The Americans for Ron Paul Blog will be taking a break from 31 July - 12 August while we are out of the country on vacation.  Please check back in mid-August for updates.

Many liberals and progressives agree with Ron Paul's ideas on withdrawing US forces from Iraq and restoring our Constitutional liberties, but wonder what his pro-liberty principles would mean for the environment. Fortunately for liberals (and conservatives) concerned about environmental issues, Ron Paul shares their concern, and understands that freedom and environmental protection can coexist.

In a recent interview on YouTube, Ron Paul explained how pollution could be reduced in a free market, by a strict enforcement of private property rights. Rather than enacting complex federal regulatory schemes, Ron Paul would hold companies and individuals legally liable for any harm they do, to people or their property.

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it.... So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse.

How do big business and big government collude to allow pollution? All too often, a government regulatory board is subject to intense lobbying from the industry it regulates, or works hand-in-hand with "experts" from that industry to write regulations the big companies will agree to. These are generally quite costly to comply with, but existing factories are "grandfathered in," giving them a cost advantage and discouraging new competition from companies that might have built new plants with less polluting newer technology. The process even has a name -- regulatory capture. Companies that comply with the regulations then face reduced legal liability for actual harm their polluting activities may cause.

Environmentalists sometimes see economic progress as the enemy of clean air and water, but studies have shown that the most prosperous nations are also the least polluted. Even in the United States, some of the worst environmental pollution occurs on government land, and one of the biggest polluters listed in the EPA Superfund sites is the federal government itself. Many former military bases on are on the list. Much of the land in the western United States is owned by the federal government, with logging and mining rights leased to private companies. Environmental degradation on that property exceeds that on privately owned land, because private owners want to preserve the long-term value of their property. Companies leasing government land don't share that concern for long-term value.

Still, some of the most radical environmentalists remain convinced that the only way to protect green space is for government, particularly the federal government, to own more and more land. This is an ironic point of view, because countries that have had the most government regulation of property, such as the former Soviet bloc nations, have had the absolute worst records of environmental quality.

Ron Paul's return to a more sensible foreign policy of non-intervention would have its own positive impact on the Earth's environment, not the least of which would be bringing an end to the devastation caused by depleted-uranium rounds used by the military in wars that would have best been avoided. Rather than risking the lives of the troops and spending billions in taxpayer dollars to defend the interests of big oil companies, Ron Paul would allow the free market to develop cost-effective alternative energy sources as oil becomes more scarce.

Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much.

Critics of Ron Paul's free market policies might suspect that corporate executives with little concern for the environment would be his biggest supporters. Yet if that were the case, why are the big corporate donors giving to Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton instead? Ron Paul raises nearly all of his funds from individual donors, a great portion of it in donations of less than two hundred dollars. Big business greatly prefers big government that it can buy out and control to the unpredictable competition the free market.

Ron Paul's free market policies would foster the prosperity and innovation that could dramatically improve environmental quality, while his insistence on private property rights would help limit pollution and environmental damage from big business by holding them legally liable for it. Voters who like Ron Paul's principled stands on foreign policy and Constitutional liberties can rest assured that he would protect the environment as well their individual rights.

Filed under: Republicans, Key Issues, Ron Paul

Republican, Dr. Paul Broun Jr. defeated the Republican State Senator Robert Whitehead for the seat formerly held for Rep. Charlie Norwood. Since no Democrat finished in the top two in the September primary, this seat was a given for the Republicans. So who cares? What is the big deal?

Dr. Broun was way behind in the polls. He had very little money. Somehow, he put together a coalition of liberal Democrats and unhappy Republicans and beat his opponent by 1% of the votes cast.

In his campaign, he promised that before voting he would apply this four way test:

"Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford? He has said that, like libertarian congressman and fellow physician Ron Paul of Texas, he will always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with him and consult it before voting. In an effort to limit pork-barrel "earmark" projects, he says he will even apply that standard to requests for federal funds made by local officials in his district."

The article provided the following comments:

"Columnist Robert Novak says Dr. Broun's victory has terrified those incumbent Republican House members who had thought themselves safe for re-election in 2008 primaries. The pro-free market Club for Growth, which helped knock off at least one pro-spending GOP House incumbent in a 2006 primary, should feel encouraged by Dr. Broun's victory."

