“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.”

- Nelson Mandela

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Ron Paul: The Issues

   I recently read an article in Rasmussen that talked about the issues that are most important to Americans. In a series of polls, Rasmussen determined that the economy (unemployment, debt etc..) was the most important issue to Americans. Following behind was health care, foreign policy, government corruption, and social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. I want to lay out Ron Paul's policies on these most important issues.

Economy
  
   Ron Paul is an advocate for the Austrian school of economics which essentially argues that a free-market is the only true regulator of the market. The "free-market" is going to weed out any irresponsible or corrupt business practices and of course the inept businesses. Its a kind of economic Darwinism.  Any government interference will only make the problem worse and that economic planning or socialism is going to lead to much larger problems then the ones they were attempting to address. In the end socialism (government managed economic policies) will lead to a totalitarian state. You can read more about this in The Road to Serfdom by F.A Hayek. Ron Paul traces our economic issues back to 1913.
   In 1913, Congress adopted the Federal Reserve Act which gave congressional powers to a private institution, the Federal Reserve. Congressional powers are laid out in Article 1. Section 8 of the Constitution. The include that only gold and silver should be legal tender. This is where Ron Paul traces our current economic problems to. Congress gave their power to a private institution that is not answerable to the people and only to what interest they determine necessary. I must add that the Fed charges interest on the money that is created for the US government. Congress could  create this money on their own without interest and that should be enough to want to end the Federal Reserve. The US owes more money to the Federal Reserve because of this process then it does to China.
   The big banks were behind the creation of the Fed and the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. You can read about this in The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Ron Paul argues that this central bank is unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly prohibited a central bank from controlling the nation's money supply, Jefferson warned about these exceptional powers. 

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

   Ron Paul believes that this is the underlying issue with the economy. The Fed has been seen as a convenience or as protection by the masses because they don't clearly understand the implications of the Fed. Read End the Fed by Ron Paul if you want to learn more. In reality, the Fed is able to create money out of thin air, the dictate the value of the dollar, and to manipulate interest rates in order to serve the big money interests that lobby for them in Washington. A safety net was created to ensure that the big banks, corporations and Wall Street would be protected from their immoral activities. The Fed acts as big money's safety net. It does not work for the people of the United States.
   The Fed's manipulation of the money system creates a boom-bust cycle. The boom comes when the Fed lowers interest rates and pumps a bunch more money into circulation. In reality, this is just Bernanke authorizing someone to punch a number into a computer screen, which is not truly creating more wealth. Banks start lending to anyone. It's an artificial boom. Then the Fed has to reel it in a bit. It raises interest rates, inflation sets in, and people cannot get more money to support the debt they just put themselves in. The recession is inevitable. Ron Paul predicted the collapse of the housing market and the economic meltdown of 2008. He argues that the longer you prolong the inevitable collapse the worse it will get. The bailout's and stimulus packages are just prolonging the inevitable. The more money the Fed creates the worse the problem is going to get. 
   Ron Paul talks about inflation a lot. Inflation is not just rising prices, it is really the increase of the money supply which results in the former. If more money is in circulation then one unit has less value, hence higher prices. Then because of the fractional-reserve system, the banks are allowed to lend out 90% of that credit that was created, the money enters the system and is lent out many times over. Many people are holding the same fabricated wealth. What if everyone cashed in? They would all be trying to get the same money. There would not be enough. 
   Inflation takes its toll on the lower and middle classes. If you look at 1930s Germany, you can see what hyperinflation will do to a middle class, completely wipe it out. Then through bailouts, the money is taken from the middle and lower classes and is given to the wealthy. What a system huh? Not only are the lower and middle classes bailing out the rich, they are also the first to lose their jobs in a recession, and inflation is going to affect them much more then the rich. The Fed does this on a daily basis, creating money in order to fund wars or bailout their buddies and the lower and middle classes just bend over. 
   Ron Paul also talks about the gold standard. This plays in to the whole creation of money because before 1972, US notes were backed by a resource of actual wealth. Now, since Bretton Woods, the Fed does not have a standard and they can create as much money as they want. It does not matter how much actual wealth the country has because they have the unlimited printing press.
   Ron Paul has argued and argues, rather vehemently, that we ultimately have to address monetary policy and the Fed's control of it, if we want to address our economic problems in this country. The actions that can be taken to curtail the power of the Fed are out there but ultimately, getting rid of it is the optimal recourse. If he became president he would work to cut taxes and cut spending. This is unheard of in Washington and sounds utopian but it makes sense if you listen to the man. 
   He suggests that we eliminate our foreign policy that is only in place to secure the economic interests of the elite. Do we realize how much money this would free up? Think of our Defense budget (880 billion), NATO (600 billion), UN (not sure), military support to other countries etc... We are talking in the trillions of dollars a year. I will get more into this below. He also says that we should eliminate the IRS, the CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, etc.. He argues that federal bureaucracies such as the departments are wasteful and mismanaged and that the people are competent enough to run their own schools, their own hospitals etc.. and don't need some federal bureaucracy telling them how and what they should be doing. If you take those funds and allocate them at a much smaller level, the needs of that specific region could be better addressed. 
   Ron Paul suggests that we go back to the gold standard (or any standard with actual tangible wealth), that we balance our budget by eliminating unnecessary spending and we END THE FED, which would cease the creation of money out of nothing. If the government can just print money, they will never have to cut spending and therefore can ensure their re-election.
   Obama is proposing a policy made famous by Reagan. He says that we are going to raise taxes for the moment and then we will set up committees to look into cutting spending. Ha, its all bologna, he does not plan to cut spending. Reagan never did, even though he promised to cut $3 of spending for every $1 in increased taxes. Also the Balanced Budget Amendment is not being written by the Obama administration. He is just paying us a bunch more lip service. Ron Paul believes if you eliminate the criminal monetary policy the economy will truly boom and our economic issues will be alleviated.

