 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Political positions of Ron Paul" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| ||
|---|---|---|
U.S. Representative from Texas | ||
Ron Paul is an American author, activist, and retired politician who served in theHouse of Representatives for 12 non-consecutive terms and ran forPresident of the United States on three occasions. His political views are generally described aslibertarian, but have also been labeledconservative.[1] Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[2] reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by theConstitution".[3] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. In one 2007 speech, he said he believes that "the proper role forgovernment in America is to providenational defense, acourt system for civil disputes, acriminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."[4]
A believer in atax basis favoring the federal vs local revenue structure more in line with pre-World War II, in January 2008, Paul released aneconomic revitalization plan[5] and namedPeter Schiff andDonald L. Luskin as economic advisors to his campaign.[6][7]National Journal labeled Paul's overall economic policies in 2010 as more conservative than 78% of the House and more liberal than 22% of the House (85% and 15%, respectively for 2009).[8] For 2008, his ratings were more conservative than 91% of the House and more liberal than 8% of the House (80% and 20%, respectively for 2007).[9] In 2006, as more conservative than 48% of the House and more liberal than 51% of the House.[10][11]
His warnings of an impendingfinancial crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 led experts like former Federal Reserve chairAlan Greenspan to reconsiderhard money policies such as those of Paul.[12][citation needed]
Paul believes the size of thefederal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are itsConstitutionally authorized functions, he regularly voted against almost all proposals for newgovernment spending, initiatives, ortaxes,[13] in many cases making him in a minority of members of the house by doing so. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[14] voting to oppose a House measure to create aNational Archives exhibit onslavery andReconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.
Paul advocates substantially reducing the federal government's role in local affairs, individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domesticstates; he saysRepublicans have lost their commitment tolimited government and have become the party ofbig government. In the2012 Republican Presidential Primary, Paul cited PresidentDwight Eisenhower's farewell address warnings about the growing presence and strength of the "military-industrial complex".[15] His 2012 "Plan to Restore America"[16] would eliminate five Cabinet-level departments:Energy,HUD,Commerce,Interior, andEducation. He has called for elimination of other federal agencies such as theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[17] and theInternal Revenue Service,[18] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies". Paul would severely reduce the role of theCentral Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions tointelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble".[19] He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."[20]
Paul calls for the elimination of theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is tasked with coordinating preparedness and relief for natural disasters. He regards the argument for FEMA as "symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone ... When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps."[21] He complains that FEMA is a mismanaged and nearly-bankrupt bureaucracy, open to corruption.[22][23][24] He also argues that the socialized insurance concept which underlies FEMA is deeply flawed, encouraging risk-taking – such as building beachfront homes in hurricane-prone coastal areas – that would be too expensive to consider if the sole source of disaster insurance were private-sector insurance purchased in the free market.[22][23][24] In his view,disaster response management should be coordinated at the state and local level, without any federal involvement, and should be entirelyvoluntary and based on charitable goodwill.[21][22][24] AsHurricane Irene bore down on the country's coast in August 2011, Paul said, "I live on the Gulf Coast. We put up with hurricanes all the time ... In 1900, before FEMA, the local people rebuilt the city, built a seawall, and they survived without FEMA ..."[25]
In a speech on June 25, 2003, criticizing givingPrime Minister of the United KingdomTony Blair aCongressional Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, "These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons—as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awardingPresident Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals."[26]Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor forcartoonistCharles Schulz, but also noted, "When he was criticized for voting against the [Parks] medal, he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'"[27] In February 2009, he joined with Democratic congressmanHarry Mitchell of Arizona to call for an end to automatic Congressional pay increases, through a proposed amendment to the economic stimulus package.[28]
There are criticisms[29][30] which contend that Paul's position is disingenuous because he often requestsearmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes. For example, during 2007, he requested about $400 million in earmarks in bills he voted against.[31] A spokesman in theFox News article says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public—and I have to presume it's not by accident." One group supportingfiscal conservatism[29] finds Paul's actions with earmarks to be contradictory and cites his 2003 speech regarding the award of a Congressional Gold Medal, at which time the Congressman declared, "I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution;"[26] however, Paul himself has inserted appropriations for projects such as the renovation of a movie theater and subsidies for the shrimp industry, whereas reportedly, "neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function".[30] The Congressman has responded to criticism about earmarks by providing an explanation in his weekly column. Paul says, "In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats."[32]
In October 2011, Paul released a federal budget proposal for 2013, entitled the "Plan to Restore America".[33][34][35] The plan calls for cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, along with other measures which Paul says would balance the federal budget within 3 years. To achieve these goals, the plan would seek:
Spending cuts:
Revenue changes:
Other economic and regulatory measures:
Social Security andMedicare commitments to older workers and retirees would be honored, while workers younger than 25 would be given the option to opt out of participating in these programs. TheVeterans Administration would be the only agency whose funds would be maintained at current levels of growth. Federal-state social welfare programs like Medicaid would be shifted from the mandatory section of the budget to the discretionary section, so that Congress would need to approve funding allocations each year.[36]
The president's salary would be cut from $400,000 to approximately $39,000 per year (the median personal income of the American worker), and congressional pay and perks would be slashed.
Paul has stressed that certain essential responsibilities currently performed by agencies that he proposes to eliminate would be assumed by remaining agencies, or in the case of aviation management (FAA and TSA), would be transferred to the private sector.[37]
Although Paul has often said that his ultimate goal is to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and eliminate the income tax, the Plan to Restore America does not address that specific goal.
Following the unveiling of the plan, critics were quick to remark on the negative consequences for the economy that budget changes of the magnitude being proposed could have in the short term.Kevin Hassett, economic policy director of theAmerican Enterprise Institute and chief economic adviser to John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, praised Paul's aim of reducing the size of government but worried that, "At the scale he's talking about, it's unlikely you could have an immediate reduction in government without hurtling the economy into recession."[38] EconomistDean Baker, of theCenter for Economic and Policy Research, said that "This is almost having the economy fall off a cliff."[38]
Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!"[39] He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.[18] He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose adirectincome tax and supports the repeal of theSixteenth Amendment.[40] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded throughexcise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionisttariffs.[17] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10% at 19:23 of that speech.[41] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10% income tax.
Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[42] Paul has also been an advocate ofemployee-owned corporations (such as employee stock ownership plans).[43] In 1999, he co-sponsored The Employee Ownership Act of 1999, which would have created a new type of corporation (the employee-owned-and-controlled corporation) that would have been exempt from most federal income taxes.
