It has become cliché for political pundits to proclaim every four years that the presidential election campaign is the most important in the nation’s history. Given that our economy is on the brink of collapse, we are currently engaged in 5 wars, and our civil liberties are under attack like never before, next year’s presidential election will truly rank right up there with the most important elections in our country’s history. Accepting that view, there is only one candidate in the race for the White House in 2012 who has what it takes to restore America to its previous greatness. That candidate is Congressman Ron Paul.
No other candidate saw the financial crisis of 2008 coming. As early as 2003, Congressman Paul predicted Federal Reserve and Bush Administration policies would lead to the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse. He predicted this based on his understanding of free-market economics and the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Now, it is true that Newt Gingrich did allude to the corruption of the Federal Reserve in last week’s GOP debate in Ames, Iowa, but he and every other Republican on stage except Ron Paul do not understand the connection between Fed policies and our economic ills. All they can propose are more tax cuts to remedy the situation. Congressman Paul has been preaching about the need to restore sound money to our economy for over 35 years. He recognizes that the destruction of the middle class in America is primarily the result of the price inflation (over 450 percent since 1971) perpetrated on the American people by the Federal Reserve. He knows that spending our way out of our current crisis will not work. He is the only candidate for president who would take a holistic approach to getting our economy back on track – mal-investment liquidation, rein in out of control federal spending, responsible military budgets, and of course sound money.
But, Dr. Paul’s superiority over the other candidates for president doesn’t end with economics. He is by far and away the only responsible candidate in the field when it comes to war and peace. He did not fall for the war propaganda launched by the Bush Administration against Saddam Hussein. He voted against giving the president authority to invade Iraq. As president he would end the 8 year war in Iraq, the 10 year war in Afghanistan, and our wars in Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen.
As was highlighted in the Ames, Iowa debate last week he is well-read when it comes to international affairs. He knows the history of our troublesome relationship with Iran and understands that incendiary remarks and threats toward her are not going to make the world safer. As president, Dr. Paul would end American occupations in countries that surround Iran, thereby lessening tensions and opening the door to peaceful relations. Contrary to the positions of other candidates for president, Ron Paul knows that another war is not in our best interest.
Lastly, no other candidate for president has as strong a record on civil liberties as Congressman Paul. He has been a consistent opponent of Washington’s relentless assault on our civil liberties and constitutional rights. As president, the so-called “Patriot” Act which has radically expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; has made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage; has authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and has required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons, would be priority one on his chopping block. The TSA’s grope fest at our airports would also end. As important as civil liberties are none of the other candidates for president have shown any interest in protecting them.
The above comparison includes the current occupant of the Oval Office Barack Obama. In 2 ½ years as president, Obama continues to support the same failed economic policies (spending and easy money) that got us into the mess in the first place and has only made matters worse since. He not only broke campaign promises by continuing Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but has escalated one other in Pakistan and started one of his own in Libya. And, as for civil liberties and constitutional rights, he has shown his true colors by signing a four-year extension of expiring provisions of the “Patriot” Act and authorizing his Director of National Intelligence to notify Congress that the administration reserves the right to assassinate American citizens believed to be terrorists.
Yes, next year’s presidential contest will be truly one of the most important in American history. With more than 14 million Americans out of work and millions more involved in the administration’s war machine what we need is a new president with an understanding of economics, knowledge of international affairs, and a complete dedication to civil liberties and constitutional rights. The only candidate that fits that profile is Congressman Ron Paul.
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Andrews
Frank Apisa
Johnny Fever
GerryGreene
TriviaCompanion
Larry3000
Salon.com
Comments
much more on the fed in my blog including a latest post on the 5 basic causes of wealth disparity.
The left's hostility to him is interesting. Even though he's a champion of civil liberties; a stanch opponent of unnecessary wars and military interventions, wanting to bring all -- not just some -- troops home from around the world; and he favors totally ending the federal drug war and abolishing the Patriot Act - - despite all this the left somehow finds this kind, country doctor as a worse enemy than Mitt or Bachmann, somebody that needs to be immediately smeared. I don't get it. Of all people that leftist/liberals should like to see run against Obama, wouldn't it be Ron Paul?
Still, he makes them talk about issues they don't want to address, like Perot did in '92. Given the sorry state of presidential campaign babbling, that's a good thing. He has too much support to freeze him out of debates, though I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC tries to do that eventually.
