New Ron Paul Blog :
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/
Give it a read, pretty good.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?
Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?
by Ron Paul
Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.
Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.
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.
January 23, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.
Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.
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.
January 23, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Inflation and War Finance
Inflation and War Finance
by Ron Paul
The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.
This is fundamentally dishonest: if we’re going to have a war, let’s face the costs – both human and economic – squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve System is a creation of Congress.
The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That’s why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.
The $500 billion we’ve officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it’s really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.
January 30, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.
This is fundamentally dishonest: if we’re going to have a war, let’s face the costs – both human and economic – squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve System is a creation of Congress.
The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That’s why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.
The $500 billion we’ve officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it’s really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.
January 30, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Everybody Supports the Troops
Everybody Supports the Troops
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.
Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!
Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?
Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there’s always a qualifier: We can’t simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the “support the troops” propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.
In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build-up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.
There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.
Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.
We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.
Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.
The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.
February 2, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.
Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!
Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?
Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there’s always a qualifier: We can’t simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the “support the troops” propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.
In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build-up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.
There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.
Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.
We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.
Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.
The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.
February 2, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Political Power and the Rule of Law
Political Power and the Rule of Law
by Ron Paul
With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate – not political victories.
Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.
In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.
February 6, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate – not political victories.
Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.
In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.
February 6, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
by Ron Paul
Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon – and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.
Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.
Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007 – and the administration has made it clear that we will – the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.
I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.
Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.
The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.
We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now – by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.
February 13, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon – and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.
Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.
Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007 – and the administration has made it clear that we will – the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.
I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.
Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.
The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.
We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now – by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.
February 13, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Don't Do It, Mr. President
Don't Do It, Mr. President
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 6, 2007
It's a bad idea.
There's no need for it.
There's great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don't need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don't we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it's carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won't serve the interests of Israel.
Besides – it's illegal.
It's unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don't need it.
We don't want it.
So, Mr. President, don't do it.
Don't bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
February 14, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 6, 2007
It's a bad idea.
There's no need for it.
There's great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don't need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don't we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it's carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won't serve the interests of Israel.
Besides – it's illegal.
It's unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don't need it.
We don't want it.
So, Mr. President, don't do it.
Don't bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
February 14, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
The Neoconservative Empire
The Neoconservative Empire
by Ron Paul
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.
It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.
There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.
We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?
February 15, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.
It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.
There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.
We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?
February 15, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy
Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy
by Ron Paul
Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007
Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.
Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress – and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.
But transparency and oversight are something else, and they're worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.
The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.
But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.
Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years.
Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas. This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world's reserve currency.
Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power – especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition – is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.
Even if prices were held in check, in spite of our monetary inflation, concentrating on CPI distracts from the real issue. We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interest rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads.
We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few. Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.
For example: Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker's pay. Today, it's closer to 500 times. It's hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity. One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion. There's little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.
In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed's increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don't truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.
But since our fiat dollar system is not going away anytime soon, it would benefit Congress and the American people to bring more transparency to how and why Fed monetary policy functions.
For starters, the Federal Reserve should:
Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.
Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.
How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?
We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.
February 17, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007
Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.
Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress – and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.
But transparency and oversight are something else, and they're worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.
The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.
But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.
Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years.
Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas. This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world's reserve currency.
Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power – especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition – is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.
Even if prices were held in check, in spite of our monetary inflation, concentrating on CPI distracts from the real issue. We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interest rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads.
We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few. Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.
For example: Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker's pay. Today, it's closer to 500 times. It's hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity. One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion. There's little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.
In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed's increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don't truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.
But since our fiat dollar system is not going away anytime soon, it would benefit Congress and the American people to bring more transparency to how and why Fed monetary policy functions.
For starters, the Federal Reserve should:
Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.
Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.
How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?
We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.
February 17, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
by Ron Paul
David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.
If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”
When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed – it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.
The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.
The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40% of the nation’s entire private sector output!
The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.
The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars – a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.
Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.
The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.
March 6, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.
If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”
When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed – it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.
The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.
The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40% of the nation’s entire private sector output!
The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.
The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars – a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.
Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.
The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.
March 6, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
The Scandal at Walter Reed
The Scandal at Walter Reed
by Ron Paul
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2007
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.
There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.
It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars, especially before World War I. That hasn’t changed, even though many in Washington today don’t understand it.
Likewise it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts like the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq.
In 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy of policing the world, in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia. We were promised a more humble foreign policy.
Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars. Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home.