Paul's position on taxes has led to support for him from theNational Taxpayers Union,[44] and theNational Federation of Independent Business.[45]
Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget theinflation tax."[46][47] In other statements, he has permitted consideration of anational sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[48]
In the words of theNew York Times, Paul is "not a fan" of theFederal Reserve.[49] In his own words, Paul advocates that we should "End the Fed". Paul's opposition to the Fed is supported by theAustrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation.[50] In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads tobooms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via acentral bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[51] He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[52] ofmonetary inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[53]
Paul adheres toAustrian School economics andlibertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposingfiat currency and the monetary inflation.[54] He views monetary inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money,[55] observing that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voicedconcern over the dominance of the currentbanking system and called for the return to acommodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction ofhard currency, including both gold and silver.[56] Acommodity standard bindscurrency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.
He condemns the role of the Federal Reserve and the national debt in creating monetary inflation.[57][58] The minority report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role byArticle One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, andSection Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to makeanything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "restore a definition for the term 'dollar'. We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[59] On multiple occasions in congressional hearings he has sharply challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve,Alan Greenspan andBen Bernanke.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[60] He has repeatedly introduced theFederal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[61] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paperfiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could belegal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[62]
Paul supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets anddigital gold currencies.[63] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[64] to compete on a level playing field withFederal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to usesound money or to continue using fiat money.[65][66][67] Paul believes this would restrain monetary and price inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through monetary inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes".[68]
He suggests that current efforts to sustaindollar hegemony, especially since the collapse of theBretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade inPetroeuro instead ofPetrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war in Iraq anddiplomatic tensions with Iran.[69][70]
In an interview with economic analyst and commentatorNeil Cavuto onFox News Channel, June 26, 2007, in speaking ofincome taxresistance, Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage innonviolent resistance when they believe a law is unjust, bringing up the names ofMartin Luther King Jr.,Lysander Spooner, andMahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peacefulcivil disobedience; but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment.[71][72] He said that current income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they must then prove they are innocent, and he believes this aspect of tax law is unfair. However, he said that he prefers to work for improved tax laws by getting elected to Congress and trying to change the laws themselves rather than simply not paying the tax.[citation needed]
Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue ofSocial Security.[73] Paul considers Social Security unconstitutional,[74] and he has sought for many years for the program to be phased out.[75][76] He says that the Social Security system, which he has called "a giant Ponzi scheme,"[77] is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[78] Paul's 2013 budget proposal would guarantee to uphold Social Security commitments to older workers while allowing Americans under 25 to opt out of participating in the program.[33][79]
Paul endorsesdefederalization of the health care system. Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process.[80]
Paul was one of only eight members of the entire Congress who voted to block implementation of theNational Do Not Call Registry act, which prohibits telemarketers from telephoning those who have opted out of receiving such advertising.[81][82] He argued that "legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our lives," and that "The fact that the privately run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own 'do-not-call' list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers."[83]
Paul was one of three members of Congress that voted against theSarbanes–Oxley Act: it "imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry [that] are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges".[84] The Sarbanes–Oxley law was drafted in response to accounting scandals, such as with Enron Corporation.
In an interview onThe Daily Show withJon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly onfirst class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[85]
Paul argued against the$700 billion bailout proposal to purchase toxic debt during the2008 financial crisis. His vote was among the majority of "nay" votes cast to defeat the initial measure in theU.S. House of Representatives.[86] The House passed a "sweetened" version of the bill, against which Paul voted a second time, later in the week.[87]
Paul believes thatprayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.[88][89] He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state", instead seeing the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". He views the latter as specific government endorsement of one particular religion, and does not see it as a mandate to ban all policies that would benefit religion in general. He argues that churches give people a moral base that government cannot provide. He views churches as more effective and more established providers of social welfare than the government. He also argues this leads to a more orderly people who have less need for the government to actively seek to control them. He opposes perceived efforts to force religion out of the public sphere.[90]
In 2005, Paul introduced theWe the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[91] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law.[citation needed]
Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to participate in individual or group prayer in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.[92]
In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States.[93] In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.[94] He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power.[95]
He believes the Internet should be free from government regulation andtaxation, and is opposed toInternet gambling restrictions andnetwork neutrality legislation.[96]
He was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against an anti-spam email bill in 2000,[97] and one of only 5 members of the entire Congress to vote against a subsequent anti-spam email bill in 2003.[98]
Paul voted against a provision in an act[99] that would have legally protected net neutrality.
Paul has been criticized byCNET for voting against legislation to help catchonline child predators. Paul argues that parents should have the responsibility to protect their own children from such actions.[100]
Paul was one of two representatives to vote against theSecuring Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007,[101] which states that anyone offering anopen Wi-Fi Internet connection to the public, who "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" in relation to illegal visual media such aschild pornography transferred over that connection, must register a report of their knowledge to theNational Center for Missing and Exploited Children.[102]
Paul opposes federal attempts to regulate campaign spending and speech intended to influence elections. Following the passage of theMcCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, he wrote, "First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency."[103]
In 2002, he also joined with others to sue theFederal Election Commission over provisions of the McCain-Feingold law, arguing for his part that it was a violation of his First Amendment rights for the government to subject him, as a federal elected official seeking re-election, to more stringent campaign requirements, including limitations on the financial contributions he could receive from individual donors, than were placed on news media corporations that were taking positions on public policy issues relevant to campaigns.[104]
Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling inCitizens United, in 2010 Paul said, "You should never restrict lobbying because the Constitution is rather clear about the people being allowed to petition Congress, and whether you're an individual or you belong to a [special interest group] ... you should be allowed to do that."[105] He argues that corporations should be able to spend their money in any way that they want.[105] He also opposes taxpayer-funded public campaign financing.[106]
Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."[106]
At a campaign rally, Paul said that whistleblowers are "the ones who need immunity." Alluding toDaniel Ellsberg andChelsea Manning, Paul said, "So if we have an American citizen and is willing to take the consequences and practice civil disobedience and say this is what our government's doing, should he be locked up and in prison, or should we see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what's going on in government."[109] However, Paul voted against the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010.[110]
Paul has been a lead sponsor of legislation in Congress attempting to maintain individualSecond Amendment rights.[111] He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.
In the first chapter of his book,Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's anautomatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[112] Paul also argues that weapons bans only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, not dangerous criminals.[113] He sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.[114] He supports the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons if they are legally owned.[115]
Paul believes that juries deserve the status oftribunals, and that jurors have the right tojudge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as theMagna Carta. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this principle is also stated inThomas Paine'sRights of Man,Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief JusticeJohn Jay, and writings ofThomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[116]
In the first Republican debate (2007) in California, Paul stated that he would never violatehabeas corpus,[117] through which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in theAmerican Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.[118]
Paul broke with his party by voting against thePATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment.[119] He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse ofexecutive authority during theIraq War to override Constitutional rights.[120]
Paul voted against theREAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has beenchallenged as violating the Constitutionalseparation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties.[121][122] Enforcement of the Act was postponed until 2011.[123]
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by theNational Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.[124] He has signed theAmerican Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping and to renounce autonomous presidentialsigning statements, which rely onunitary executive theory.[118] In December 2007, he stated his opposition to theUS House Resolution 1955, arguing that it "focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us againstviolent radicalization."[125]
Paul is opposed to reintroducingthe draft.[citation needed] In 2002 he authored and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union.[126] In the110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would endSelective Service registration.[127]
Paul opposeseminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches". He also opposes regulatory taking.[128]
In 1997, Paul voted to endaffirmative action in college admissions.[129][130] Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity.
