name won the election for him, he still had to act on his own while in office. So what did he do there?

• BLS Current Population Survey rated Utah #1 in job growth during Huntsman’s governorship
• BLS Current Employment Statistics Survey rated Utah #4 in job creation during Huntsman’s governorship
• 37% increase in Utah state budget over Huntsman’s tenure
• Moved Utah to a flat 5% income tax system
• Cut sales tax rate by 0.1%
• Cut sales tax on prepared food from 4.7% to 1.75%
• Proposed eliminating Corporate Tax on businesses making under $5 million
• Raised DMV fees
• Proposed 400% increase in cigarette taxes
• Utah joined the Western Climate Initiative, a cap-and-trade greenhouse gas scheme
• Supported a minimum wage increase
• Supported school vouchers

This does not enthuse me. This feels like the behavior of a inoffensive, go-along-get-along Republican. These are the people putting us on the slow boat to socialism. It’s marvelous Calixtus Huntsman cut taxes, but he didn’t cut any spending along with it. Worse, he raised the state’s budget! This type of governance is ruining the United States of America. The federal government needs radical, frontier surgery. The budget needs someone who will take an axe and a bonesaw to it, not a dainty scalpel.

I don’t think I even need to consider Huntsman’s service under Obama. Looking at his tenure as Utah governor is enough to turn me off. He’s not going to be any different than Romney. Why bother to push for him? Has he said anything more drastic on the campaign trail?

One happy fact of life is that if you wait long enough, someone else will do your work for you. Some industrious people at CATO actually went through each of the candidates websites and compiled their likely spending position for each federal government department. Make sure you check it out. Frankly it’s worthy of a post all to itself. Regarding Reinhard Huntsman, he seems to have the most question marks on his positions. This does not enthuse me.

Huntsman isn’t worth bothering with.

Daniel Mitchell has a good post connecting Europe’s impending doom to gun control. Read it.

However, that’s not what I’m writing about. Something Mitchell mentions reminded me of my own blog post from yesterday.

What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.

Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.

Europe’s wealthy are looking around for new homes where they can fortify themselves like Roman latifundia 1,500 years ago. I think that’s hardly necessary and I touched upon it yesterday. Yes, Europe’s economy will eventually collapse no matter how much financial trickery is employed. Yes, this will lead to social upheaval but only for a time. Riots will be tolerated, but when it becomes the clear the crowds will not be satisfied with a few days of wanton destruction, the tanks will roll. Fascism will come back into style as European armies are put into action suppressing the dissent of unarmed civilians (it’s all they’re good for), and governments will step in to command the economy. Of course “fascism” will have a new, innocuous name, and these wealthy people will continue to live quite comfortably under this new system. After all, they’re probably hob-nobbing now with those future dictators.

The creation of Eurobonds will be a disaster.

I’m not equivocating. Under no circumstances will selling Eurobonds make things better. Yet people, who I am told are quite smart, keep pushing this idea as the solution to this European debt crisis. In this AP article, EU Commission President Barroso again calls for this new debt instrument to be created. Granted a Eurocrat isn’t impartial when it comes to more things getting the “Euro” prefix added, but go search the news. You’ll find a ton of, supposedly smart, politicians, bankers and traders out there demanding this.

So why are they all wrong? What you have to understand first is what a Eurobond does. A Eurobond would be a bond issued in the name of the European Union. In theory, all members would be on the hook for paying it back. It would pool the credit risk of all members, so those with bad credit would be able borrow money at lower rates because the members with good credit “co-signed” the bond. In reality, Germany is the only member state with good credit and enough money to pay back these Eurobonds, so Germany would be “co-signing” for all of Europe. The answer to why this will fail is in last week’s terrible performance at Germany’s auction for 10-year bonds. Germany alone could not generate enough interest in its own bonds. If Germany cannot find enough buyers for its own bonds, why would there be buyers for these German-backed Eurobonds?