A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we’re forced to close military bases in the U.S., even as we’re building them overseas. Interventionism is never good fiscal policy.
Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic.
We close bases here at home – some want to close Walter Reed – while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory, and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us.
Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq, while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded soldiers we should have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
Now comes the outrage.
Now Congress holds hearings.
Now comes the wringing of hands. Yes, better late than never.
Clean it up, paint the walls, make Walter Reed look neat and tidy! But this won’t solve our problems. We must someday look critically at the shortcomings of our foreign policy, a policy that needlessly and foolishly intervenes in places where we have no business being.
Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end. Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place.
On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill – more even than the administration has requested. The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. And it’s all done under the slogan of “supporting the troops,” even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.
Every problem Congress and the administration create requires more money to fix. The mantra remains the same: spend more money we don’t have, borrow from the Chinese, or just print it.
This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke.
Interventionism always leads to unanticipated consequences and blowback, like:
A weakened, demoralized military;
Exploding deficits;
Billions of dollars wasted;
Increased inflation;
Less economic growth;
An unstable currency;
Painful stock market corrections;
Political demagoguery;
Lingering anger at home; and
Confusion about who is to blame.
These elements combine to create an environment that inevitably undermines personal liberty. Virtually all American wars have led to diminished civil liberties at home.
Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution.
That Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a roadmap to restore our liberties and change our foreign policy. This is critical if we truly seek peace and prosperity.
March 9, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paul
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives March 7, 2007
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.
There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.
It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars, especially before World War I. That hasn’t changed, even though many in Washington today don’t understand it.
Likewise it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts like the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq.
In 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy of policing the world, in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia. We were promised a more humble foreign policy.
Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars. Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home.
A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we’re forced to close military bases in the U.S., even as we’re building them overseas. Interventionism is never good fiscal policy.
Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic.
We close bases here at home – some want to close Walter Reed – while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory, and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us.
Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq, while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded soldiers we should have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
Now comes the outrage.
Now Congress holds hearings.
Now comes the wringing of hands. Yes, better late than never.
Clean it up, paint the walls, make Walter Reed look neat and tidy! But this won’t solve our problems. We must someday look critically at the shortcomings of our foreign policy, a policy that needlessly and foolishly intervenes in places where we have no business being.
Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end. Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place.
On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill – more even than the administration has requested. The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. And it’s all done under the slogan of “supporting the troops,” even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.
Every problem Congress and the administration create requires more money to fix. The mantra remains the same: spend more money we don’t have, borrow from the Chinese, or just print it.
This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke.
Interventionism always leads to unanticipated consequences and blowback, like:
A weakened, demoralized military;
Exploding deficits;
Billions of dollars wasted;
Increased inflation;
Less economic growth;
An unstable currency;
Painful stock market corrections;
Political demagoguery;
Lingering anger at home; and
Confusion about who is to blame.
These elements combine to create an environment that inevitably undermines personal liberty. Virtually all American wars have led to diminished civil liberties at home.
Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution.
That Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a roadmap to restore our liberties and change our foreign policy. This is critical if we truly seek peace and prosperity.
March 9, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
The DC Gun Ban
The DC Gun Ban
by Ron Paul
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe – as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control – like Washington DC – experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
March 13, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas
by Ron Paul
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe – as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control – like Washington DC – experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
March 13, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas
The Original American Foreign Policy
The Original American Foreign Policy
by Ron Paul
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
by Ron Paul
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
Don't Blame the Market for the Housing Bubble
Don't Blame the Market for the Housing Bubble
by Ron Paul
The U.S. housing market, long considered vulnerable by many economists, is now on the verge of suffering a serious collapse in many regions. Commodities guru and hedge fund manager Jim Rogers warns that real estate in expensive bubble areas will drop 40 or 50%. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are reporting breathlessly about the possibility of widespread defaults on subprime mortgages.
When the bubble finally bursts completely, millions of Americans will be looking for someone to blame. Look for Congress to hold hearings into subprime lending practices and “predatory” mortgages. We’ll hear a lot of grandstanding about how unscrupulous lenders took advantage of poor people, and how rampant speculation caused real estate markets around the country to overheat. It will be reminiscent of the Enron hearings, and the message will be explicitly or implicitly the same: free-market capitalism, left unchecked, leads to greed, fraud, and unethical if not illegal business practices.
But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy – through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money – caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending.
The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.
This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed’s easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed.
The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it.
Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom.