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-marketcapitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
— Ron Paul[131]
He has called the U.S. Census Bureau'sAmerican Community Survey "both ludicrous and insulting", arguing that the information demanded is simply none of the government's business.[132]
In his 1987 book,Freedom Under Siege, Paul expressed the view that those who experience sexual harassment in the workforce should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs. He further argued that governmental oversight is warranted only where victims are physically forced into sexual actions.[citation needed]
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.[133]
On the specific issue ofLGBT rights, Paul stated that, "You have to remember, rights don't come in groups we shouldn't have 'gay rights'; rights come as individuals, and we wouldn't have this major debate going on. It would be behavior that would count, not what person belongs to what group."
In the2004 and2008 House of Representatives election, he received the endorsement of theLog Cabin Republicans for reelection.[134][135]
In a September 2007 Republican primary presidential debate, Paul answered yes to the question of whether he would veto theEmployment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation by employers with at least 15 employees.[136] This is consistent with his views of opposing anyprivate sector anti-discrimination laws and his belief infreedom of association.
In 2007, Paul stated his opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which would expand the1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and that the reason for opposing it was he believed all hate crime laws violate theFirst Amendment andTenth Amendment, although stated that hate crime legislation should be left up to individual states to decide.[137]
In 2009, Paul voted against theLocal Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[138]
In 1999, Paul voted for an amendment to HR 2587, the District Of Columbia Appropriations Act, which would have banned adoption by same-sex couples and other couples who lacked a marital or familial relationship in Washington, D.C.[139] The amendment failed, 215–213.[140]
Asked his opinion onsame-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul expressed his support formarriage privatization by replying, "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament." In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California'sProposition 8, he said, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."[141]
Previously, in a 2007 interview, Paul had said that he supports the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[142] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[143] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[144][145] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[144]
Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[146] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for theDefense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.
He has opposed theFederal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because he worries that with its passage "liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."[146]
Paul has been a cosponsor of theMarriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who "believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage" to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures.[146]
In 2005, Paul introduced theWe the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[91] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularlysame-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
In February 2011,Attorney GeneralEric Holder announced that the Obama administration'sJustice Department had determined that a key provision of theDefense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court.[147] Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress' constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under theFull Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."[148][149]
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:
I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.[145]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[144]
Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[150] He subsequently voted for theDon't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court'sLawrence v. Texas decision, in whichsodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under theFourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to theLew Rockwell website, he derisively characterized sodomy laws as "ridiculous", but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Paul said:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[151]
Paul's positions on civil liberties are often based onstates' rights, certain rights and political powers that U.S. states possess in relation to the federal government. He cites theTenth Amendment, "States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution."[152] For instance, the lack of federal murder statutes makes murder a state and local offense.
Paul calls himself "stronglypro-life"[153] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[154] In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced theSanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception at the Federal level.[155] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[156][157] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, "It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket."[158] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on theFox News talk showHannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians supportnon-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes is alive, human, and in possession of legal rights.[159]
Paul has said that theNinth andTenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[160] However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000[161] and 2003.[162]
In addition to defining human life to begin atconception at the Federal level, Paul'sSanctity of Life Act would remove challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[155] In 2005, Paul also introduced theWe the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion[91] or any sex act. In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[163]
In order to "offset the effects ofRoe v. Wade", Paul voted in favor of the federalPartial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[164] He once said, "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction."[165]
In May 2012, Paul was one of only seven Republicans to vote against a bill which, if passed, would have made performing or pressuring a woman into having asex-selective abortion, or transporting a woman into the country or across state lines for the purpose of undergoing such an abortion, a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.[166][167] The bill would also have subjected nurses and other healthcare workers to fines and possible imprisonment for failing to report suspected violations of the law.[167] Paul explained that although he found the very thought of sex-selective abortions revolting, he could not support the measure because it would be unconstitutional and would create "yet another set of federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting."[168] He urged advocates of abortion bans to seek instead to repealRoe v. Wade and allow abortion regulation to be handled at the state level.
Paul says that government, especially at the federal level, should not be involved in medical matters, includingcontraception.[169]He has proposed legislation to block federal funding of anyfamily planning activity, which would include contraception;[170][171][172] and in July 2011, when asked how he would work as president to provide contraceptive services for Americans who have no health insurance, he vowed to block all government payments for contraception: "Whether it's buying a loaf of bread or getting abirth control pill, in a free country, that's your responsibility."[173]
Paul has asserted that aright to privacy in theFourth Amendment to the Constitution protects the use of contraceptives[174][175] and that theInterstate Commerce Clause protects the sale of contraceptives.[174]
However, legislation which Paul has repeatedly introduced into Congress [see theWe the People Act] has been criticized for potentially freeing states to ban the prescription or use of contraception, by stripping the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on the constitutionality of such bans.[176]
As a firm believer that human life begins the moment an egg is fertilized,[175] and that from that moment has a right to life that government is charged with protecting,[177] Paul has also been challenged for simultaneously holding the apparently contradictory position of supporting access toemergency contraception, such as the morning-after pill, in cases of "honest rape."[178][179] He wrote, inLiberty Defined, published in 2011, "Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice."[180]
Paul supportsstem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his authoring theCures Can Be Found Act of 2007 (H.R. 457; H.R. 3444 in 2005), a bill "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credits against income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood". However, Paul believes the debate over the embryonic category of stem-cell research is another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction.