There won’t be. So why do these people keep pushing for them? What I wrote above is no secret. I think for a lot of them the need for “ever greater union” for Europe is an article of faith, so they must use every chance they have to create new pan-European institutions. Who cares if the Eurobond plan fails. The point is to make the idea of pan-European bond realistic! That way they can be issued in the future after this crisis. Forget the worry that the Euro might be destroyed. For these people, the EU and the Euro are sacrosanct. They will preserve them at any cost. It doesn’t matter if that means bond defaults, industry nationalizations, suspension of democracy, martial law, anything.

The Germans are very fiscally conservative (duh!), so ultimately I don’t believe they will agree to Eurobonds unless those profligate spenders (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal) end up agreeing to become de-facto German protectorates. That name will never be used of course, but all the decisions for these countries will be made in Berlin (or possibly directly from Frankfurt). In this way, Germany will backstop the roll over of all these countries debts and quietly loot these nations in exchange.

But Eurobonds will fail, as I said above, yet I don’t think that failure will be the end. I think there will still be time for one more last-ditch, grasping-at-straws effort. Perhaps the Europeans will try some financial chicanery with the IMF. The ECB will sell those crap Eurobonds directly to the IMF. The IMF will pay with the SDRs it conjures up. The IMF will then change its rules to make SDRs freely convertible into Euros. The ECB will then let those new Euros pay off the debts of the new German protectorates. Sure this will inflate the Euro, but the Germans will agree because they will enjoy the hard assets they’re plundering from their new empire.

But this will fail too, or whatever real plan the European elite tries. What comes next, an end to the EU or a much more dictatorial one, depends on the European public. This is pure speculation of course. What I am convinced of is the utter failure of Eurobonds to end today’s crisis.

[European] labor laws induce sloth, indolence rather than hard working.

Jin Liqun, Chairman of the supervisory board of China Investment Corporation

In simplest terms, Europe wants China to bail them out. Would China do it? A disorderly, unmanaged Euro breakup would obliterate the European banking system, and bankrupt some big American banks too. The only reason I can think of as to why the Chinese would play along is to prevent more damage to the US economy. Too few realize China is having its own economic problems. That vaunted stimulus from a few years ago is coming home to roost. Inflation is an on-going problem and their residential real estate market is crashing. If a banking crisis spreads from Europe to America, then China has to also deal with falling exports.

I don’t think China wants an additional helping of crisis on its plate, so there’s a not insignificant chance they will ride to Europe’s rescue (and yet at the same time I still feel uncomfortable saying the chance is greater than 50%). But if they do come to the rescue, it’s a guarantee they’ll extract more than a pound of flesh for their kindness.

Thinking long-term, I wonder if this will lead to increased China/Russia tensions. The Russians may be suspicious of Chinese intentions in Europe. They might start to feel a bit boxed in. I guess that depends on what demands the Chinese make. Jin’s quote (along with a few others I’ve read over the past few weeks) makes me think China will rewrite Europe’s “Social Contract”. Kiss those six weeks of vacation goodbye.

Sloth. Indolence. I love the way they sound; so full of indignation and contempt. No other words could apply more to Europe.

I’m not talking about Thomas Jefferson. I just read about the Defend Rural America conference that took place last week up in Siskiyou County. I didn’t attend so I can’t give a first-hand account of the meeting, but from what I can glean off the Internet, the conference was very California-focused. In a nutshell, the problem is that the federal and state government is making it impossible to make a living in rural California. What I find most interesting though is the attendance of the “Constitution Sheriffs” who will speak about their concerns with the growing tangle of regulations coming from the capitols.

And I bother to note this because its pretty significant to get the local government to actively speak out against another part of the government. It shows there’s a lot of frustration in those parts. I’m a little disappointed the idea wasn’t tossed out there already, but there is a catchy solution. Resurrect the State of Jefferson! This will give these rural counties freedom from an oppressive Sacramento government, and their own voice in Washington DC.

I hope more of these folks remember the State of Jefferson can be more than just a state of mind.