The Federal Reserve provides the mother’s milk for the booms and busts wrongly associated with a mythical “business cycle.” Imagine a Brinks truck driving down a busy street with the doors wide open, and money flying out everywhere, and you’ll have a pretty good analogy for Fed policies over the last two decades. Unless and until we get the Federal Reserve out of the business of creating money at will and setting interest rates, we will remain vulnerable to market bubbles and painful corrections. If housing prices plummet and millions of Americans find themselves owing more than their homes are worth, the blame lies squarely with Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.
by Ron Paul
The U.S. housing market, long considered vulnerable by many economists, is now on the verge of suffering a serious collapse in many regions. Commodities guru and hedge fund manager Jim Rogers warns that real estate in expensive bubble areas will drop 40 or 50%. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are reporting breathlessly about the possibility of widespread defaults on subprime mortgages.
When the bubble finally bursts completely, millions of Americans will be looking for someone to blame. Look for Congress to hold hearings into subprime lending practices and “predatory” mortgages. We’ll hear a lot of grandstanding about how unscrupulous lenders took advantage of poor people, and how rampant speculation caused real estate markets around the country to overheat. It will be reminiscent of the Enron hearings, and the message will be explicitly or implicitly the same: free-market capitalism, left unchecked, leads to greed, fraud, and unethical if not illegal business practices.
But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy – through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money – caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending.
The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.
This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed’s easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed.
The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it.
Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom.
The Federal Reserve provides the mother’s milk for the booms and busts wrongly associated with a mythical “business cycle.” Imagine a Brinks truck driving down a busy street with the doors wide open, and money flying out everywhere, and you’ll have a pretty good analogy for Fed policies over the last two decades. Unless and until we get the Federal Reserve out of the business of creating money at will and setting interest rates, we will remain vulnerable to market bubbles and painful corrections. If housing prices plummet and millions of Americans find themselves owing more than their homes are worth, the blame lies squarely with Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.
The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill
The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill
by Ron Paul
Statement Before the U.S. House of Representatives March 20, 2007
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation – the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.
Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families – many on their second or third tour in Iraq – feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution – and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy – an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect – for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
by Ron Paul
Statement Before the U.S. House of Representatives March 20, 2007
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation – the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.
Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families – many on their second or third tour in Iraq – feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution – and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy – an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect – for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
Rep. Ron Paul on War, Peace, and the News Media
Rep. Ron Paul on War, Peace, and the News Media
by Michael Shank
Michael Shank: You’ve said that “It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.” During wartime this is often the case. How can one work to counter this tendency to claim that those who question or work to stop a war are unpatriotic?
Rep. Ron Paul: It’s very difficult because the executive branch, and particularly the president, always has the bully pulpit. He can say it over and over and over again, and it’s always heard: “If you don’t vote for the money and you don’t support the policy, you don’t support the troops.” And that’s not true because if you’re spending money to support a policy that puts the troops in harm’s way, performing a task that’s unachievable, then you’re doing everything in the world to hurt the troops. You’re doing everything you can to undermine the rule of law because it’s an undeclared illegal war and it’s very detrimental economically. So to argue that you’re unpatriotic because you don’t support the troops, because you don’t support the policy, is a canard, it’s just not true.
Even the strong opponents to the war, in the Congress here, are intimidated by that. Not so much that they believe it, but they’re intimidated, they say “when I go home the people are going to say that I’m unpatriotic and I don’t support the troops and I don’t support national defense and I might lose my congressional seat.” As political pragmatists they back away from doing what I’m quite sure a lot of them would know would be the right thing to do. And that is to change the policy and de-fund the war.
Shank: And what role does the media play in reinforcing the idea that opposition to the war is unpatriotic?
Paul: They repeat everything the president says and they don’t ask tough questions. They would very rarely give those of us that have opposed the war from the very beginning any credibility. For very special reasons, I think, they aren’t interested in having an anti-war policy. They have other reasons for wanting us to be there and they’re not hesitant at all to continue that policy and they don’t want their policy undermined.
Shank: For political or economic reasons?
Paul: There are a lot [of reasons]. There is something to the old saying about the military industrial complex and the banking system and that some countries in the Middle East like us to be there. It’s not only Israel. Saudi Arabia likes us to prop them up. We’ve been doing that for a long, long time. There’s a lot of special interest there and a lot of people who are deceived into believing that we couldn’t drive our cars if we weren’t over there, because we wouldn’t have the oil supply protected. They don’t realize that since we’ve been there the price of oil has tripled. It isn’t very practical.