Paul joined with conservative colleagues in voting "no" on HR 2560, the Democrats' version of a federal ban onhuman cloning.[181] The Bush White House had opposed HR 2560, saying "The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life."[182]
Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[183]
In September 2007, he elaborated:
You know over the years, I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you're poor and you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there's been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.[184]
He believes that opposing capital punishment is consistent with being pro-life; in his book,Liberty Defined, stating "It's strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war."[184]
In August, 2013, Paul stated,
I believe that support for the death penalty is inconsistent with libertarianism and traditional conservatism. So I am pleased withConservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty's efforts to form a coalition of libertarians and conservatives to work to end capital punishment.[185]
Paul sought in the 1980s and 1990s to eventually abolish all public schools;[186][187][188][189] but by the 2008 presidential election campaign, he had adopted a more moderate stance.[190] Paul insists that "the federal government has absolutely no role in education" under the Constitution, "regardless of what the Supreme Court has claimed."[191][192] He argues that the best way to improve the quality of education while fighting rising costs, growing numbers of dropouts, and higher levels of violence and drug use among students is to reduce the reach of centralized government in the schools and return control over school curricula, funding, and administration back to parents and local communities.[191]
He has long opposed the idea of federally mandated testing being used to measure student performance against federally determined national education standards. He voted against national testing measures first proposed by theClinton administration;[192][193] and he similarly has never supported the federalNo Child Left Behind Act, which he voted against when it was proposed in 2001.[194]
Paul is a proponent of school choice, saying that private, parochial, and home schools provide a healthy counterweight to "the near monopoly control over indoctrination of young people"[191] of the public schools, which he considers "socialist";[195] and he notes that the nation's Founders themselves were largely home-schooled or taught in church-associated schools. In support of school choice and local control of education, he has introduced into every Congress since 1997 measures to provide families with educationtax credits.[196] HisFamily Education Freedom Act would give families a tax credit of up to $5,000 per student to pay for any educational expenses whether the student attends public, private, or parochial school, or ishome-schooled.[197] His Education Improvement Tax Cut Act would provide families with an additional tax credit of up to $5,000 for donations of cash or educational materials made to schools of their choice.[198] He has said of the latter proposal, "The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education."[199][200]
Although Paul supports the right of state and local school districts, under theTenth Amendment to the Constitution, to implementeducation voucher plans, he rejects federal government-controlled school voucher plans, preferring federal education tax credits instead. He regards federal voucher programs as a form of "taxpayer-funded welfare" in which money is taken from middle-class families to unfairly provide private-school educations to a particular group of children favored by politicians and bureaucrats.[199] He also worries that with federal school vouchers inevitably come further central government regulation and loss of local control over education. Private, religious schools, for instance, would feel pressured to conform to government dictates in order to become accredited by the Department of Education to qualify for participation in the voucher program. He points to how the federal government has used the threat of cutting off funding to dictate to universities which policies they must accept; he argues that the government would try to do the same with private schools.[199]
Paul asserts that access to "education is not a right." He opposes all federal government scholarships and government loans for higher education, but is supportive of the offering of financial aid by private organizations.[201]
In a March 2, 2011 interview, when asked whether the government should provide financial aid to a poor student with good grades who wants to further his education, Paul responded that no, the government should not because "nobody has a right to someone else's wealth. You have a right to your life and you have a right to your property but you don't have a – education isn't a right. Medical care isn't a right. These are things you have to earn." (He went on to explain that there were no government loans when he went to school, yet education costs were much lower and he was able to finance his medical school education by obtaining private loans through the medical school.)[201]
Paul's "Restore America" budget plan, which he laid out in October 2011,[36] calls for the immediate elimination of the Department of Education. CollegePell grants and other federal financial aid programs would be transferred to another branch of government during a transition period, following which all federal financial aid for education would be eliminated.[202][203]
Paul has long held that land owned by the federal government should be sold to private parties.[204] While campaigning in Nevada for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2011, Paul argued that land distribution in the states should follow the model of Texas, where, he said, private owners have developed all the natural resources.[205][206] In addition to closing the Department of the Interior, his "Restore America" budget plan proposes selling off at least $40 billion worth of public lands such asnational parks, and other federal assets, between 2013 and 2016.[33][207]
As afree-market environmentalist, Paul seespolluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity from prosecution or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights throughtort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.[208] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:
The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[209]
He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[210]
Paul says he opposes government assistance to private businesses intended to help shape research and investment decisions, including to promote alternative energy production and use. During a June 2011 presidential primary campaign debate, Paul said, "There shouldn't be any assistance to private enterprise. It's not morally correct, it's not legal, it's bad economics. It's not part of the Constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they'll decide how R&D works or where they invest their monies. But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment."[211] Similarly, in an October 2011 presidential primary campaign debate, he said, "The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy."[212]
However, in 2008 Paul urged theDepartment of Energy to approve a federal loan guarantee to help an energy company build two new nuclear reactors in South Texas. Asked to explain the apparent contradiction between his stated opposition to federal financial involvement in private-sector business decisions and his personal intervention in the case of the nuclear company, Paul's campaign issued a statement saying, "As a Congressman and as President, Dr. Paul will work to eliminate all federal intervention in the energy market. However, until that happens, he will do his best to ensure that the money Congress appropriates is spent in the best way possible."[212]
Paul objects to "the demand to recycle everything from paper to glass to plastic," saying that although recycling aluminum makes economic sense, "recycling for the most part consumes more energy than it saves."[213]
In an October 2007 interview, Paul held thatclimate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization", stating "I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus – those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic!"[214] He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than "government expenditures andspecial-interest politics".[214]In 2009, Ron Paul asserted "that the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."[215]
During the 2008 presidential campaign Paul said that he had been active in the Green Scissors campaign.[216] However, when asked by a different interviewer a few months later to discuss his Green Scissors involvement, Paul did not know what the interviewer was talking about.[214]
Paul says that he opposes and votes against subsidies for oil and gas companies. However, unlike many others in government, industry, and the newsmedia, Paul does not include tax credits or tax deductions in his definition of subsidies. He uses the term "subsidy" only in the very narrow sense of a direct grant of money from the government to a company.[217][218]
Paul voted on multiple occasions in 2007—2012 to block measures that would have eliminated or reduced tax breaks for oil and gas producers. For example, in January 2007, he voted against theEnergy Independence and Security Act, which supporters said would have rescinded $14 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas drillers.[219][220] In February 2008, he voted against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, which supporters said would have eliminated $18 billion in tax benefits for oil companies and substituted tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.[221][222] In May 2008, he voted against theEnergy Improvement and Extension Act, which supporters said contained provisions to cut tax breaks for oil companies and to expand tax breaks for alternative energies like solar and geothermal power, biodiesel fuels, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.[223][224] In July 2010, he voted against the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009, which would have removed federal caps on oil companies' liability for oil spills, and would have cut certain tax breaks for oil companies.[225][226][227] In February 2011, he voted against a measure to reinstate royalties assessed for oil drilled when oil prices are high.[228] In March, April, and May 2011, he voted against measures that would have allowed consideration of legislation to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and promote production and use of alternative energy sources.[229][230][231][232]
