Watch as libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul explains how he gladly draws a Social Security check from the government even though he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional (watch at about 1:17 into the video).
What’s even more stunning about Rep. Paul’s admission on Wednesday is that it came only minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
It takes a hell of a lot of chutzpah to do what Rep. Paul did, and hopefully he’ll do what’s most consistent with his ideological beliefs and stop accepting his Social Security checks.
Why is Rep. Paul even eligible for Social Security benefits when he’s not retired?
This revelation is not a shock to me. Rep Paul has always said that he tries to get as much Federal attention in the form of monies and projects for his district as he can,even though it is antithetical to his view of government. So, no surprise that he gets all he is due, just as he tries and probably succeeds in doing for his constituents.
The bigger issue is, of course, the fact that he uses this overtly hypocritical stance to maintain his office, so that he can have a platform to advertise his views, which can NEVER fit his actions, since voters will not re-elect him were he to follow his own advice, much less try and legislate it for the nation as a whole.
So, all the Ron Paul types who are eligible for and make use of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SSI, etc. are the real culprits. Mr. Paul has always been clear about this, both publicly and in his own mind. Now it is time for Tea Partiers everywhere to catch up to this fact. Don’t hold yer breath, Thinking Persons of America, this could take awhile,oh, say,
50 Years. MBB
Ron Paul croaking away like the obtuse toad that he is, yet again. When he isn’t constricting the constitution into a unidimensional surface frozen in time he’s treating it as if were the Articles of the Confederation. He’d do well to bone up on the evolution of the “social contract” lest he be reminded that tradition for public funded retirement security predated the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Its contours are complex and didn’t simply lie stagnant after the Constitution was signed, nor did the social contract simply begin in the Progressive Era, or with FDR, or with the Great Society.
Or perhaps we should follow the advice of the insufferably insensible Ron Paul. Yes, maybe we should take his advice and consider what isn’t specified in the Constitution about the social contract. Perhaps he could give us all a good Constitutional working over by showing us exactly where within its hallowed parchment does it read that in order to form a more perfect union the free market should promote the General Welfare, that the free market should secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Perhaps Tomfool Ron Paul could point to the spot in the Constitution where it states that liberty is to be conferred upon We The People by a 21st Century Hyper-Globalized Investor Economy. If it’s not in the Constitution then maybe we should follow Paul’s advice and reject it.