Shank: In a House floor speech you noted the “misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion” in Iraq. In perhaps the world’s most free democracy, where free speech prevails, how does misinformation like this go unchallenged?
Paul: Fortunately it always gets challenged; the unfortunate thing is that it’s always very late. We’re getting to the bottom of the truth. People spoke out in elections. Now there’s a different party in charge. There are going to be more investigations. But the real tragedy is that a lot of people die in the meantime. We finally found out that the Gulf of Tonkin was all fudged, and yet we lost 60,000 men. Now we have the misinformation, that’s a generous term, about getting us involved in Iraq. We’ve lost a lot of people, and literally hundreds of thousands are applying for disability. And it goes on and on.
To me, it is a real tragedy. The media, if they’re not in conspiracy to promote war, they’re not doing a very good job by asking questions. And nobody knows what their intent really is. Sometimes the media and big industry are very often the same company.
Intellectually, if you want to stay strictly on an intellectual level, our society has been engrained with the attitude that we have a moral obligation to intervene. Some people don’t think in terms of non-intervention versus intervention. The debate here in Washington is always: we intervene this way, this way, or that way, with whom and how far and how long. It’s always the technicalities of intervention. But we’re never taught in school what our traditions have been and what the founders advised and what the constitution allows. Even the UN charter talks more about peace; they don’t even authorize war in the UN charter. And we ignore that too.
There’s a lot of ignorance out there, and a lot of it is perpetuated in our universities. Except today we’re getting a broader education through the Internet. More people are understanding some of our views. So I think in spite of all the pessimism, we’re much better off today than we were 20 years ago when our voices were not heard at all. Today, our voices are being heard a lot easier because of the Internet.
Shank: In one of your speeches, titled “Don’t Do It, Mr. President”, you urged the president to not bomb Iran. Why are you so against a military invasion of Iran?
Paul: Because I’m against military activity in almost every circumstance when war isn’t declared. I recognize there are a few times our president could act but I think I pointed out in one of my speeches that I can’t remember a time that the president was required to act, i.e. that it was so necessary: the tanks were landing, there was a landing on our beach, the missiles were flying. It’s never happened.
The president has the authority to repel an invasion or an attack. But going into Iran doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s going to expand the war, spread the war, and probably close down the Straits of Hormuz. We don’t have the authority nationally or internationally. It’s just the most foolish thing I could conceive of. And yet it looks like there’s bipartisan consensus that we can’t take anything off the table. We can’t even take off the table that we might use a nuclear first strike to go after Iran. They don’t even have a weapon and our CIA says they probably can’t get one for 10 years. And even if they did have one, what are they going to do with it? Are they going to attack us? They wouldn’t do that.
Yet at the same time we stood up against the Soviet system. They probably had 30,000 nuclear warheads and they had the capability of launching missiles at us. We didn’t have to have a nuclear war to finally win the cold war. We talked to them and there were negotiations.
Their system was a failed system, and it failed. The Iranian [system] will fail too if we just leave them alone. They can never become a power capable of attacking us. They don’t have an air force, they don’t have a navy. It’s an unbelievable, hysterical reaction on our part to become so frightened that we have to attack people like Saddam Hussein. It just bewilders me how people can fall into a trap of believing these stories that are put out and that the media propagates.
Shank: In your words, “if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you, if you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone.” How do you explain this policy?
Paul: The North Koreans exploded [weapons] minimally, and yet it seemed to get respect. All of the sudden we’re talking to them and offering them deals. We knew the Chinese had them. We knew the Russians had them, and we treated them differently. We treat Pakistan differently, we give them money. We treat India differently, and they got their nuclear weapons outside international law. But if you don’t have a weapon we threaten you, as if you did, with the idea that we’re going to go in and take over. And we do. We went into Iraq, and we’re getting ready to do something with Iran.
We give them a tremendous incentive to have a nuclear weapon and that’s why Saddam Hussein was betting on the fact that “if I can convince them I have a nuclear weapon they won’t come in.” But we knew he didn’t have one, that’s why we went in.
Shank: Has the policy of intervention in the name of nation-building – in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly now Iran – ultimately served or undermined US interests?