TheLeague of Conservation Voters gave Paul a pro-environment voting-record score of 6% for 2011, and 0% for 2009–2010.[239] (The League considers a perfect score of 100% a measure of strong support for environmental protection.)[240]Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), whose scorecards rate only Republican lawmakers, gave Paul a score of only 5% for 2010, and 2% for 2009–2010, on a 0 – 100% scale in which a perfect score of 100% is considered by REP to be a measure of strong support for environmental protection. Republicans for Environmental Protection rated Paul "Worst in the House" on the environment of all Republican representatives in the 111th Congress (2009–2010).[241]
Paul says that contrary to what most Americans believe[citation needed], access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market.[242][243][244] In his view, government has no business in the delivery of health care. When government becomes involved, he says, costs rise and quality of care falls.[245][246][247]
Paul calls for the eventual elimination ofMedicare (federally funded health care for the elderly and disabled) andMedicaid (health care for the poor, jointly funded by the federal and state governments),[248][249] and he has been a staunch opponent of theAffordable Care Act health insurance reform law that was enacted in 2010.[246][250][251] He says that federally funded healthcare is "unconstitutional" and that the costs of the programs are unsustainable and are bankrupting the government.[244][252][253]
Paul says that when he entered medical practice in the early 1960s, before the Medicare and Medicaid programs were established, the poor and the elderly were hospitalized at about the same rates as they have been under Medicare and Medicaid in the 2000s, and that they received good care. He says further that in those days, doctors and hospitals provided cut-rate or free care to people who did not have health insurance – "every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm" – and that this was possible because healthcare costs were much lower. At a church charity hospital where he worked in his early years of practice, "nobody was turned away" for lack of ability to pay.[243][245][253]
Paul claims that government meddling in health care delivery is to blame for healthcare costs having skyrocketed over the past few decades. He recalls that in the early 1960s, patients typically paid for basic medical services with cash, as there was almost no government payment for care, and as those Americans who had private insurance were typically only covered for hospitalization and emergency care.[243][253]In that setting, he says, providers almost always charged minimal fees for services in order to improve the chance of being paid. He argues that the emergence of government as a payer for healthcare services in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, along with government policies of the 1970s that led to the expansion of private insurance to cover routine medical services in addition to hospitalization and emergency care, and which required most employers to provide health insurance for their employees, interfered with the traditional physician-patient relationship. The incentive for healthcare providers and patients to keep costs as low as possible was lost. He says that now providers always charge the maximal fees for services, since the government or insurance company can be counted on to pay the bills.[245]
Paul additionally argues that government contributes to rising healthcare costs through yet other ways, such as through government regulations, one example being restrictions imposed by the Food and Drug Administration on the manufacture and sale of medications and dietary supplements, and through licensing of physicians and other healthcare practitioners, which Paul says interferes with market-based competition for healthcare services. He also criticizes the legal system's approach to the handling of medical malpractice claims, which he says needlessly inflates the cost of healthcare further still.[243][245][253][254][255]
Paul has long opposed government funding ofmedical research. Although he considers himself "pro-research,"[256] he believes that "all research in a free society should be done privately."
In the mid-1980s, when no effective medication was yet available for AIDS treatment, Paul spoke publicly against all federal funding for AIDS research.[257] He also wrote, in his bookFreedom Under Siege, published in 1987, "Victims of the disease AIDS argue ... for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don't have AIDS), demanding a cure ... The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Founding Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights."[258]
More recently, Paul has called federal funding for medical research unconstitutional and has complained that "neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don't want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind ..."[259]
He argues that the availability of federal research funds distorts "the natural market for scientific research" by inducing scientists to eschew pursuit of radical lines of potentially promising research that might not appeal to politicians and bureaucrats who hold influence over the allocation of grant monies. "Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds."[259] In his view, eliminating government sources of funds for medical research would probably improve the quality of research being performed.[259][260]
In 2003, Paul went against the majority of Republicans and voted to block implementation of theMedicare Part D program, which expanded Medicare to cover the costs of medications for the elderly and disabled, and which prohibited the government from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies to try to get lower prices for the covered medications.[261][262] In 2007, he again went against the majority of House Republicans when he voted with all of the Democrats in support of theMedicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which, if enacted, would have given the government the authority to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices with the manufacturers.[263] During the 2012 presidential primary campaign, Paul said that although he remains opposed to Medicare Part D, repealing it was not one of his immediate priorities.[264]
Paul voted in 2007 and 2009 against reauthorization and expansion of theChildren's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is a joint state-federal program to provide health insurance for children and pregnant women in low-income families who do not qualify for Medicaid.[265][266][267][268][269]
He has been a consistent advocate for offering tax credits for healthcare expenses. In each Congress since 2000 Paul has proposed bills that would provide families with tax credits of up to $500 for the healthcare expenses of each dependent family member, and up to $3000 for the care of each dependent with a disability or serious disease such as cancer.[270][271]
Since 2003, Paul has several times introduced into Congress proposals to provide tax credits for the cost of health insurance premiums, and to increase the allowable tax deduction for healthcare expenses (by removing the 7.5% deduction limit). He has also advocated expanding the tax benefits of health savings accounts.[272][273][274]
Paul was the only member of the entire Congress to vote against theGenetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2008, which prohibits health insurers and employers from discriminating against an individual on the basis of carrying a gene(s) that is associated with an increased risk for developing a disease.[275] His alternative proposal, offered in 2006, would have prohibited genetic-information-based discrimination by federal, state, and local governments or government contractors, but would also have allowed such discrimination by health insurers and other employers.[276]
Paul opposesthe federal law that requires physicians to treat all patients who go to emergency rooms seeking medical care regardless of the patient's ability to pay. He asserts that the law is unconstitutional: "The professional skills with which one earns a living are property. Therefore, the clear language of the Takings Clause of theFifth Amendment prevents Congress from mandating that physicians and hospitals bear the entire costs of providing health care to any group."[277] He has proposed measures that, if enacted, would shift the burden of paying for such care to the government, by providing physicians with tax credits for 100% of the cost of uncompensated care they provide under such laws, and hospitals with a 100% deduction.[278][279]
Paul opposes laws that require health insurance to coverpre-existing conditions. He argues that "once insurance companies are required by government to insure against preconditions, it's no longer insurance – it's a social welfare mandate and will result in bankrupting the insurance companies, or they will be bailed out by a government subsidy, further bankrupting the government. So far no one has mandated insurance companies sell fire insurance to a person whose house is on fire."[243]
During a primary debate in the 2012 presidential election campaign, Paul was asked who would pay for the medical care of a previously healthy 30-year-old man without medical insurance who suddenly falls seriously ill and requires six months of intensive medical care.[264] Paul said that "what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself." When asked specifically whether the man should just be left to die, Paul then replied that he should not be left to die, but should be able to rely on the kindness of neighbors, friends, churches, and charities, as would have occurred back when Paul worked in a church charity hospital early in his career, at a time when healthcare paid for by the government was not available.