But I wouldn't vote for him because America needs more libertarianism like we need more low wage jobs and corporate rule. I'll vote for somebody who pretends they're on the American worker's side well before I'd vote for somebody who wants to make serfdom an official policy.
But, again, he doesn't totally suck, so he has one-up on most politicians.
And, Kenn, one didn't need to be Ron Paul or a libertarian or a believer in Austrian economics to see the Great Collapse coming. I was well aware, and probably bored some people by telling them, for a few years prior, what was coming. Of course, I'm not a mainstream economist, so that helped. :)
Larry,
The foregoing quotation might be helpful in understanding why Ron Paul may not be attractive to current Liberals. Today’s herd of those who claim this lable seems overrun by the socialist imperative to collectivize this nation in the interest of solving all of its problems.
For example, most in this group claim we are missing the “middle class”. The socialist solution for this is, of course, to tax the hell out of the wealthy and then to develop more programs to spend such collections on the poor.
Hence, any interpretation of the Constitution that might impair congressional authority to either tax or spend would be an anathema to socialists – one of whom now sits in the White House.
Ron Paul is the guy who can’t find the constitutional authority to mint the medals congress gives out to various notables when it isn’t trying to avoid discussions of the horrendous fiscal mess it has authorized us into over the course of the last five decades. He is willing to help pay for these medals out of his own pocket ($100) if other Congresspersons kick in as well.
As far as I know, there have been no takers of his offer thus far. Go figure. However, just as Representative Paul (as opposed to our beloved collectivist Paul) says, “It’s always easy to spend other people’s money.”
All of this makes Ron Paul a man too far ahead of his time to have much chance to be elected president. I suspect that he knows this. However, a presidential campaign is a good medium through which to convey his substantive and . . . . correct . . . . messages. The on-going revelations of our federal financial situation allow more and more to see the righteousness of his view. This is why he is enjoying more support now than ever.
Despite the foregoing, I might vote for the guy myself. I am all in favor of scaring the shit out of socialists and progressives.
If I wanted to imply Ron Paul's interpretation was a question of opinion, I would avoid using words like "flawed and wrong." His interpretation is wrong--as in no room for varied interpretations.
Would you like to explain why Paul's spending clause interpretation is correct? Of course not, because you don't know fact one about it. You don't know anything, why do you speak as if you do?
Your comment is your usual low IQ prattle. You set up the generic opponent, babble about collectivism, yada yada. If you had a brain, you'd address me directly. You don't, and are a chickenshit nobody with nothing of value or intelligence to say. If you disagree with my assessment, then take me on, straight up, like a man would. You won't, because I would crush your fact-free arguments, again. The experience of having me expose your ignorance has only led to your sissificated sniping, but we both know you're not near to being close to being in the area of having any knowledge on the subject.
Kenn, you seem to want to make the argument Chris avoids like the plague. Got game?
Madison confirmed this in Federalist Paper 45,
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
One need not be a shrink to understand that his attacks on the IQ of others is clear evidence of his insecurity about the state of his own.
Being able to construct a decent declarative sentence is no evidence of any personal characteristic other than literate.
It's not necessary to pick up a piece of animal excrement on the sidewalk to conclude that's it something to be avoided.
http://open.salon.com/blog/ghost_writer_1/2011/08/16/networks_ignore_ron_paul_push_phony_conservative_perry
Keep spreading the word. I'm with you, Sir.
Yes, Madison said that but it doesn't refute what I'm saying, even though Madison does, after time, find the necessity of a more expansive view than he was, at that time (and now, to many) known for. That change of viewpoint can be seen in his arguing against the creation of the First Bank of the US in 1791, and his advocating for the creation of the Second Bank of the US during his term as president, after the War of 1812.
What he's saying in your quote doesn't conflict with the meaning of the Spending Clause. It grants Congress to power to tax and spend for defense and general welfare. The limits on taxing are described in the method by which they are laid and the object of the spending. As Jefferson explained (also others, but we'll use Jeff here) :
"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare but only to lay taxes for that purpose."
You'll find, in the previous-to-Jefferson's description Virginia ratification debates, Gov Randolph offers the same explanation. This aligns with the record of the Constitutional Convention and the common use of English. The clause is an independent grant of power and defines its own limits.
