Ron Paul's platform

I moused over to Ron Paul’s campaign website. He says some things I agree with. But to save time I’m going to comment on his problematic or wrongheaded positions.

Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

 

Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

i) This sidesteps the question of judicial review. As long as SCOTUS reserves the right to strike down acts of Congress, and as long as the executive and legislative branches of the Federal gov’t defer to judicial review, it doesn’t matter what Congress says. The Sanctity of life Act would be subject to judicial review. A law removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction would itself be subject to judicial review.

So unless Paul is prepared to challenge the principle of judicial review itself, his strategy can always be nullified by SCOTUS.

ii) While we’re on the subject of Roe v. Wade, it’s often said that if that ruling were overturned, the issue would devolve to the states. Each state would formulate its own policy on abortion.

However, that doesn’t follow. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then, in principle, Congress would be free to establish a national ban on abortion, or abortion in most cases. Does Ron Paul support that? Or does his commitment to states rights trump that?

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

What if state agencies fund Planned parenthood? Would Paul’s commitment to states rights allow that?

Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.

 

Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

That sounds nice in theory. But in practice, there are frequently tradeoffs between Congress and the Executive, especially in times of divided gov’t. Congress doesn’t usually pass “clean” bills.

Suppose Congress gives Pres. Paul what he wants on abortion in exchange for what Congress wants on pork-barrel spending, which would involve deficient spending? Here’s a common tactic: a bill has something in it that the president wants. A lawmaker will then tack on something the lawmaker wants, but the president does not.

Would Pres. Paul rather get nothing by vetoing every bill that has something in it he doesn’t like, or will he settle for getting what he wants at the cost of accepting something he dislikes?

Ending the corporate stranglehold on the White House.

I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Is that code language for corporate lobbyists? Shouldn’t a libertarian take a laissez-faire attitude towards corporate lobbyist?

Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.

A president can’t unilaterally repeal the income tax. Wouldn’t that require a Constitutional Amendment? Is that realistic?

Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

Doesn’t a tax credit assume the taxpayer was paying at least that amount in taxes, prior to the credit? If the taxpayer already pays less than that in (Federal) taxation, then isn’t a “tax credit” just a euphemism for income redistribution? The taxpayer is drawing more from the system than he puts into the system. So who takes up the slack?

Ensure that the federal government treats high school diplomas earned through homeschooling the same as other high school diplomas.

How is that relevant the admission policies of state universities, community colleges, and private colleges? How is that relevant to the hiring practices of private business? 

Congressman Paul wants parents to have the freedom to choose the best educational options for their children, and his commitment to ensuring homeschooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any other Presidential candidate.

 

Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda.

Given his commitment to states rights, what if a blue state requires compulsory public education for all minors?

Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

 

He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

But you can’t have national border security without a national border policy. If some states crack down on illegal immigrants while other states have porous borders, sanctuary cities, and so on, then illegal immigrants will simply reroute to the permissive states.

Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.

 

Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.

This sidesteps the question of why medical care is so expensive that people need health insurance in the first place.

Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.

Isn’t that a form of income redistribution?

Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.

 

Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.

i) Is he alluding to the Federal payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare? If so, why doesn’t he run on abolishing those entitlement programs?

ii) If he’s alluding to state and local withholding taxes, wouldn’t that be a states rights issue?

Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.

In what sense is that a “tax credit”? He’s alluding to tort reform. But how do malpractice suits or malpractice premiums fall under the rubric of taxation? Isn’t that a euphemism for income distribution?

Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.

Notice that he’s not challenging the existence of these entitlement programs.

As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.

Isn’t that a silly statement? Veterans range along a wide ideological spectrum, with very different views on national defense. Compare Ron Paul with Donald Rumsfeld. Compare Thomas McInerney with Wesley Clark.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

As I recall, he voted to authorize military force to arrest bin Laden.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

It’s not as if they’re fighting in over 135 countries.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

i) Are we actually policing over 135 countries?

ii) Of course we put our troops in harm’s way. It’s not a pillow fight.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

What about the role of military alliances in national security?

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

But a president has no direct control over Congressional dereliction.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

Where’s the hard evidence for that claim?

Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

“Constitutional means” is code language for what?

Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

He may say it was unconstitutional, but that’s an act of Congress, passed by the voters’ duly elected representatives.  For better or worse, that’s the democratic process at work.

Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

But he just told us that Congress has abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities. Should a president abdicate his responsibility as commander-in-chief if Congress is derelict?

Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

Does Ron Paul oppose overseas military bases?