Following the debate, Paul was criticized by some political commentators for his refusal to yield in his opposition to the2010 health insurance reform law ("Obamacare"), which prohibits insurers from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, when it was pointed out that Paul's 2008 presidential campaign chair and friend had contracted a sudden severe illness necessitating a prolonged hospital stay before dying. He had not had any medical insurance through his employer and had been unable to purchase insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Although he had been able to receive medical care he required over the course of his illness, when he died the bills for that care amounted to about $400,000. His friends, including Paul, were able to raise about $50,000, but that still left $350,000 to be passed to his estate — or left unpaid (and passed on to other consumers and taxpayers).[280][281][282][283]
Paul has proposed radical changes in the waymedical malpractice claims are handled.[243] Under bills he has introduced multiple times beginning in 2003, a patient planning pregnancy, surgery, or other major medical procedures or medical treatment would be able to buy "negative outcomes" insurance at very low cost. If the patient were to experience a negative outcome in association with the medical procedure or treatment, he or she would then seek compensation through bindingarbitration, rather than through a medical malpractice trial before a jury. Paul claims that "using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system," as well as physicians and hospitals, since their litigation costs, and malpractice insurance premiums, would be markedly reduced.[284][285][286]
Paul proposes that all government funding of medical care be eliminated (with the exception, perhaps, of care for veterans). His Plan to Restore America budget proposal would begin a phase out ofMedicare starting in 2013, when workers younger than 25 would be able to opt out of participating in the program.[33] He says that during the transition period, the commitments for coverage under Medicare that have already been made to older workers could be honored by cutting other government spending, such as by closing all US military bases overseas and ceasing to engage in foreign military "adventurism."
Paul proposes sharply reducing the government's regulation of medications and health supplements by reducing the role of, and ultimately eliminating, theFood and Drug Administration (FDA).[287] In a 2011 interview, Paul said, "Well, the FDA just serves the drug companies ... [and] they also prevent drugs from coming on the market [until] 10, 15 years later than other countries have it. So, yes, government just gets in the way on so many of those things."[287] He favors allowing FDA-approved prescription drugs to be imported from foreign countries and sold at a lower cost than the same drugs otherwise sell for in the US[254] – thereby allowing international markets to set drug prices in the US market – a practice that has been prohibited by the FDA. In the interest, as he sees it, of fighting for greater freedom of choice for consumers, he has also introduced bills that would significantly reduce the government's ability to prevent manufacturers or sellers of dietary supplements and certain other health products from making what government regulators believe to be false or misleading claims about the health effects of the products. He essentially feels that consumers should be able to buy whatever health aids they want from whomever they want, without the need for guidance by the government.[288]
Paul argues against the prevailing system of government licensure of physicians and other healthcare practitioners.[289] In a 2007 interview, Paul accused the medical profession of choosing to maintain a strict licensing system that permits only a small number of individuals to practice in order to be able to charge much higher fees.[247] He insisted that with a truly competitive marketplace for health services, a patient with a sore throat, for instance, would be able to be seen by a nurse more rapidly than by a medical doctor and treated by the nurse for only a fraction of the cost of what a medical doctor would charge. "Patients can sort this out. I mean, they're not going to go to the nurse if they need brain surgery. They can go there for a sore throat."[247] He believes that patients would be best served by healthcare practitioners operating under the rules of the free market in voluntary contractual arrangements. Paul feels that anyone who claims to be a healthcare practitioner (whether of allopathic, homeopathic, or naturopathic medicine) should be able to offer healthcare services, without interference from the "nanny state."[243]
Paul supports the legalization of cannabis formedical andrecreational purposes. Legislation that he has cosponsored includes theStates' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act[290] and thePersonal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008.[291] In 2011, Paul and RepresentativeBarney Frank introduced theEnding Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act to remove cannabis from theControlled Substances Act.[292][293]
Paul contends thatprohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending thewar on drugs.[294][295] "Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem: "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The U.S. Constitution does notenumerate ordelegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general.
Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."[296]
When asked about his position on implementing theTenth Amendment, Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically aboutDrug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They're unconstitutional", and went on to advocatestates' rights[297] and personal choice: "You're not beingcompassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who's suffering from cancer or AIDS ... People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."
Paul believes that theVeterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and that VA hospitals should instead be phased out. He believes that government should pay to treat veterans in private hospitals, arguing they will get better care more cost-effectively.[298]
Paul has also stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He also thinks that the talk aboutswine flu and getting vaccinated by the Federal Government is being blown out of proportion.[299]
Paul, was asked a hypothetical question at a Tea Party debate by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly requires intensive care for six months. Paul said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said. Paul mentioned he does not believe society should let the aforementioned hypothetical man die but emphasized that churches and communities – rather than governments – should take care of those in need.[300]
As a formerLibertarian Party candidate for President, Paul has been a proponent ofballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.
In 2003, he introduced H. R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created uniform ballot access laws forindependent andthird political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[301] In 2007 he reintroduced a similar version of the bill.
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[302] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[303] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is very different from when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[304] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, which Paul objected to on the grounds that one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and that as it currently stands it often forces large expenditures to prepare materials that are in some cases never used.[305]
While Paul approved the celebration of the country's progress in race relations, he said that the forced integration dictated by theCivil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions and failed to achieve its stated goals. He said the Act violated the Constitution, citing abuse of the interstate commerce clause. He said the Act diminished property rights and the right to form contracts as one pleases. He said the Act led to racial hiring quotas and that these have not contributed to racial harmony, but rather encouraged racial balkanization.[303]
Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of theSeventeenth Amendment,[306] which replaced state election of U.S. Senators with popular election. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done underArticle One, Section 3. Direct popular representation would be retained in the U.S. House of Representatives. Paul believes that increased representation of state interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and federal government.[307]
In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish theelectoral college, stating that "Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard againstmajority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress."[308]
Paul's views are generally attributed to those ofnon-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorialself-defense.[citation needed] Paul is quoted as stating "America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations", while advocating "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[309]Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul's foreign policy views in the early 1980s, stating "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a formerAir Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."[310]Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing thePentagon Papers, has said of Paul in 2010: "On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well."[311] Ohio Democratic CongressmanDennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul "agree tremendously on international policy".[312]
Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistentnon-intervention,[313][314] opposingwars of aggression andentangling alliances with other nations.[315]
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases inKorea,Japan, andEurope, among others.[78] He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending what he deems massive, unaccountableforeign aid.[316] TheNational Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2010 as more conservative than 60% of the House and moreliberal than 40% of the House (53% and 47%, respectively, in 2009).[8] For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).[9]
In an October 11, 2007 interview withThe Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today ... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[317]
Paul voted with the majority for the originalAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[318] considering that it was a response to theSeptember 11 attacks. But over the years even though he initially supported theWar in Afghanistan, Paul also advocates withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because he believes a decade of war in Afghanistan is enough.
