Sustainable Profile: Ron Paul
In the quest to find the right candidate for the 2008 presidential election it is important to find which person, regardless of party, has policies which promote the sustainability of our nation. With that in mind current candidates will be reviewed and critically examined on their positions from their campaign sites. These profiles will avoid using additional media coverage, statements from debates and other forums will be considered in separate articles.
Ron Paul - Republican Candidate
Summary: Ron Paul is probably best known for his strict adherence to the Constitution in voting and staunch stances on personal liberty, privacy, trade, and firearms. Although he is pro trade and political relations with other nations he leans much further toward isolation with his views on leaving NAFTA, the UN, and the ICC. In all, Ron Paul could be considered more libertarian as a candidate than other republican candidates.
Deal Makers and Breakers:
Ending the Federal Income Tax. This issue alone could easily sway many votes from people who keep feeling the mounting pressure of taxes. This would require cutbacks in government spending to their 2000 levels according to Ron Paul [My previous date of 1992 was that given to resolve the total national debt, not to end the Federal Income Tax]. There would be fewer services offered by the government, but if this was jointly accomplished by his removal of control over money by the Federal Reserve Bank (a private corporation) the corresponding increase in the value of the dollar along with elimination of the general income tax could prove to be a highly beneficial move. The long term ability to put more power with consumers and remove the ability for private corporate concerns to artificially manipulate the dollar would be be a leap toward a newly sustainable America.
Ron Paul’s view on immigration and property rights also seem very positive. By creating a more fair immigration system we could begin to sort out some of the problems with this low functioning system. This also has to be accomplished in tandem with actually securing the borders, no matter how much reform you propose, porous borders undermine any other efforts. To quote on property rights from the campaign site:
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
These initiatives, however, are connected to the stance that we should leave many of the international committees,treaties, and organizations we are currently attached to. The most prevalent in this case would be to leave NAFTA. Although NAFTA has many controversial aspects, it is uncertain whether an immediate dismisal of the treaty would be in our interests.
Ron Paul’s very clear stance on abortion both counts for and against him. He is very much on the Pro-Life side of the debate. However, he states that the decision on whether to allow abortions should go directly to the states. More state rights are generally a very good thing, but this is more of an unhidden attack on federal laws which allow the procedure. In essence this is a move to limit individual rights, when in reality, the decision should be left only to the individual mother or couple and the doctor who is willing to perform the procedure. It should never be the role of the government to force moral positions on citizens.
On the negative side is Ron Paul’s isolationist trend. While he encourages diplomatic ties to nations, he clearly wants to see the United States leave the UN and other international organizations and treaties. Leaving both NAFTA and the UN would recreate the old “American Island” stance that can both seriously damage long term trade and result in the same historical problems that were created when the US refused to join the League of Nations.
There are certainly a number of other issues, but these five should give a good snapshot of how Ron Paul is a mixed bag of sustainable ideas that would better our future, as well as, policies that could isolate and damage our ability to continue.
5 Responses to “Sustainable Profile: Ron Paul”
By George on Sep 27, 2007 | Reply
There seems to be a chronic confusion of “isolationism” with “non-interventionism”. A policy of military and political non-interventionism paired with an economic policy of free trade is NOT isolationism. It is, in fact, in line with the advice of the founders — or at least Washington and Jefferson, the latter who famously encouraged “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”
Political and military non-interventionism only become isolationism when paired with protectionism.
The motivation for leaving NAFTA is that it is not really free trade but rather managed trade; the motivation for leaving the UN is that it chips at US sovereignty. I’m not convinced I agree with either of those arguments, but they do not imply isolationism.
By Chris Schaffer on Sep 27, 2007 | Reply
Good points George. I would certainly agree that leaving NAFTA would be more motivated by the arguments against ‘managed trade.’
I also see your point about confusing isolation and non-interventionism. I do not see Ron Paul as a complete isolationist in any way, but some of his views lean past non-intervention toward isolation in my opinion. I could easily be wrong about that though. So thank you very much for pointing out that distinction.
By Texas Little El on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Actually another correction is due, Rep. Paul’s getting rid of the IRS would revert the federal budget back to Year 2000 levels, not 1992.
Most everyone that reads this blog could live on the budget they set for themselves in 2000.
We need only stop the war in Iraq, cut the Defense budget by 75 Billion, the Welfare budget by 125 billion, Get rid of a hodge podge of ABC departments that have no real purpose or constitutional authority to the tune of another 200 Billion dollars.
This gives a reduction of Federal spending to the tune of $400 Billion right there. We still need a permanent moratorium on Congress stealing from Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
Abolishing the Federal Reserve, taking back control of our monetary system would easily save 800 Billion a year in interest alone.
Lastly, mandate the Federal Budget be reduced by $200 Billion each year for 3 years. Another $600 billion taken from the coffers so that Congress doesn’t get the ‘urge’ to spend it.
This would take a federal budget from 2.9 trillion in 2007 down to 2.5 trillion in the first year and 1.9 trillion by the end of President Paul’s term in office. (This also doesn’t included the savings from the taking back our money printing.)
By Chris Schaffer on Sep 28, 2007 | Reply
Thank you for the correction. I took the date from where budget cuts would be required to resolve the national debt rather than the level needed to eliminate the IRS.
And I certainly agree with your points about how budgets can be changed in order to gain a great deal of financial security for our nation.
Thank you!
By Mick Russom on Sep 29, 2007 | Reply
Sept 27 2007
http://www.economist.com/images/20070929/TAB3.gif
Sept 24 2005
http://www.economist.com/images/20050924/TAB3.gif
It was 100 in the year 2000.
Ron Paul has been vocal about this horrible inflation since at least 1983:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk
You are being paid in an inflating currency. Please think about how that impacts you.