Rick Santorum says anyone who thinks defense spending is part of our debt problem needs “remedial math.” As it turns out, Santorum needs remedial math. Explains former deputy assistant attorney for Ronald Reagan Bruce Fein:

Below are some figures from President Obama’s 2012 official budget request.

The baseline request for the Department of Defense (DOD) is $558 billion. The supplemental request to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is $118 billion. The request for the Department of Energy’s development and housing of nuclear weapons is $19.3 billion. DOD has $7.8 billion requested for “Miscellaneous.” The State Department requests $8.7 billion for counterterrorism programs. An additional $71.6 billion is requested for homeland security counterterrorism, including $18.1 billion for DOD and $53.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. National Intelligence Programs are budgeted for $53.1 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs requests $129.3 billion to treat wounded veterans, a figure that is climbing exponentially as soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional traumas.

The foreign affairs budget, including both its military and counterterrorism components, is $18 billion. Payments to military and DOD civilian retirees are budgeted at $68.5 billion. Interest on the national debt attributed to past borrowing to fund the Pentagon is $185 billion.

This brings the national security budget of the United States for FY 2012 to a staggering total exceeding $1.2 trillion, or approximately one-third of the entire budget and almost 100 percent of the projected budget deficit.

Ron Paul writes:

The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.

I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled “Attack of the Pork Hawks”. He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.

The facts are that the President’s budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this “draconian” decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea – nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.

In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.

Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,

“stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending American and its people.”

I couldn’t agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask – is that the sort of security we envision for our nation’s future?

This was the question asked in a recent CNN presidential poll. Ron Paul won handily with a whopping 52%. There it is below, right at the top, just like most poll results:

Hundreds of our nation’s best and bravest gathered in Washington, DC on Monday to show military support for Ron Paul. Reports The Daily Caller’s Michelle Fields:

The current headline on Drudge reads: “Ron Paul: Social conservatism ‘a losing position.”

This is what Paul said, but is misleading once you understand the context. From the CNS News story Drudge links to:

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

What Paul is talking about here is federalism–the notion that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Abortion, gay marriage, religious expression–to the degree that the Founders ever thought that these would become controversial issues, they most certainly believed they should be handled by the states. States have their own murder and assault laws, for example. Before Roe vs. Wade, different states had different laws regarding abortion. Overturning Roe vs. Wade means getting the federal government out of what the Founders intended to be a state issue. The same is true of marriage, in which the states have diverse rules on what age you can marry, common law marriage and a host of other issues regarding marriage. On religious expression, the Constitution explicitly says that Congress “shall pass no law” abridging citizens right to free expression of religion. These were also to be matters handled at the state level.

As a constitutional conservative, this is also what Ron Paul believes. As a social conservative, this is also what Paul believes can best advance social conservatism in a real and meaningful way.

What social conservatives like Rick Santorum who want new federal legislation for everything are really saying is this–that one day they will convince states like Vermont and Massachusetts to become pro-life, to oppose to gay marriage and to support public prayer. What a social conservative (and constitutional conservative) like Ron Paul is saying is this–that we will never convince liberal states like Vermont and Massachusetts to agree with us on social issues, but this should not prevent social conservatives from saving the lives of unborn children, or defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, in states where a culturally conservative consensus already exists. Vermont should not dictate social policy to Alabama and vice versa. Ron Paul believes the best way to advance social conservatism is to get the federal government out of the way, as the Founding Fathers originally intended.

Ironically, it is federal intervention into state business on cultural issues that first gave rise to a conscious social conservatism in the United States. First, when the federal courts decided that school prayer was unconstitutional and later when the federal courts declared Roe Vs. Wade the law of the land, overturning each state’s individual laws regarding abortion in one fell swoop.

There is little doubt that both Paul and Santorum are earnest in their socially conservative views. The only difference is Paul’s constitutional approach could finally give social conservatives real victories for the first time in memory. 

Reports Defense News:

Ron Paul may not support increasing defense spending, but he is certainly receiving the support of those who work in the defense industry.

U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) contribution records analyzed by Defense News showed that the GOP presidential hopeful received both the most contributions and the largest total amount of cash among Republican candidates from employees of the world’s top 100 defense companies.

Those employees contributed a total of $177,413.39 to Paul’s campaign in 2011, spread over 824 individual contributions for an average of $215.31.

Mitt Romney, whose platform includes an increase in defense spending, barely trails Paul in the total value of contributions, with $173,835. But Romney, who is battling Rick Santorum for the lead in national opinion polls, received only 198 contributions. The resulting average — $877.95 — far outpaced any other candidate, more than doubling the next highest, Santorum’s $409.25…

Paul’s support, given his position that defense spending needs to be reined in, would seem to run contrary to the economic interests of the defense company employees donating to his campaign.