Paul also stated:
There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture ... This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods ... Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.
Paul was the only2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against theIraq War Resolution in 2002,[319][320] and he opposed the U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using thewar on terror to curtailcivil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after theSeptember 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists,Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.[321] In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must bedeclared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory; he added, "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[322] However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevantUnited Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".[323] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add asunset clause to the original authorization.[324]
During the 2003 invasion, Paul found himself "annoyed by theevangelicals being so supportive ofpre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that [he] was taught as a Christian".[56] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded hisconservative andlibertarian Republican support base[325] to include liberal[326]Democrats.[235]
Paul argues that if the United States cares aboutIsrael, the U.S. should allow them to be more independent. He states that "the surroundingArab nations get seven times as much aid as Israel gets and also a recent study came out that showed that for every dollar you give to an Arab nation it prompts Israel to spend 1.4 dollars."[327] Paul would not stop Israel from defending its interests in any way it saw fit.[327]
Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more likecorporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war.[328]
We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington. That is a bad deal for Israel, as sovereign nations must determine on their own what is a most appropriate national defense. On foreign policy as well, the U.S. steps in to prevent Israel from engaging in dialogue with nations of which the U.S. administration disapproves.[328]
Paul was in Congress when Israelbombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike theUnited Nations and theReagan administration—defended its right to do so. He saysSaudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel's. He votes against support for Israel due to his opposition to foreign aid by the US in general.[329]
In an interview with Don Imus, Paul was asked for his view of the2010 Gaza flotilla raid. He responded, "... I think it's absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, that are almost like in concentration camps, and saying yes we endorse this whole concept that we can't allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way ..."Imus remarked, "They are allowing humanitarian aid in ... what they're concerned about is weapons falling into the hands of Hamas ..." Paul responded, "Well, they're an elected government, I mean Hamas; We have thousands of our soldiers dying to say that we want elections and we want democracy, so we finally get one in Palestine, and they elect Hamas, and then all of a sudden whoa you've elected the wrong people ..."[330]
At the ABC News Iowa Republican Debate, Paul was asked if he agreed withNewt Gingrich's "characterization, that the Palestinians are an invented people." Paul responded, "No, I don't agree with that. And that's just stirring up trouble. And I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. I don't think we should get in the middle of these squabbles. But to go out of our way and say that so-and-so is not a real people? Technically and historically, yes-- you know, under theOttoman Empire, the Palestinians didn't have a state, but neither did Israel have a state then too."[331]
Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching withIran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle".[332] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which theIraq War began,[333] and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.[334] In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul andDennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks theUnited Nations to charge Iranian presidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.[335] Paul was one of 12 representatives to vote against the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act,[336] and said, "Sanctions are literally an act of war."[337]
In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467,[338] Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act". Paul argued the proposal was unrelated to "the US national interest" or "the Constitutional function of [United States] military forces".[339] The resolution passed unanimously, with Paul among 12 non-voters.[340]
Paul was the only "no" vote onH.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed House 418–1–13, not reported out of committee in the Senate), which would "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan [and] prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies".[341] Among the bill's findings wereColin Powell's Senate testimony that the Sudanese government and theJanjaweed militias it supported were responsible for genocide, and the observation that many Americans inadvertently invest in foreign companies which disproportionately benefit the Sudanese regime in Khartoum.[342] Paul cited the past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from businesses connected to the Sudanese government.[343]
Paul advocates ending theUnited States embargo against Cuba, arguing, "Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel, not our government ... Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out."[344]
Following theOrange Revolution protests in 2004, which led toViktor Yanukovych's ouster from government, Paul accused theNational Endowment for Democracy of having staged a coup in Ukraine.[345][346] Paul supported the2014 Crimean status referendum,[347] and has objected tosanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War andforeign aid to Ukraine.[348]
Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override Americansovereignty, such as theUnited Nations, theInternational Criminal Court, theLaw of the Sea Treaty,NATO, and theSecurity and Prosperity Partnership of North America.[314][349][350]
Paul states that theWTO is a barrier to free trade and that the economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument.
Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced ... By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a "deal".[citation needed]
Paul introduced HJR 90 to withdraw membership from the World Trade Organization.[351]
Paul is a proponent offree trade and rejectsprotectionism, advocating "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[352] He opposes manyfree trade agreements (FTAs), like theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[353] stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade"[354] and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[355]
He voted against theCentral American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[353] He has also voted against theAustralia–U.S. FTA, theU.S.–Singapore FTA, and theU.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from theWTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.[355]
Paul also has a 57% voting record in favor of free trade in the House of Representatives, according to theCato Institute.[356]
Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[333] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[357] During theCold War, he supported Reagan'sStrategic Defense Initiative,[358] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine ofmutual assured destruction with strategic defense.
Paul favors legalimmigration to the United States—today, approximately 1 million people per year[359]—and opposes illegal immigration.[360][361]
Paul believesillegal aliens take a toll onwelfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[362]
Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[363] He has advocated for a "coherent immigration policy", and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[364] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[365] Paul voted for theSecure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty, not because he supported the construction of a border fence.[366]
Paul believes thatmandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.[366]
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automaticbirthright citizenship.[367] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to reviseFourteenth Amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship",[368] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.[369]
Calling theSeptember 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized byarticle I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[321] Paul reintroduced this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[370] He voted with the majority for the originalAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[318] In April 2009, following theMaersk Alabama hijacking, he proposed issuing letters of marque to combat the problem ofpiracy in Somalia.[371]
Following the9/11 attacks, Paul "opposed thefederalization of airport security, the creation of theDHS and increasedpolice state measures, but did propose legislation that would allow airline pilots to begin carrying firearms in cockpits", on the rationale that "it's much harder for terrorists to commandeer an airplane when pilots can fight back."[372]
Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why theFederal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[373] He also advocates investigating why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[373][374] He has called the9/11 Commission Report a "charade", saying "spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9–11 Commission recommends."[375]
Paul does not believe theWorld Trade Center andPentagon attacks were agovernment conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a9/11 "truther", arguing that the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.[373][374] He believes the9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness—not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war ... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[373][376] He does not think the government would have staged such an attack.[377] Paul has stated that he is concerned that someone might create a "contrivedGulf of Tonkin-type incident" to justify the invasion of Iran or suspend the democratic process, adding, "Let's hope I'm wrong about this one."[334]
In May 2011, Paul said he would not have orderedthe raid that killedOsama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary".[378] Instead he would have done it differently, stating that America should have worked with the Pakistani government who in the past had arrestedKhalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who were then tried in court. Paul also stated that other alternatives were viable that were less of a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty.[citation needed]
On September 30, 2011, Paul said "If the American people accept this blindly and casually – have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think that's sad."[379]
Paul has sponsored many bills in the United States House of Representatives, such as those that would abolish theincome tax[380] or theFederal Reserve. Except where indicated, all named bills below were originally authored and sponsored by Paul.