Paul: It all undermines our interests. I don’t see how anything we’ve done in the last 50 years has served our interests. You can go back longer than that. I’d go back all the way to Wilson. The unnecessary involvement in World War I gave us Hitler and World War II and on. But if you want to start with more recent ones, I think Roosevelt’s promise to protect Saudi Arabia and prop up secular governments that offended and annoyed the more fundamentalist Arabs and Muslims has been a real thorn in our side. Then with the Cold War going on, there was a tremendous incentive for our government to use our CIA and our funding to literally set these schools up, the Wahhabi schools, to teach them to fight communism in the name of radical Islam.
I think the term blowback is a very accurate term. Our policies are ill-advised, maybe well intended. Some people think we need to do this to have oil, I don’t. Once we start to intervene it comes back to haunt us. Osama bin Laden was an ally and now he’s our enemy. Saddam Hussein was an ally, now he’s our enemy.
I think the founders were right about minding our own business. Try to get along with people, trade with them, talk to them. But I don’t believe in isolating ourselves. It’s ironic that they accuse people like me of being isolationist, but yet they have isolated us. Our current administration has isolated us from the world. We have fewer friends and more enemies than ever before. It’s ironic.
Shank: How will the rising defense budget and Iraq war spending undermine our economic and political security?
Paul: It’s a major contributing factor to our deficit, and it’s going to be a big factor in the dollar crisis that I anticipate is coming. We’re not talking about a few dollars; we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. In the pipeline this year there’s close to $700 billion dollars, supposedly in the defense of this country. Yet if you talk to generals you find that the military operation is in shambles, they don’t have enough personnel, the morale is low, and the equipment is in bad shape. All this money is doing the opposite of what it should be doing: it hurts our defense, antagonizes our allies, and creates new enemies. And it’s very, very costly. We have to depend, literally, on borrowing from countries like China and Japan. And that’ll come to an end.
We can’t tax, borrow, and inflate forever. That’s what we’ve been doing, and our obligations are overwhelming. Although most of the military [spending] is more or less immediate, the policy is indefinite and overwhelming. We’ve committed ourselves to policing the world. But if you combine this with the pressure of the entitlements, we’re talking about $50–60 trillion dollars that we don’t have enough wealth [to cover]. We’re not producing enough wealth to maintain our standard of living. We have to borrow almost $3 billon a day to keep this going.
I think financially it’s going to lead to problems worse than the 1970s, coming out of Vietnam. They pretended they had guns and butter, and it’s the same story again. Even today’s statistics show that inflation is alive and well, probably much more alive than the government will admit. So I think we’re going to have inflation, a weak dollar, interest rates will eventually go up, the economy is going to remain sluggish, and the only alternative here in Washington is to spend more money. And I think it’s going to lead to a disaster.
Shank: You’ve said the war on terrorism is “deliberately vague and non-definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere.” Why has the “war on terrorism” received so much traction in Washington, and is this “war” any different from, for example, our “war on communism”? Is it more dangerous than any war we’ve concocted before?
Paul: The war on terrorism is broader and more vague. Before, the war against communism was a little more concrete. The Soviets were a powerhouse, and they had missiles. But today, with the war on terrorism…you always have to have a war to frighten the people, to get the people to rally around the flag and sacrifice their liberties and allow the state to do a lot more than they should be doing. That’s why I would say that the war on terrorism looks like it’s going to have a longer life unless somebody can point out the fallacies of the [administration’s] thinking.
To me the war on terrorism is like saying the war on crime. Of course we’re all against crime, we’re all against terrorists. But if you have a literal war and you send troops all around the world – and since terrorism is not very often committed by the state itself, it’s just thugs out there, bands of individuals who are killing other people – this justifies anything and everything forever.
That, I think, is very dangerous. We have accepted this notion that you can make this vague declaration. It’s not a real declaration. You don’t know who the enemy is. For people who like the state to grow during wartime, it’s easy just to declare a war. Whether it’s a war on drugs, a war on illiteracy, or a war on whatever, people say “well, it’s a war; we have to be willing to sacrifice our liberties and let the government take care of us.” It’s a contest between those who want to or enjoy being dependent on the government – or are frightened into it both physically and economically – versus those who believe and understand how a free society is safer and wealthier.
Right now, for most of my lifetime, those who want to be safe and secure and believe government can provide have won out over those of us who believe that we would be safer and we would be more economically secure if we assumed responsibility for ourselves. Who is going to win that debate? We’re making inroads but we’re not on the verge of victory.
by Michael Shank
Michael Shank: You’ve said that “It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.” During wartime this is often the case. How can one work to counter this tendency to claim that those who question or work to stop a war are unpatriotic?