Right now people are very unhappy with their elected officials. The spin isn't working anymore. People are beginning to wake up and vote what they believe in and they are listening to the candidate who really has something to say. It is possible that Ron Paul was the real winner in this campaign.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

http://rally.ronpaulplanet.org/

Filed under: President 2008, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul

Hey, why not?

The Ohio Democrat and the Texas Republican have a significant bond: They're antiwar activists detested by their party establishment who, on a bipartisan or third-party ticket, could command significant grass-roots support.

During Monday's debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich used his time extensively and expertly, detailing his anti-war credentials. His finest moment came in response to a questioner who cited the flags that "covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son," and asked, "By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?" Kucinich replied, "The underlying assumption here is that we're going to be in Iraq until the next president takes office, and I reject that totally. People can send a message to Congress right now -- and this is in a convention of this appearance -- they can text peace, and text 73223, text peace. Send a message to Congress right now, you want out."

If Kucinich really wants the U.S. out of Iraq, he should transcend party politics and connect with Republican candidate Ron Paul.

Describing a past Republican presidential debate, Pat Buchanan wrote, "Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, 'If I had only known then what I know now ...'"

As PJB implied, antiwar voices have more support than the establishments of both major parties would think. One-issue candidates, from Ross Perot to Steve Forbes, don't do too well in elections. But the Iraq war is one of the biggest foreign-policy issues of our time, and two determined candidates could stun the know-it-alls with a surprise run.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Tacked on to the end of the Bill of Rights is a secret formula for ending decades of political strife between liberals and conservatives, and bringing Americans together again -- the Tenth Amendment. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has tapped into this formula, uniting left and right with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, leaving the most divisive issues to the individual states to sort out, and the federal government to focus on its limited list of Constitutional duties.

Not only would scaling back the scope of federal government activity allow the significant budget cuts that Ron Paul is suggesting, it would also allow liberals and conservatives to coexist more peacefully, setting local rules to suit local standards, rather than fighting tooth-and-nail over who will prevail at the national level and set the standards for everyone. The process of federalism laid out in the Constitution should have prevented such quarrels from ever reaching the national level, but even after seventy-plus years of neglect, the Tenth Amendment remains not just a good idea, but the law of the land.

Ron Paul's support of federalism is one reason that liberals and progressives who love his principled stands against the war and for the protection of civil liberties can and do enthusiastically support him, despite his personally quite conservative outlook on some social issues and taxation. Ron Paul may not share their ideals across the board, but he would never force his opinions on them, leaving the issues up to the states instead.

Ron Paul's federalism would also leave many of the government programs currently enacted at the national level up to the individual states as well. The more liberal states might restore those programs with higher state taxes, made more palatable by significant reductions in the federal tax burden. (Liberal states like California and New York currently pay more to the federal government than they receive back, so they would stand to gain in the bargain.) More conservative states might decide to leave such social programs up to private charities and individual generosity, again made more affordable by lower federal taxes.

Americans could "vote with their feet," avoiding states that adopted too much government, or those they deemed too miserly. The fifty states would become fifty experimental laboratories to find the right mix of private and government involvement, with the more successful serving as examples for the rest, rather than the entire country being forced into a one-size-fits-all solution. Why should residents of Massachusetts and Vermont be forced into obeying the same social rules as residents of South Carolina and Utah? No matter which side wins, someone is not going to be happy.

Ron Paul's critics raise the issue of past abuse of "states rights" ideology to deny civil liberties to some Americans based on race, but Ron Paul wants all Americans to share in the blessings of liberty. The Bill of Rights cannot be overruled by any state, nor can the civil rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. When Ron Paul says he is the "Champion of the Constitution" he means the whole Constitution -- except of course for the 16th Amendment, which he would like to repeal through the proper Constitutional process, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed when it went too far in reducing our liberty.

The Founding Fathers gave the United States a system of federalism allowing for a strong national defense and free trade between the several states, along with the liberty to set most government policy at the local level, where the leaders are more responsive to the people. Ron Paul alone in the field of presidential contenders is calling for a return to the wisdom of federalism, and is attracting supporters from both the left and right, eagerly rediscovering this forgotten principle. Ron Paul explained the wide appeal of this idea quite succinctly in a recent speech: "Freedom is popular!"

One of the reasons Ron Paul is gaining such enthusiastic support is that he is the only major party candidate calling for significant change. Besides withdrawing from Iraq, instituting a more sensible foreign policy, and reinstating our fundamental Constitutional freedoms, Ron Paul is also calling for substantial reductions in federal spending, enough to eventually end the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

But how realistic is that goal? How would the government be able to operate without income taxes? Ron Paul points out that the federal government did just fine for the first 137 years of its existence without the income tax, which wasn't enacted until 1913. But federal spending has gone up a lot since then, so where would the reductions come from?