Health Care

   I am going to shorten the sections, I promise. Ron Paul sees the problems of health care as issues of our political history, monetary policy and government management. He believes that the "free-market" can deliver health care more effectively and much more inexpensively. He traces the problems back to the early seventies, when Nixon introduced "manage care" policies. The government basically decided that they needed to play a part in health care and needed to direct funds to the health care system. With this came mandates and forced all people to participate in the health care system. 
    From this "manage care", corporate medicine developed. Companies and big interests that have the best access to government funds became the dictators of health care in this country. Drug companies and insurance companies lobbied there way into receiving funds and now basically run the health care system. Not only did they start receiving massive funds, they also imposed their interest on government health care policies so that the policies benefited them and not people who need health care. This made the system very ineffective.
   The costs of medical care began to rise because insurance costs were rising. By giving the power to big drug and insurance companies, and through inflation, costs have risen. This is  mostly because there is little competition in health care. The government has subsidized the monopolization of a few companies. With less competition, big companies are able to keep prices high. The government started mandating more licenses and certificates that are expensive and did not allow all to participate independently of these big companies. Look at plastic surgery as an example. Insurance does not cover cosmetic plastic surgery, which made surgeons fight for business through prices. The prices of plastic surgery have all fallen while all other medical costs have gone up.
   Insurance is intended to measure risk, assess the risk and then provide insurance accordingly. It was originally intended to protect people from accidents and major diseases such as cancer. But since insurance companies have dictated policy, they now cover regular checkups, drugs,etc... If insurance is going to cover the bill for everything then they are going to drive prices up. Before the 70s and even into the 90s it was very inexpensive to go in and get a regular check up because it was not covered under insurance. Now the insurance companies are dictating the price of health care. 
   With the government protecting these large companies, and paying the bill a lot of the time, facilities are going to charge the most for care instead of competing for business by offering the lowest prices. The same works for insurance, when insurance is covering the bill, the facility will charge the most they can. We see this phenomena in all different walks of life. And to fix the problem, the people are asking the government (who created the problem) to fix the problem. 
   We are going from corporate medicine which was extremely ineffective to socialized medicine, government managed medicine. Back to the solution Nixon came up with in the 70s which is the root of the existing problem. Paul argues that we should reintroduce the notion that people have the right to choose. He argues that medical costs should not be dictated by the government in coalition with Big Pharma and insurance companies but by true competition in a free market. 

