Facing the Music: Ron Paul

Earlier this year, we launched our “Facing the Music Project” — an effort to objectively profile the major party candidates vis-a-vis their positions on five broad policy questions. Those questions were suggested by TMV readers and intentionally focus on core governance issues rather than social/cultural issues.

Although we decided to wait until this fall to publish the bulk of the resulting candidate profiles (closer to the start of the primary season), we also decided to publish now the profile on Dr. (and Congressman) Ron Paul, for three reasons:

1. To give you a sense of the profiles you can expect on the other candidates, later this year.

2. To prompt any feedback you might have on the format and content, so we can make the exercise as useful as possible.

3. To recognize the considerable amount of attention Dr. Paul has generated online since the May 3 Republican debate — a buzzstorm the May 15 debate only served to fuel.

Regarding that last point, consider the following: Just prior to the May 15 debate, Ron Paul ranked as the #1 search term on Technorati’s list, with nearly 20,000 blog entries posted about him. Within 12 hours after the May 15 debate, another 2,000-some posts about Dr. Paul were published. (For current Technorati stats on top searches, check here.)

Among this flurry, TMV has contributed its fair share, as has one of the blogsosphere’s earliest pioneers, Andrew Sullivan.

And thus, we bring you Ron Paul … as seen through the lense of our five policy questions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following answers were constructed from source materials to which we were directed by Dr. Paul’s campaign staff. Regardless of the dates on those source materials, we were led to believe they are representative of the candidate’s current views and positions. Source links are provided prior to each set of excerpts. For those interested in more, please reference Dr. Paul’s campaign site or (per his campaign staff) his Congressional site.

1. FOREIGN POLICY: What type of foreign policy would you endorse, to restore respect for America’s global leadership and help us work effectively with other leading nations to mitigate the threat of terrorism and stabilize the Middle East?

Source Link

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Source Link

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq …

The best approach … is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report …

Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism.

Source Link

It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

2. ETHICS, ELECTION/CAMPAIGN REFORM: What proposals would you support to reduce the influence of special interests (both during campaigns and while in office) and protect the integrity of elections?

Source Link

Americans understandably expect ethical conduct from their elected officials in Washington. But the whole system is so out of control that it’s simply unrealistic to place faith in each and every government official in a position to sell influence. The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society. The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes – and the temptation for politicians to sell them – is enormous. Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution. The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians’ power and you take away the very currency of corruption.

… we must recognize that that campaign finance laws place restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill.

The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The fundamental problem is not with campaigns or politicians primarily, but rather with popular support for the steady shift from a relatively limited, constitutional federal government to the huge leviathan of today.

Source Link

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following excerpts (prior to the next Source Link) are pulled from a December 2003 article, written in response to a Supreme Court ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Points made by Dr. Paul in this context seem to suggest larger policy positions and are hence excerpted here

In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents …

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency …

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Source Link

[T]he Constitution … expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy … The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers … Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions …

Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts … They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution …

The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

3. EDUCATION: What steps would you recommend to improve public education in the United States and make college more affordable/accessible?

EDITOR’S NOTE: In February 2003. Dr. Paul introduced four pieces of proposed legislation: (a) The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide “a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools,” and another “$3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs,” (b) The Family Education Freedom Act, which would provide “American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children,” (c) The Teacher Tax Cut Act, which would provide “every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit,” and (d) The Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which would provide a “$1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program.” To the best of our knowledge, none of these bills became law.

Dr. Paul’s campaign staff directed us to speeches he apparently gave on the House Floor upon introducing these four bills, to illustrate his position on improving public education. Campaign staff did not provide source material for the second part of our question (re: making college more affordable/accessible), which may suggest that Dr. Paul has not yet developed a position on that subject, or that he would approach it from a similar programmatic standpoint to his recommendations for pre-college education. Selected, illustrative excerpts from the floor speeches follow.

Source Link

I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.

One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.

Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities.

Source Link

Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators’ pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators’ take home pay by reducing educators’ taxes.

Source Link

EDITOR’S NOTE: Readers who are interested in education policy may want to further research and clarify the studies Dr. Paul references, below. For instance, it is unclear if the Manhattan Institute study referred to parental control in the context of funding, curriculum design, or simply parental involvement.

Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education market. Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control …

According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education …

Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According a Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests.

4. ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT: How would you suggest that America reduce its dependence on oil and mitigate our contributions to global warming?

Source Link

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low …

The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added. Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices. We need more competition, which means we need less government.

Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil. Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: “Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil – indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government’s restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement.”

Reisman also explains how abolishing restrictions on coal production, natural gas production, and nuclear power would further reduce the OPEC stranglehold. By increasing the supply of these other energy sources, demand for oil would decrease and prices would drop …

Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration’s immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.

Additional Links: (1) (2)

5. HEALTHCARE: Do you believe the federal government has a role to play in universal healthcare, and if so, what type of program would you recommend, to simultaneously ensure coverage and control costs?

Source Link

[A] new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

Additional Links: (1) (2) (3)