Ron Paul has not yet published a detailed plan, but has stated several ideas in the debates and other speeches. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq and other countries around the world would save close to $200 billion per year. Closing down the departments of Education ($56B), Energy ($23B), and Homeland Security ($32B), and ending foreign aid ($26B), could save well more than $100 billion annually. In his speech announcing his presidential bid, Ron Paul said that no real fiscal conservative could doubt that federal spending could be reduced by at least 25 percent, so expect further across-the-board budget cuts.

We may have to wait for specific proposals, but a few key facts are worth noting. In Fiscal Year 2007, individual income taxes amounted to $1.17 trillion, just 42% of the total federal outlays of $2.78 trillion. Abolishing the individual income tax would not destroy the federal government, it would only force a reduction in spending levels back to FY1997, hardly the era of small government, when the total federal budget was $1.60 trillion. In other words, we could have ALREADY abolished the income tax, if Congress and the President hadn't increased spending by 74 percent in the past ten years.

Of course, the preceding argument ignores the deficit, projected at $240 billion for FY2007. Without the individual income tax, total federal receipts would have been $1.37 trillion, requiring a reduction in spending back to FY1992 levels to balance the budget, but again, hardly the days of the robber barons and widespread starvation. Americans concerned about Social Security or Medicare payments being adversely affected by the elimination of the income tax needn't worry -- both programs are funded by FICA payroll taxes, not by federal income taxes.

Another objection often raised is the idea that only a portion of the federal budget ($854 billion in FY2007) consists of "discretionary spending," while the rest is "mandatory." These terms and the amounts are not set in stone, however, and are simply the results of existing federal law. Congress can change those laws at any time, and redefine what is "discretionary" and what is "mandatory."

Where does the rest of the federal government's revenue come from? For FY2007, corporate income taxes amounted to $342 billion, payroll (FICA) taxes brought in $873 billion, federal excise taxes totaled $56 billion, and $99 billion was labeled "other" -- consisting of estate and gift taxes ($25B), customs duties and fees ($27B), Federal Reserve deposits ($33B), and miscellaneous ($14B). Even without the individual income tax, the federal government's revenue would still be enormous.

Would Congress go along with Ron Paul's plans to cut spending significantly? If Ron Paul is elected President in 2008, it will be a clear signal that the American people want dramatic changes, including substantial tax and spending cuts. Since the primary objective of most politicians is to stay in office, those who are most adept at judging the public mood shouldn't take too long to figure that out. And the changes don't need to be pushed through in the first 100 days, or even the first year.

Simply by holding the line on spending, President Paul could gradually eliminate the income tax while in office. Federal receipts from sources other than individual income taxes have gone up by 44 percent in the past eight years. A similar increase over two terms of the Paul Administration, coupled with the savings from a non-interventionist foreign policy, could be enough to free Americans from the income tax forever, and secure Ron Paul's place in history.

Source: Historical Tables (pdf), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008

Michael Badnarik - 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin - 2004 Constitution Party Vice-Presidential candidate Jim Clymer - Constitution Party National Chair Jim Guest - Missouri State Representative, District 5 Barbara Hagan - Long time right-to-life activist and former two-term New Hampshire state representative Steve Kubby - 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Karen Kwiatkowski - Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel Michael [...]

This is a little dated but good info to have posted especially for those trying to learn more about Ron Paul. ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States.  UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of [...]

As we reported earlier, Ron Paul came in 3rd of all GOP candidates for money raised during the 2nd quarter of 2007 (story).  However, as reported by USA Election Polls, Ron Paul receive the most money from the military out of all GOP candidates.  He beat the hawkish war-hero McCain by $5,465.  Army Navy USAF USMC VET TOTAL Ron Paul 6975 7765 4650 1500 1250 22140 McCain 6225 6480 1570 1600 800 16675 Romney 2051 0 1500 0 1000 4551 Giuliani 1450 370 250 0 250 2320 Hunter 0 1000 0 0 0 1000 Richardson 50 750 0 0 0 800 Huckabee 250 0 500 0 0 750 Tancredo 350 0 0 0 0 350 Brownback 71 0 0 0 0 71 Thompson 0 0 0 0 0