The following table contains links to theCongressional Record hosted by theLibrary of Congress. All the specifics and actions done for each individual bill Paul has either sponsored or cosponsored can be reviewed further there. "Original bills" and "Original amendments" indicate instances where Paul had pledged to endorse the legislation at the time the bill was initially introduced rather than at some other phase of the legislative process of the bill.
Note: The numbers for the current session of Congress may no longer represent the actual numbers as they are still actively in session.
The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 (ASRA) isU.S. House of Representativesbill 1146 (H.R. 1146) of the first session of the111th Congress, "to end membership of the United States in the United Nations" (U.N.). The bill was first introduced on March 20, 1997, asH.R. 1146, to the first session of the105th Congress (the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1997); it was a legislative effort to remove the U.S. from the UN.[384] Paul reintroduced the bill on February 24, 2009[385]
The bill was authored by Ron Paul to effect U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It would repeal various laws pertaining to the U.N., terminate authorization for funds to be spent on the U.N., terminate U.N. presence on U.S. property, and withdrawdiplomatic immunity for U.N. employees.[386] It would provide up to two years for the U.S. to withdraw.[387] TheYale Law Journal cited the Act as proof that "the United States’s complaints against the United Nations have intensified."[388]
In a letter toMajority LeaderTom DeLay of April 16, 2003, and in a speech to Congress on April 29, Paul requested the repeatedly-bottlenecked issue be voted on, because "Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty."[389]
It had 54 supporters in the House in its first year.[384] It was referred to theHouse Committee onForeign Affairs and was never released for a vote.
National Review cited the ASRA as an example of grassroots effort "to educate the American people about the efforts of foreign tyrants to disarm them".[390]
On its front page, theVictoria, Texas,Advocate, a newspaper in Paul's district, expressed pride for the Act in the face of what it called several undeclared "United Nations wars".[391]
Henry Lamb considers it "the only way to be sure that the U.S. will win the showdown at the U.N. Corral", considering that without withdrawal, U.N. claims of diplomatic immunity and Congressional subpoena power threaten each other, as in theoil-for-food scandal.[387]
Critics say it "undoubtedly paints a bull's-eye across the entire country".[392]Tim Wirth, president of theUnited Nations Foundation, finds the bill contrary to United States interests: "This piece of legislation has been brought by Ron Paul every year over the last 20 [sic] years and it never goes anywhere."
A policy review of U.S.–Canada relations describes the Act as reflecting "extreme views", but indicative of a majority pro-sovereignty view in Congress, expressed in tighter border and immigration policy, unilateralism in foreign policy, and increased national security focus.[393]
The 2002Republican Party of Texas platform explicitly urged passage of the ASRA; withdrawal from the U.N. had been on the platform at least since 1998.[394]
Both houses of theArizona legislature introduced legislation petitioning Congress to pass the ASRA (HCM 2009 in 2004, SCM 1002 in 2006);[395][396] in 2007 similar legislation passed theArizona Senate (SCM 1002 in 2007), but with the focus changed from the ASRA toVirgil Goode's Congressional resolution not to engage in aNAFTA Superhighway or aNorth American Union (H.Con.Res. 487, nowH.Con.Res. 40).[397][398]
TheJohn Birch Society recognizes the ASRA as a reflection of its efforts since 1962 toward U.S. withdrawal.[384]
In 2000,Tom DeWeese's American Policy Center said it delivered to Congress more than 300,000 signatures from petitions in support of the Act.[399]
An organization calling itself the Liberty Committee also organized a nationwide petition drive askingMajority LeaderTom DeLay to schedule the bill for a vote.[400]
Significant advocacy for the Transparency Act has ensued. At a rally inBloomington, Indiana, outside the office ofBaron Hill (D-IN), aYoung Americans for Liberty petition encouraging Hill to vote in favor of the bill circulated among a crowd of 200; Hill did not comment to YAL, according to member Meredith Milton.[412] The advocacy groupCampaign for Liberty (CFL) encourages members to petition representatives to cosponsor the Transparency Act,[413] sponsoring hundreds of pro-bill rallies in cities likeBoone, North Carolina;[414]Peoria,Illinois;[415]Philadelphia,Pennsylvania;[416] and (CFL regional conference)St. Louis,Missouri.[417]
Glenn Beck ofFox News mentioned the Transparency Act while discussing ways for the average person to remind Congress, "Hey, you work for me".[418] During Beck's April 15 show from his rally atthe Alamo inSan Antonio,Pat Gray interviewed a local supporter of the Transparency Act, drawing cheers from the crowd.[419] A blogger on TheMotley Fool website called the bill "the first attempt at a true audit of the Federal Reserve since its inception in 1913" and affirmed Paul's Congressionally published column describing his legislation.[420][421]
Because it forbids federal courts from adjudicating "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion",secularists have criticized the bill as removing federal remedy for allegations of state violation of religious freedom.[429] As an example of potential for violation,[citation needed]Article 1 of theTexas Constitution provides the (currently unenforced) requirement that office-holders "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". TheDemocratic Underground online community published the holding that the bill would give state sexual-orientation laws special immunity.[430]
Cosponsors includeRoscoe Bartlett,Tom Tancredo,Sam Johnson,Walter B. Jones Jr.,John Sullivan,John Duncan Jr., andTed Poe.
.jpg)
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)He went on to write that sanctions imposed on Russia gives the government an excuse to raise gas prices, even while it doesn't ban Russian oil imports. Paul also suggested that the Putin-ordered invasion gave the Federal Reserve an opportunity to postpone what he said were "planned interest rate increases." "The Ukraine crisis also provides an excuse for Congress to do what Congress does best: increase federal spending. President Biden has requested Congress provide an additional $10 billion in emergency military aid to Ukraine," the former congressman wrote. "Congress will likely quickly approve the President's request. This will not likely be the last time Congress rushes billions of 'emergency' money to Ukraine." He theorized another consequence of the invasion could be lobbyists for military industries seeking to expand the country's military budget, in which Congress would likely agree to, he said.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Parents and individuals who provide for a child's education should be allowed to keep some of their tax money that would otherwise have been used to fund public education.
| Legislation | | |
|---|---|---|
| Books | ||
| Organizations | ||
| Related | ||