Foreign Policy

   Ron Paul is very clear on how he feels about foreign policy. He believes that our intervention throughout the world is the biggest threat to our national security. He believes that we need to mind our own business and stay out of the affairs of other countries. That we should use diplomacy instead of coercion by force. We do this mainly to ensure our economic interests throughout the world so you can't forget that. Our monetary policy goes hand-in-hand with our foreign policy. In order to police the world and maintain our empire, we have to employ the foreign policy that we do. 
   He also makes the constitutional argument, that we can only go to war if Congress declares war. This has not been the trend. The founders made the same argument, they warned about foreign entanglements and advised us to be friends with other countries. Basically the suggested using diplomacy and not just running around imposing our will on weaker countries. Which is one of the main problems the founders had with British policy, how they treated their colonies. So why are we making the same mistakes we revolted against in the first place. Well, because of our economic policy. 
   No candidates are proposing that we cut our foreign policy expenditures. Look at Obama's record. He continued wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, went to war in Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and now Syria. He is also fomenting a war with Iran. Its the same thing all over. From 2004-2008 the US acquired 10 trillion dollars in debt just from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is just the debt, that does not include what the tax payer paid for. Ron Paul argues if you want to address economic problems at home, you have to eliminate foreign adventurism in order to secure economic interests.  
   The US always goes to war on "humanitarian" grounds. But come on, when have we ever done anything for purely humanitarian reasons. Let's look at the track record. Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia all saw near or genocidal actions by the government. Did the US race over there to save humanity? No, because we don't have economic interests that needed to be protected. Then we have Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. Do we have economic and strategic interests there? Yes we do and that is why we are there. Not to mention, most of these leaders are not the ruthless dictators we portray them to be. 
   If we stopped propping up dictators then we wouldn't even have the humanitarian issues that we see around the world. But the US put these men in power to ensure their economic interests, then when it comes to light that they are killing people, we run over there to ensure our economic interests and prop up another dictator. Its all pretty stupid.
   It is what Ron Paul refers to when he says "blowback". Chalmers Johnston wrote the book Blowback, which talks about the results of our actions in other countries. Ron Paul advocates this foreign policy. If you prop up dictators, support terrorist groups, overthrow governments, exploit populations and resources, there will be ramifications of your actions. This is the reason for 9/11 (maybe?), but definitely the hostage crisis of 1980, other terrorist attacks, the current hostage crisis in Egypt etc.. If we want to maintain imperialist policies we cannot be surprised when people fight back. Come on, what would we do if another country was doing the same to us? We would fight back and have.

Government Corruption

   Ron Paul has been consistent for over 30 years. He has been the one trying expose the government for its corruption. I think to address this, you only have to look at his voting record. He is not a corrupt politician, he does not get his contributions from Wall Street, Big Pharma, big banks or the military industrial complex like Obama or Mitt. I think this is one of the most obvious truths about Ron Paul, the man is not corrupt.
   He does not and will not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. Who doesn't vote that they should get a raise. He has never taken a government paid junket. He never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He didn't vote for the Patriot Act. He is against internet censorship. He voted against the Iraq war and opposes all other wars. 
   
Gay Marriage

   Ron Paul said that they "can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want". He doesn't believe it is up to the government to determine what is marriage and what isn't. He thinks the government should just get out of it. He believes that churches and private contractors should be able to decide for themselves who they will marry and who they won't. 
   He believes that every person is entitled to their own standards on marriage. He says that he has his own standards and should not impose those standards on to others. Also others should not be allowed to impose their standards on to him. I think this is a very noble stance, we are all so quick to tell others how they should be living. But with this like anything, Ron Paul believes that all people have an inherent amount of personal liberty, that people are free to choose how they live their lives. 
   He believes if it is to be decided by the government it should happen on a state level. Each individual state should determine what is best for their state. He expresses this in his support for the Defense of Marriage Act. It is often improperly stated that Ron Paul voted yes on this because he wants marriage to be defined as the union between one man and one women. If you listen to him talk about it he says first, that he did not vote on it but he did endorse it. He says he endorsed it because it gave state's protection from the federal government decisions on marriage.

  

No comments:

Post a Comment