Rep. Ron Paul: It’s very difficult because the executive branch, and particularly the president, always has the bully pulpit. He can say it over and over and over again, and it’s always heard: “If you don’t vote for the money and you don’t support the policy, you don’t support the troops.” And that’s not true because if you’re spending money to support a policy that puts the troops in harm’s way, performing a task that’s unachievable, then you’re doing everything in the world to hurt the troops. You’re doing everything you can to undermine the rule of law because it’s an undeclared illegal war and it’s very detrimental economically. So to argue that you’re unpatriotic because you don’t support the troops, because you don’t support the policy, is a canard, it’s just not true.
Even the strong opponents to the war, in the Congress here, are intimidated by that. Not so much that they believe it, but they’re intimidated, they say “when I go home the people are going to say that I’m unpatriotic and I don’t support the troops and I don’t support national defense and I might lose my congressional seat.” As political pragmatists they back away from doing what I’m quite sure a lot of them would know would be the right thing to do. And that is to change the policy and de-fund the war.
Shank: And what role does the media play in reinforcing the idea that opposition to the war is unpatriotic?
Paul: They repeat everything the president says and they don’t ask tough questions. They would very rarely give those of us that have opposed the war from the very beginning any credibility. For very special reasons, I think, they aren’t interested in having an anti-war policy. They have other reasons for wanting us to be there and they’re not hesitant at all to continue that policy and they don’t want their policy undermined.
Shank: For political or economic reasons?
Paul: There are a lot [of reasons]. There is something to the old saying about the military industrial complex and the banking system and that some countries in the Middle East like us to be there. It’s not only Israel. Saudi Arabia likes us to prop them up. We’ve been doing that for a long, long time. There’s a lot of special interest there and a lot of people who are deceived into believing that we couldn’t drive our cars if we weren’t over there, because we wouldn’t have the oil supply protected. They don’t realize that since we’ve been there the price of oil has tripled. It isn’t very practical.
Shank: In a House floor speech you noted the “misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion” in Iraq. In perhaps the world’s most free democracy, where free speech prevails, how does misinformation like this go unchallenged?
Paul: Fortunately it always gets challenged; the unfortunate thing is that it’s always very late. We’re getting to the bottom of the truth. People spoke out in elections. Now there’s a different party in charge. There are going to be more investigations. But the real tragedy is that a lot of people die in the meantime. We finally found out that the Gulf of Tonkin was all fudged, and yet we lost 60,000 men. Now we have the misinformation, that’s a generous term, about getting us involved in Iraq. We’ve lost a lot of people, and literally hundreds of thousands are applying for disability. And it goes on and on.
To me, it is a real tragedy. The media, if they’re not in conspiracy to promote war, they’re not doing a very good job by asking questions. And nobody knows what their intent really is. Sometimes the media and big industry are very often the same company.
Intellectually, if you want to stay strictly on an intellectual level, our society has been engrained with the attitude that we have a moral obligation to intervene. Some people don’t think in terms of non-intervention versus intervention. The debate here in Washington is always: we intervene this way, this way, or that way, with whom and how far and how long. It’s always the technicalities of intervention. But we’re never taught in school what our traditions have been and what the founders advised and what the constitution allows. Even the UN charter talks more about peace; they don’t even authorize war in the UN charter. And we ignore that too.
There’s a lot of ignorance out there, and a lot of it is perpetuated in our universities. Except today we’re getting a broader education through the Internet. More people are understanding some of our views. So I think in spite of all the pessimism, we’re much better off today than we were 20 years ago when our voices were not heard at all. Today, our voices are being heard a lot easier because of the Internet.
Shank: In one of your speeches, titled “Don’t Do It, Mr. President”, you urged the president to not bomb Iran. Why are you so against a military invasion of Iran?
Paul: Because I’m against military activity in almost every circumstance when war isn’t declared. I recognize there are a few times our president could act but I think I pointed out in one of my speeches that I can’t remember a time that the president was required to act, i.e. that it was so necessary: the tanks were landing, there was a landing on our beach, the missiles were flying. It’s never happened.
The president has the authority to repel an invasion or an attack. But going into Iran doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s going to expand the war, spread the war, and probably close down the Straits of Hormuz. We don’t have the authority nationally or internationally. It’s just the most foolish thing I could conceive of. And yet it looks like there’s bipartisan consensus that we can’t take anything off the table. We can’t even take off the table that we might use a nuclear first strike to go after Iran. They don’t even have a weapon and our CIA says they probably can’t get one for 10 years. And even if they did have one, what are they going to do with it? Are they going to attack us? They wouldn’t do that.