Thompson said the numbers reflect a wider political reality about contractors. “There’s a strong libertarian streak among many in the sector,” he said. “Just because people work in the defense industry, doesn’t mean that they always vote their economic interests.”

Gary Howard, a spokesman for the Paul campaign, cited the support of members of the military as evidence of Paul’s broad base.

“Those in the defense community, like other supporters, likely find that Dr. Paul’s common-sense foreign policy and the serious attention he pays to our nation’s number one security threat — our debt — are the most vital issues a presidential candidate must address…” 

Paul is also receiving a majority of the contributions from members of the armed services, a Feb. 9 report by Military Times found…

The idea that America is in trouble and needs saving is nothing new. Liberals have thought this for sometime and have continuously sought salvation by growing government. Conservatives have argued that what America needs saving from is liberals and their destructive policies. Yet the Republican Party has been equally as complicit in expanding government as the Democratic Party. This is what Rick Santorum says about Mitt Romney’s big government policies. It’s what Romney says about Santorum’s big government policies. And both men are right. The difference between both men and Obama is one of margin, not method. Romney and Santorum simply think they can do a better job of managing big government than Obama. Only Paul actually wants to dismantle big government.

This is of particular importance because the rising generation now demands that the politics of old be challenged. As the media continues to concentrate on the GOP horse race amongst candidates who represent the same establishment consensus, it is Paul who is playing to packed houses at every stop and who continues to attract the masses based purely on the power of his ideas rooted in the American founding.

This overflowing event in Vancouver, Washington last week is another prime example:

For the Barack Obamas, Mitt Romneys and Rick Santorums of the world, this is just another election to determine who gets to kick the can further down the road toward national demise. For Ron Paul, 2012 is about saving America from the destructive policies of everyone else in this race.

This is not just another election. This is a revolution. Whether the establishment wants it or not.

Said Ron Paul of Rick Santorum on CNN’s State of the Union this morning:

That one must build coalitions to win elections is politics 101. The Republican presidential nominee must appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats to be successful. Ronald Reagan did this handily. Barack Obama also did well with independents and disaffected Republicans.

For Reagan in 1980, much of his success was backlash against Jimmy Carter and Reagan capitalized on it. For Obama in 2008, much of his success was backlash against George W. Bush and Obama capitalized on it.

Iowa was a perfect example of Obama benefiting from anti-Bush sentiment. In 2004, Bush barely bested John Kerry, 50% to 49%. Bush was not exactly Mr. Popular in 2004, but Kerry was also a weak candidate. By 2008, America was pretty fed up with Bush and the Republicans and Iowa was a microcosm of this, giving Obama a decisive 54% to 44% victory over John McCain.

In an election where Americans are now just as fed up with Obama as they were with Bush in 2008, where do Iowans stand? Reports The Washington Post:

A new Des Moines Register poll shows Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) would best President Obama in the Hawkeye State if the general election were held today.

In the Iowa Poll, which surveyed 611 likely Iowa voters over Feb. 12-15 and had a margin of error of 4 percentage points, Paul would take 49 percent to Obama’s 42 percent.

He is the only one of the GOP White House hopefuls who would defeat Obama in Iowa if the election were held today, according to the survey.

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) would be in a dead heat with Obama, taking 48 percent to Obama’s 44 percent, as would former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), who would take 46 percent to 44 percent for Obama. Both candidates are within the margin of error in a potential matchup with Obama.

The poll shows Obama with a wide lead over former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Obama would take 51 percent to Gingrich’s 37 percent in Iowa if the election were held today…

Obama is going to campaign against the Republican nominee as a George W. Bush redo. Few if any Americans want to return to the big spending and endless wars of the Bush era. The problem for Obama is, few if any Americans want to remain in the current era of big spending and endless wars.

Only Paul represents a rejection of the bipartisan status quo. Only Ron Paul can change our government and politics in a substantive way that majorities of  voters hungered for in the last election and continue to crave in 2012. Americans still want the “change” they were promised. This recent Iowa poll is but a small glimpse of this.

Writes Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner:

Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism…

(Santorum’s) been coming under fire for his many votes to expand government. He took earmarks, voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and backed No Child Left Behind. He pushed dairy subsidies, steel tariffs and sided with unions over workers.

As Cato’s Gene Healy noted in his Washington Examiner column on the topic this week, Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

This is a stark departure from Ronald Reagan, who had this to say to the libertarian Reason magazine in a 1975 interview:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism… The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Ever since that time, Republicans have gotten into trouble when they have veered too far from libertarianism. If Santorum had a modicum of respect for libertarian philosophy, he would have been reluctant to embrace big government Republicanism during the Bush era. Instead, he cast votes that will make it harder for him to consolidate conservative support in the weeks and months ahead as his record undergoes more scrutiny…