I’ve heard of Tom McClintock before, but I didn’t pay a lot of attention to him. He’s held various state offices and is now in the US Congress. That was the extent of my knowledge of this guy.

Well I just read a fantastic speech from him. If you’re the type to think government makes dumb decisions, then you’re going to fall in love with Tom McClintock when you read this. It’s all just delicious, sarcastic, clever, erudite red meat.

He actually explains the real reason California has wrecked itself. It comes down to bad public policy.

1. Insatiable Spending

California may not have invented deficit spending but we certainly refined it into a science…Federal spending increased 26 percent in the last three years literally consuming and squandering the wealth of the nation at the worst possible time. Yet consider this: from July of 2005 to July of 2008, California increased its spending by 31 percent, under a Republican governor elected on the pledge to “stop the crazy deficit spending”.

2. Hatred for Industry

Our regulatory burdens are also years ahead of the rest of the nation. We’ve had our own version of Cap and Trade on the books for five years now…We now have the most stringent renewable energy requirements in the nation. Which helps explain why California is the home to such stunning green energy success stories as Solyndra. We have among the highest electricity prices in the continental United States.

3. Dysfunctional Government (and not the media’s pablum about the need for moderates to start compromising)

We have reached this point not because of a failure of our republican institutions, but because of a failure to respect those institutions…The humility that kept Sacramento from sticking its nose into the business of local governments gave way to the hubris that the state knew better what was important to local communities than those communities themselves.

This speech should be turned into the California Republican Party’s platform. It identifies the key drags on this state’s economy and provides obvious fixes. I would love to see a candidate for governor giving this speech.

Read every word of it. It is that damn good.

Vanity Fair likes to smell its own farts. That is to say, the magazine has a writing culture that encourages fluff. Why use two words when ten will do the job?

Even with the fluff, Vanity Fair put out a pretty good article on how California dug its own grave. It’s worth reading, if anything, just as a chronicle of why this state is set to fail. It’s a cautionary tale for other states. Unfortunately the article doesn’t offer any real solutions. It ends with mindless optimism but before it gets there, it falls back on the same political trope I’ve heard for years – California needs moderation. This is of course, bullbutter. The media myth is that California has hyper-partisan Democrats and hyper-partisan Republicans who refuse to speak to each other. And therefore the state is going to hell in a handbasket. The first half is entirely true, but California isn’t going to hell in a handbasket because of extremism. Compromising moderates would just get us to the same point more politely.

California’s problems boil down to bribery. The legislators figured out they can keep getting elected by doling out free money. State money gushes forth to influential special interest groups – employees get fat pensions, unions get ever more members from an expanding bureaucracy, and NGOs who know how to talk the talk get grant checks. And when election time comes, they know whose back to scratch. A moderate can bribe just as well as any partisan.

I’m pretty sure California will again the lead nation. This time it will be in the uncharted waters of state bankruptcy. Right now there is no set of laws to initiate the bankruptcy of a state government. I am confident California will create that because the alternative solution is to put fiscal hawks in charge in the legislature. The state has a spending problem. You can’t solve it without spending less. But that will never happen.

I like Poland… A LOT.

This is top notch campaigning. I vote for Katarzyna Lenart to get in my pants.

Lawrence O’Donnell is insufferable in just about everything he does. However he is in rare form in this interview where he takes it upon himself to lecture Herman Cain about cowardice.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But this kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for Progressives. I’m disappointed in Herman Cain. Cain is being attacked for not living up to a phony standard of bravery where every black person with wrinkles is supposed to have a story about marching on Selma. Attack back Herman. It sounds so weak to just tell someone their insinuation or their proposition is wrong. You know what’s a good response? “Yeah Lawrence, in ’63 I was studying in college. Where were you, the front of the bus?” Turn the attack around. Lawrence is saying you’re not a real black man. So come back and call him an evil, white racist. Make him outraged. You don’t win until he’s choking on his own fury.

This is the first time I watched Cain in action. I’m not impressed, but maybe he’ll turn it around. Unless this is really just a book tour of course.