Yet at the same time we stood up against the Soviet system. They probably had 30,000 nuclear warheads and they had the capability of launching missiles at us. We didn’t have to have a nuclear war to finally win the cold war. We talked to them and there were negotiations.
Their system was a failed system, and it failed. The Iranian [system] will fail too if we just leave them alone. They can never become a power capable of attacking us. They don’t have an air force, they don’t have a navy. It’s an unbelievable, hysterical reaction on our part to become so frightened that we have to attack people like Saddam Hussein. It just bewilders me how people can fall into a trap of believing these stories that are put out and that the media propagates.
Shank: In your words, “if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you, if you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone.” How do you explain this policy?
Paul: The North Koreans exploded [weapons] minimally, and yet it seemed to get respect. All of the sudden we’re talking to them and offering them deals. We knew the Chinese had them. We knew the Russians had them, and we treated them differently. We treat Pakistan differently, we give them money. We treat India differently, and they got their nuclear weapons outside international law. But if you don’t have a weapon we threaten you, as if you did, with the idea that we’re going to go in and take over. And we do. We went into Iraq, and we’re getting ready to do something with Iran.
We give them a tremendous incentive to have a nuclear weapon and that’s why Saddam Hussein was betting on the fact that “if I can convince them I have a nuclear weapon they won’t come in.” But we knew he didn’t have one, that’s why we went in.
Shank: Has the policy of intervention in the name of nation-building – in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly now Iran – ultimately served or undermined US interests?
Paul: It all undermines our interests. I don’t see how anything we’ve done in the last 50 years has served our interests. You can go back longer than that. I’d go back all the way to Wilson. The unnecessary involvement in World War I gave us Hitler and World War II and on. But if you want to start with more recent ones, I think Roosevelt’s promise to protect Saudi Arabia and prop up secular governments that offended and annoyed the more fundamentalist Arabs and Muslims has been a real thorn in our side. Then with the Cold War going on, there was a tremendous incentive for our government to use our CIA and our funding to literally set these schools up, the Wahhabi schools, to teach them to fight communism in the name of radical Islam.
I think the term blowback is a very accurate term. Our policies are ill-advised, maybe well intended. Some people think we need to do this to have oil, I don’t. Once we start to intervene it comes back to haunt us. Osama bin Laden was an ally and now he’s our enemy. Saddam Hussein was an ally, now he’s our enemy.
I think the founders were right about minding our own business. Try to get along with people, trade with them, talk to them. But I don’t believe in isolating ourselves. It’s ironic that they accuse people like me of being isolationist, but yet they have isolated us. Our current administration has isolated us from the world. We have fewer friends and more enemies than ever before. It’s ironic.
Shank: How will the rising defense budget and Iraq war spending undermine our economic and political security?
Paul: It’s a major contributing factor to our deficit, and it’s going to be a big factor in the dollar crisis that I anticipate is coming. We’re not talking about a few dollars; we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. In the pipeline this year there’s close to $700 billion dollars, supposedly in the defense of this country. Yet if you talk to generals you find that the military operation is in shambles, they don’t have enough personnel, the morale is low, and the equipment is in bad shape. All this money is doing the opposite of what it should be doing: it hurts our defense, antagonizes our allies, and creates new enemies. And it’s very, very costly. We have to depend, literally, on borrowing from countries like China and Japan. And that’ll come to an end.
We can’t tax, borrow, and inflate forever. That’s what we’ve been doing, and our obligations are overwhelming. Although most of the military [spending] is more or less immediate, the policy is indefinite and overwhelming. We’ve committed ourselves to policing the world. But if you combine this with the pressure of the entitlements, we’re talking about $50–60 trillion dollars that we don’t have enough wealth [to cover]. We’re not producing enough wealth to maintain our standard of living. We have to borrow almost $3 billon a day to keep this going.
I think financially it’s going to lead to problems worse than the 1970s, coming out of Vietnam. They pretended they had guns and butter, and it’s the same story again. Even today’s statistics show that inflation is alive and well, probably much more alive than the government will admit. So I think we’re going to have inflation, a weak dollar, interest rates will eventually go up, the economy is going to remain sluggish, and the only alternative here in Washington is to spend more money. And I think it’s going to lead to a disaster.
