It is a distortion which is often repeated by critics of Dr. Paul, particularly those within his own party. While it is true that if elected, the Congressman would cut the Department of Defense budget, in his own words, he would cut “not one penny from defense”. The cuts he has proposed would come from ending the wars in the Middle East, bringing our troops home from many, if not all of the approximately 130 countries where we have a troop presence, and cutting waste within the Department.
For conservatives, it should not be difficult to understand that cutting a department’s budget does not diminish that department’s purpose. If that were the case, we would have to concede that cutting the Department of Education would in fact, as liberals argue, lower the quality of education in America. The same argument can be made for any of the fifteen Executive departments. On the contrary however, what conservatives like Congressman Paul understand is that each department is a massive bureaucracy which lobbies the government for more and more money each year. This money is doled out to bloated government workforces, lobbyists and other special interests before any of it makes its way to funding the actual purpose for which it was budgeted i.e defense, education, transportation etc.
After cutting the $200,000,000,000 from foreign wars, President Paul would return DoD spending to 2006 levels by 2013. Each subsequent year would see a marginal increase. From page 2 of Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America”:
In addition to saving the American people hundreds of billions of dollars which we currently do not have and only raise by borrowing, printing and/or taxing, and bringing our troops home, the Congressman believes cutting the DoD, would boost our defenses here at home:
“We need to focus on securing our own borders and coastlines instead of spending so much money overseas guarding other nations…If we’re serious about combating terrorism, port security in Galveston and Freeport must be a higher priority than nation building abroad.”
Congressman Paul’s plan has received support from Tea Party favorites such as Michele Bachmann who has said defense department cuts should be, “on the table.” Senator Rand Paul has also called for cuts to the DoD budget. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have also endorsed the Paul budget. Most importantly, members of the military have overwhelmingly showed their support for Ron Paul. He has raised more than double the amount of campaign donations from members of the military than all the other candidates combined.
In 2006-2007, there were a handful of economist, pundits and politicians who were able to read the signals in the market which spelled out a housing “correction”. Ron Paul was not one of them. While he did accurately predict the collapse, there is documentation to show that he did so as early as 1999. His prediction, based on monetary policy and government interference in the marketplace, also included an eerily accurate portrayal of how the government would react, i.e bailouts and an expansion of the money supply.
While many who are aware of Dr. Paul’s prediction believe that he first predicted the collapse in the early part of the 2000′s, we have found a reference to it in his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom. The book is a collection of foreign policy speeches he has given on the House floor beginning in 1976. The following quote is from a speech he gave on February 2, 1999 (incidentally he also predicts the crashing of the stock market bubble):
“The conviction that stock prices will continue to provide extra cash and confidence in the economy have fueled wild consumer spending and personal debt expansion. The home refinance index between 1997 and 1999 increase 700 percent. Secondary mortgages are now offered up to 120 percent of a home’s equity, with many of these funds finding their way into the stock market. Generous credit and quasi-government agencies make these mortgage markets robust, but a correction will come when it is realized that the builders and the lenders have gotten ahead of themselves”.
Congressman Paul understood then that the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing new money for banks to lend out based on regulation passed down from the federal government through the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with manipulation of interest rates would cause a housing frenzy which would drive up costs and eventually lead to a bust. He also knew that once that collapse came, that the government-agencies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be bailed out.
Here he is on the House floor in 2001, giving a speech on the above referenced reasons for what would be at that time, the coming housing collapse:
Some may say that while it is nice to see that someone was able to put the pieces of the puzzle together in order to warn us about impending disaster, what did he do to stop it? Congressman Paul did not simply warn us, and he did that as often as possible, but he also introduced legislation in 2002 which would have eliminated some of the threats to the bubble. At that point, it probably would not have stopped an eventual correction, but it may have steadied the downturn making it easier to recover. The legislation he proposed was titled the “Free Housing Market Enhancement Act”. Here are a few lines from the speech he delivered on the house floor when introducing the bill:
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.”
As mentioned, he issued any number of warnings leading up to the burst. In the following video he gives an interview to Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe”. Joe reads from a transcript of a warning Dr. Paul gave to the House Banking Commission. Both Joe and his co-host Mika are blown away by the “prohpetic” nature of his comments made back in 2003:
His ability to use his understanding of the free-market and the flawed approach of central planning is worth noting because there are others who are currently seeking the office of the Presidency, who decried and mocked the media as they reported on the softening of the market as late as 2005. There are also those to this day who would deny the causes which the Congressman has spelled out and would place the blame solely on the banks. Those same people are still trying to prop up the bubble through more bailouts, more manipulation and more inflation. They have obviously not heard Ron Paul’s warnings or choose to ignore their accuracy.
