Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Rand Paul for President!

I know that most people would think that Rand Paul would be the last guy a vehemently pro-Israel Jew would want as President, especially given the knee jerk anti-Israel comments coming from his father (that was one reason I NEVER even considered supporting him in the primaries this last go around).  Well, luckily, Rand Paul is not his father and is actually pretty pro-Israel.  Sure he doesn't think that we should be giving Israel $4 billion a year to the Jewish state but he doesn't think that we should be giving $6 billion to its neighbors either.  I'm starting to come around to that way of thinking.  Sure, it would be ideal if the US would JUST give aid to Israel and not to countries like Egypt, Syria or even Gaza (which it does).  But absent that, cutting off all aid might be preferable.  Israel has $242 billion in annual GDP and can surely live without the assistance that the US gives them.  They also have a homegrown defense industry which makes Israel not totally dependent on US weapons systems (though obviously they help, especially the munitions).  The Israeli main battle tank is no longer a US Army castoff, but the Merkava.  Israel has also developed some of the most advanced drones in the world.  Conversely, Israel's arab neighbors are almost 100% dependent on the US for any sort of modern weaponry.  The US has given Egypt 1,130 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, advanced tanks which might now be used against Israel thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in that country.  Also, Saudi Arabia has a state of the art air force and air defenses thanks to the United States and they have essentially closed off the southern route for any assault upon Iran.  See what I'm getting at?  As Rand Paul wrote to Commentary (the very pro-Israel neocon publication):

Israel is a strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests. I believe we should stand by our ally, but where I think sometimes American commentators get confused is that I do not think Israel should be dictated to by the United States. I think that has happened too often, and it has been to the detriment of Israel. Too often we have coerced Israel into trading land for peace, or other false bargains. When President Obama stood before the world in 2011 to demand that Israel act against her own strategic interest, I denounced this as unnecessary meddling. As I wrote in May of that year: "For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy."

Israel will always know what's best for Israel. The United States should always stand with its friends. But we should also know, unlike President Obama, when to stay out of the way.

Foreign aid is another example of how our meddling often hurts more than its helps. In my proposals to end or cut back on foreign aid, some have made accusations that my proposals would hurt Israel. Actually, not following my proposals hurt Israel. We currently give about $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid. But we give about $6 billion to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state.

Giving twice as much foreign aid to Israel's enemies simply does not make sense. Our aid to Israel has always been to a country that has been an unequivocal ally. Our aid to its neighbors has purchased their temporary loyalty at best.

These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.

Makes sense doesn't it?  His thinking would be leagues better than what we have now.  I can tell you Rand Paul would never strong arm Israel into accepting a ceasefire when it has Hamas on the ropes, as Obama has just done.  He would let them do what they think needs to be done.

So why Rand Paul and not Jindal, Ryan or Rubio?  Because the United States is in serious trouble financially.  The former Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget (and a current Treasury Official), recently wrote that there soon won't be enough foreign buyers to fund US debt.  Foreigners would have to hold the equivalent of 20% of their GDP for us to fund our debt by 2020, up from less than 5% less than a decade ago.  We are on the road for a real sovereign debt crisis and soon.  China has already reduced its US Treasury Debt holdings by $115 billion in the last year.  Rand Paul just seems like the candidate who is most serious about cutting spending and getting government out of our lives.  That is exactly the kind of person we need in the White House.  Not just someone who is going to fiddle around the edges like I fear the other potential candidates will.

Anyway, let's keep our fingers crossed.  In the last 88 years, the GOP has only sent two believers in small government and individual liberty to the White House, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, the rest were just lite Democrats who believed in government solutions.  I think we're about due.

No comments:

Post a Comment