Shank: You’ve said the war on terrorism is “deliberately vague and non-definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere.” Why has the “war on terrorism” received so much traction in Washington, and is this “war” any different from, for example, our “war on communism”? Is it more dangerous than any war we’ve concocted before?
Paul: The war on terrorism is broader and more vague. Before, the war against communism was a little more concrete. The Soviets were a powerhouse, and they had missiles. But today, with the war on terrorism…you always have to have a war to frighten the people, to get the people to rally around the flag and sacrifice their liberties and allow the state to do a lot more than they should be doing. That’s why I would say that the war on terrorism looks like it’s going to have a longer life unless somebody can point out the fallacies of the [administration’s] thinking.
To me the war on terrorism is like saying the war on crime. Of course we’re all against crime, we’re all against terrorists. But if you have a literal war and you send troops all around the world – and since terrorism is not very often committed by the state itself, it’s just thugs out there, bands of individuals who are killing other people – this justifies anything and everything forever.
That, I think, is very dangerous. We have accepted this notion that you can make this vague declaration. It’s not a real declaration. You don’t know who the enemy is. For people who like the state to grow during wartime, it’s easy just to declare a war. Whether it’s a war on drugs, a war on illiteracy, or a war on whatever, people say “well, it’s a war; we have to be willing to sacrifice our liberties and let the government take care of us.” It’s a contest between those who want to or enjoy being dependent on the government – or are frightened into it both physically and economically – versus those who believe and understand how a free society is safer and wealthier.
Right now, for most of my lifetime, those who want to be safe and secure and believe government can provide have won out over those of us who believe that we would be safer and we would be more economically secure if we assumed responsibility for ourselves. Who is going to win that debate? We’re making inroads but we’re not on the verge of victory.
More Funding for the War in Iraq
More Funding for the War in Iraq
by Ron Paul
Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.
I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.
Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.
What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.
While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.
In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.
Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.
To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.
by Ron Paul
Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.
I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.
Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.
What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.
While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.
In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.
Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.
To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.
The 2008 Federal Budget
The 2008 Federal Budget
by Ron Paul
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.
by Ron Paul
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.
The Federal Reserve Monopoly Over Money
The Federal Reserve Monopoly Over Money
by Ron Paul
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic – or so they believe.
Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.
by Ron Paul
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic – or so they believe.
Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.
Government and Racism
Government and Racism
by Ron Paul
The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.
It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”
Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
by Ron Paul
The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.
It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”
Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2007
All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.
Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.
Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying – not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction – but our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.
As an Air Force officer serving from 1963–1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.
Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.
The argument for staying – to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region – logically falls on deaf ears.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we can’t afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;
THEN…..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2007
All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.
Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.
Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying – not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction – but our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.
As an Air Force officer serving from 1963–1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.
Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.
The argument for staying – to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region – logically falls on deaf ears.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we can’t afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;
THEN…..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
Security and Liberty
Security and Liberty
by Ron Paul
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
by Ron Paul
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again
Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again
by Ron Paul
This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation.
In this final version, the House leadership retained billions of dollars in pork meant to attract skeptical votes, retained a watered-down version of the problematic “benchmarks” that seek to micromanage the war effort, and continued to play politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance. In other words, this final version was even worse than the original in almost all respects.
As I wrote when this measure first came before the House, we have to make a clear distinction between the Constitutional authority of Congress to make foreign policy, and the Constitutional authority of the president, as commander in chief, to direct the management of any military operation. We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general.
What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible.
Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war-funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
by Ron Paul
This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation.
In this final version, the House leadership retained billions of dollars in pork meant to attract skeptical votes, retained a watered-down version of the problematic “benchmarks” that seek to micromanage the war effort, and continued to play politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance. In other words, this final version was even worse than the original in almost all respects.
As I wrote when this measure first came before the House, we have to make a clear distinction between the Constitutional authority of Congress to make foreign policy, and the Constitutional authority of the president, as commander in chief, to direct the management of any military operation. We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general.
What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible.
Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war-funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
by Ron Paul
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts – as opposed to willful criminal acts – is inconsistent with a free society.
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.
by Ron Paul
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts – as opposed to willful criminal acts – is inconsistent with a free society.
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.
Security, Washington-Style
Security, Washington-Style
by Ron Paul
Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans.
Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created.
I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.
When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that – at the least – FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission – to protect us from external threats – and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy."
Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement.
Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so.
Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.
by Ron Paul
Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans.
Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created.
I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.
When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that – at the least – FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission – to protect us from external threats – and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy."
Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement.
Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so.
Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)