The term isolationist has been thrown around a lot recently and over the decades regarding Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Members of the press, politicians such as John McCain and others have made the accusation, seemingly without an understanding of what the word means.
Congressman Paul has made it clear that he does not wish to isolate the United States, but rather to trade openly, to do business and maintain friendly relations with all nations. He takes a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. This means that we do not engage in nation building, policing the world or “preemptive wars of aggression”.
It was not long ago that Republicans believed the words of our founders when it came to foreign intervention. They knew then what impact “entangling alliances” with foreign powers would have on our liberty here at home. George Washington famously included the following words in his farewell address:
“While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter.”
While President, Washington also issued a formal announcement known as the “Proclamation of Neutrality”:
Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands of the one part and France on the other, and the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers:
I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.
And I do hereby also make known that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.
In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia, the 22d day of April, 1793, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventeenth.
GO. WASHINGTON.
By the President:
TH: JEFFERSON.
And of course there are Thomas Jefferson’s words which were referenced at the start of this article and are often quoted today by non-interventionists:
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”
Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy most closely resemble those of our founders and particularly, Mr. Jefferson.
Congressman Paul does believe in defending America and her direct national security interests. That is why he voted to allow the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001. He has also stated that he would have entered world war II based on the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. He illustrates that point in an interview with John Stossel which you can read by clicking on the following link:
For those who are not clear on the difference, Dr. Paul explains isolationism versus non-intervention here:
And to expand that to a specific region and point of debate, here you can see Ron Paul vs. John McCain on non-intervention:
On a side note, it is interesting to look back at John McCain’s record to find that at one time in his career he too believed in a non-interventionist policy. This speech was delivered by Senator McCain in 1983:
“The fundamental question is ‘What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the US presence stabilize the region?…
The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.”
It can be concluded, based on Congressman Paul’s writings and words that he does not wish to isolate the U.S from the rest of the world. He prefers simply, as the founders did, to not intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations which do not threaten the security of the American people. It is also clear that if attacked or if there was imminent and verifiable threat of attack, a President Paul would use military force if necessary.
Many who consider themselves Tea Party supporters believe that the modern Tea Party movement began after Rick Santelli’s now famous “rant” on CNBC on February 19, 2009 in which he said, among other things, that he would organize a “tea party” in Chicago. It should be noted that Santelli did not claim, that day, to have started this new “tea party” movement, only that he wants to organize a tea party event in Chicago.
Though Ron Paul supporters organized a Tea Party back in 2007, they are and have been notoriously ignored by the press and therefore were not able to reach as many people as Santelli did that day in 2009. Thus began the misconception that the Santelli “rant” was the impetus for today’s Tea Party movement.
According to Conservapedia.com, an online Conservative database:
“The birth of the Tea Party Movement is often mistakenly traced to February 2009; however, while Rick Santelli’s famous impassioned speech on CNBC was perhaps the most visible spark that ignited Tea Party gatherings across the nation, the movement’s genesis was in progress long before that notable day in early 2009. One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a ‘Tea Party 2007′ to promote Paul’s bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government.”
An article from 2007 referencing the beginning of the Tea Party movement and its record fundraising for Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign:
One of many videos that can be found doing a search on YouTube that is dedicated to Ron Paul and the Tea Party movement:
This article was written in April 15, 2009 and it references Ron Paul “tea parties” from 16 months prior (2007):
“Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who’s now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and — oh, yes – tea parties.”
There have also been numerous references on Fox News to Ron Paul being the “father” or “godfather” of the modern Tea Party movement. Here’s one example (at 2:27 specifically):
So while the modern Tea Party movement was certainly given more publicity and grew after the 2009 Santelli “rant”, it is clear that its seeds were planted by Ron Paul supporters back in 2007.
It is no secret that Congressman Ron Paul is an opponent of the federal income tax and the 16th Amendment. He has stated on numerous occasions and has submitted legislation reflecting his desire to eliminate the income tax and the IRS. Additionally, he has never voted for a tax increase. One of his most famous remarks on the subject came during a 2007 GOP primary debate:
Some of his opponents have claimed that if we were to eliminate the income tax, that we would not be able to fund government. Dr. Paul responded to that criticism in an interview with the New York Times in 2008:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
Obviously, the United States has not always collected income tax. Income taxes began with the adoption of the 16th Amendment which was ratified during President Woodrow Wilson’s administration. The founders did not include it in the original document for what Dr. Paul believes is a very good reason. On the House floor in 2009, the Congressman delivered these remarks:
“The Founding Fathers realized that ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy,’ which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.”
