Wednesday, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas spoke with Young Turks host Cenk Uygur on a variety of topics to include the debt, deficit and topic which few are putting on the table, the cutting of defense spending.

The conversation headed in this direction when Cenk asks Rep. Paul about what the proper income tax rate should be. He responded by saying the ideal income tax would be zero, however, the proper size and role of government would be required to eliminate the need for large amounts of taxation and confiscation.

Paul goes on to say, “You can’t be the policeman of the world and not have an income tax”.

Nadler’s amendment gets NO Tea Party support

Mr. Uygur followed up with the key question of the interview which got the key response from the Congressman. In a nutshell, Cenk noted that even if you brought non-defense discretionary spending to ZERO ($610 billion) it would barely put a dent in the deficit. He asks “is your proposal the counter to the Republicans, saying we MUST cut defense spending and perhaps fairly drastically?’

Clinton and Gates oppose budget cuts to their respective departments

Dr. Paul responded appropriately by differentiating defense from military spending using the possible Libya attack as an example, “Do you think if we send troops into Libya, is that serving our national defense? No. It’ll cost a lot of money, but it won’t serve our national defense”.

“I want to cut military spending NOT defense spending.”

Absolutely, I say. If our defense budget was based on Constitutional action of the military like for the defense of our nation, and not on undeclared wars, occupation of sovereign nations, offensive aggressions and acting like every calamity in the world requires our intervention, it could shrink dramatically and we would be a safer people.

Congressman Paul estimates this could shrink the military budget to one-third of its present size. However, domestic welfare programs would also require cuts.

Ron Paul says President Obama is a war monger

But Mr. Uygur rightly points out that many in Washington want to spend a lot on defense and use fear mongering if anyone even suggests cuts. Mr. Paul also correctly points out that it’s BOTH parties and there is little difference in party affiliation.

Again, very true. Can you honestly say there is much difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama? How about the vast majority of Democrats in Congress and the vast majority of Republicans in Congress? Where is Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Eric Cantor? Do they really want to get serious with the deficits? I say without looking seriously at military spending, the answer is no.

Even the political talking head shows, with the exception of Judge Napolitano on FOX and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, the talk of slashes in defense spending is a taboo. God forbid if the topic would ever be brought up on Sean Hannity’s show. How would it be possible to cut when EVERYTHING is evil?

And there it is…the fear mongering that will force us to maintain a bloated military. It’s time to get serious about this issue.

The Desk of Brian recommends:

Rand Paul defends Ron Paul on attacks 'legalizing prostitution, drugs'VIDEO: Tom Woods brings Mark Levin down a notchRon Paul on Gingrich: 'chickenhawk', draft dodger? VIDEOVIDEO: Ron Paul speech after New Hampshire primaryDr. James Linzey, president and founder of the Military Bible Association endorses Ron PaulRon Paul: vows to eliminate 5 departments, cut $1 trillion and take salary of $40,000 if electedRon Paul receives more donations from military than any other candidateRon Paul says we should stay out of entangling alliances (video)