Ron Paul scoffs at this obvious intent, and offers his own hand-waving, convenient to what he wants "general welfare" to mean interpretation, which is total bunk, from aardvark to zygote. Medicare and Social Security are not, as he weasel-word describes: "technically unconstitutional."
Keep in mind the Federalist Papers were about advocating for ratification, and Madison was doing his best to assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists. Also, the influence of the FPs were mostly in New York, with Hamilton, and Virginia with Madison.
So, the power to tax and spend isn't indefinite, but it is a general power. The limits are defined in its text and by the political process which is, simply put, if you don't like what has been done under the authority of the clause, vote those representatives out.
What is isn't is what Ron Paul and other fact-negating ideologues describe it as being. If we were to take their fictions as fact, we would be stripped of an important element of our sovereignty, which is the ability of the majority to act on issues of general welfare. I'm just not into the anti-democratic scene, and will hold firm to the powers we, the people granted ourselves. I will ridicule and deride those who want to gain by prevarication what they cannot gain through the political process.
Your prissy kvetching is empty, as usual. You should silently commiserate with Chris, with your noses pressed up against the glass, peering into a world where your pointless poppycock won't buy you the price of admission.
The problems, though, are manifold, because the Dems and GOP bastardize and distort the ideological and philosophical foundations of these schools of thought, in order to pander to key special interest groups, rather than actually solve problems and fix the nation.
The GOP uses libertarian rhetoric to support policies which actually help the centralization of power in the hands of corporations, which, in turn, create many of the economic problems members of the Austrian school deride. The Austrian school, wrongly though, thinks that these problems can be mitigated by abolishing gvt, because they think corporations can only hurt people by utilizing gvt by way of "regulatory capture." According to libertarians, if you abolish the regulatory agency, it cant be captured, and hence corporations cant hurt folks. This is wishful thinking, because then nobody will be able to restrain them.
Dems pay lipservice to the ideas of European style Social Democracy, but in fact, they only do so in order to perpetuate certain policies of dependency in the inner city and rural areas, which help certain politicians get re-elected. Granted. they only provide benefits because there are no jobs. But they utilize these benefits and apply them and hand them out in a very arbitrary, corrupt and sleazy manner, hiding it all under the false veneer of "social justice." They are corrupt SOBs, just like the GOP, albeit with socialist rhetoric. In fact, they aren't leftists or progressives at all. Just greedy opportunists (most of them) in sheep's clothing.
I feel our country is on a downward trajectory and there's no way to fix it until it totally reaches rock bottom. Sometimes its a lot cheaper and easier to rebuild a demolished building, than carefully renovate it, piece by painstaking piece.
Adam Smith, David Riccardo, Karl Marx, if you actually read them, are actually very, very, very similar on many of the key economic issues. They differ, though, in terms of surplus capital and whether the profit motive in capitalism is a force for "exploitation" of the masses, or something that raises them up. Its a subjective call, based on one's "class position," I suppose.
So, I suppose its fair to call Marx one of the Continental "classical" economists, and I suppose that this is why Das Kapital, and "the wealth of nations" are so similar (for example, the labor theory of value, how tech can depress wages, how labor costs can differ based on varying circumstances and how they interact).
I don't like all the stuff that the GOP has done with Riccardo and Smith, but at least Ron Paul understands stuff and is well read. I truly think he has the nation's best interests at heart. I can't say the same about the other GOP contenders.
Jon Stewart talked about how the media is intentionally ignoring Ron Paul, which is interesting.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/
I see I'm not the only one who sees right-libertarianism as surrendering to corporate rule. The fantasy heroes of the self-policing market are just that -- fantasies. I see libertarianism as a sort of Dissertation on Roast Liberty--to avoid government problems, burn down the government. The problem is you get wealth rule and not even a roast suckling pig to chow down upon.
I agree that Democratic pandering to working class groups through policies directed at benefiting them isn't exactly Polly Purebred goodness. Without doubt they can be seen as buying loyalty through the Political Machine device.
However, that system is extinct, but what has replaced it?
The working class groups have no representation. Given a choice between the two along with acknowledging the far better economic template America had under that device, I'll land on the side of ye olde traditional Democratic machine politics.
To add to the giving Ron Paul his props, he's the ONLY one talking about the tragedy of our shrinking civil liberties. To the other Republican candidates (and Obama) that's libertarian overreach.