In an article he wrote for LewRockwell.com in 2006, Congressman Paul detailed his opinion on alternative plans for cutting taxes:
“I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system. “
Because Ron Paul identifies ideologically with libertarianism, many believe that he is for open borders and amnesty. This claim is false. He is on record as opposing any attempts at amnesty. He has previously voted for legislation that would block amnesty and erect a border fence. While he does not feel a border fence would be necessary if the incentives for illegal immigration (welfare, health care, amnesty, etc) were eliminated, he voted for the bill strictly to be on record against amnesty.
From Liberty Defined:
“The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without their permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigrants would come only after a sponsor’s permission.”
Here is a clip from a 2008 interview with John Stossel. This segment deals with the immigration issue:
The issue of the 14th Amendment is also important to the illegal immigrant debate. Some in the U.S. believe that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born of those who have immigrated illegally to the United States. Ron Paul opposes this interpretation. He does not feel those children are entitled to citizenship or amnesty.
Regarding some laws which state that a police officer may ask for citizenship status upon catching someone engaged in a crime, Congressman Paul writes in Liberty Defined:
“The police should not be prohibited from determining an individual’s citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. This is far different from stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of legal status.”
Based on his anti-amnesty and pro-sensible border policy voting record, coupled with his desire to end the programs that offer the incentives for illegal immigration, there is no foundation for the belief in this claim.
Beginning as early as August of 2010, Congressman Paul has worked to gather support for an audit of the gold reserves held at Fort Knox and the Federal Reserve. It is his belief that the Treasury and the Fed have been engaging in gold swaps and loans and that much of our gold reserves may have been depleted. He believes that the people have the right to know if and how much we have on reserve. In an interview with Kitco News, Congressman Paul stated:
In the event “we ever get around to deciding we should use gold in relationship to our currency, we ought to know how much is there,”
Naturally, both the Treasury and the Fed have been less than transparent on the issue. This lack of transparency and cooperation has been the catalyst for his more recent support for selling our gold holdings which is seen as a “round about way of auditing the Federal Reserve”.
Here is the Congressman in his own words at a recent Monetary Policy Sub-committee hearing on the Fed (the relevant segment begins at 2:45):
“There had been suggestions made and I sort of…encourage the suggestion…if gold is not money and it’s an asset and you don’t even use it because it’s on your balance sheets and you don’t even use it at the real value…why shouldn’t the treasury just sell the gold? Give it back to the people. The people had it at one time. Let the people have it.”
This, contrary to popular belief, is not a fringe idea. A Heritage Foundation analyst has seconded the idea:
The gold holdings are “just sort of sitting there.”
“Given the high price it is now, and the tremendous debt problem we now have, by all means, sell at the peak.”
While it is true that Ron Paul has supported the suggestion, he would prefer not to sell the gold but to use it, along with the dollar, as money.
FACT
Congressman Paul is opposed to federal prohibition. Based on the Constitution, he believes that the states should be allowed to determine their individual drug polices. The act of taking drugs or soliciting a prostitute, when harmful, is only so to the individual engaging in the act. The government should not be permitted to stop free adults from making decisions that harm only themselves.
Here is Dr. Paul at the South Carolina GOP 2012 primary debate:
From Liberty Defined, by Ron Paul:
“Most Americans fail to recognize that throughout most of our history drug laws didn’t exist. There’s reliable evidence that the laws have done nothing to decrease drug usage while contributing significantly to street crime. Responsibility for teaching about the dangers of drugs falls principally on parents. Parents teach children about the dangers of highways, high places, stoves, household poisons, swimming pools, etc. It’s their responsibility to warn about all dangers, including alcohol, cigarettes, drugs and bad diets.”
Government should not compel or prohibit any personal activity when the activity poses danger to that individual alone.”
Congressman Paul believes in taking the federal government out of the issue and allowing states or individuals to take responsibility for their choices. This claim is true.
Some believe, based on Dr. Paul’s Libertarian beliefs, that he is pro-choice. This could not be further from the truth. While, he does not believe in Federal intervention into the the issue, he opposes abortion at every turn.
“Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right. To speak only of the mother’s cost in carrying a baby to term ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn. I believe that the moral consequences of cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life”
“A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a parasite, but the same argument justifies infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb. Newborns require even more attention and care.
People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.”
Ron Paul is an Ob/Gyn who has delivered over 4,000 babies and through that he developed a firm opposition to abortion. He is pro-life.
