Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Friday, November 16, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Ron Paul's long term influence on the Republican Party
. . . may be profound: The authors wonders if he might be leading a generational shift within the party, and the efactions within it - one that undoubtedly would affect Democrats as well.
Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.
. . . More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party.
Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.
. . . More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Senator Ron Paul?
Paul Burka comments on the possibility he might make a run, and offers this ominous comment:
The problem with having Ron Paul represent Texas in the United States Senate is that Paul doesn’t chase after federal money. It’s against his principles. Forget money for NASA, for highways, for universities, for military bases. He will cost Texas hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone federal aid. Paul will have none of it. He is a unique type of politician. He represents principles rather than people. If he chooses to run, he will be very difficult to defeat. And Texas will never get back a dime of the money its taxpayers send to Washington.
The problem with having Ron Paul represent Texas in the United States Senate is that Paul doesn’t chase after federal money. It’s against his principles. Forget money for NASA, for highways, for universities, for military bases. He will cost Texas hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone federal aid. Paul will have none of it. He is a unique type of politician. He represents principles rather than people. If he chooses to run, he will be very difficult to defeat. And Texas will never get back a dime of the money its taxpayers send to Washington.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Will Ron Paul Chair the SubCommittee That Oversees the Fed?
Maybe:
One important indicator will be who is chosen to lead the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. First in line for the job is Representative Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian renegade Republican, frequent presidential candidate, and outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve who wrote the best-selling polemic, "End the Fed.''
Were he to assume the chairmanship, Paul would represent an altogether different type of critic: he really means what he says. But he's no lock for the job. His views on monetary policy, and his disinclination to defer to the GOP leadership, have twice before led his own party to ignore his seniority and deny him control of this subcommittee, in 2003 and 2005. One acid test of whether the Republican Party is serious about trying to aggressively influence monetary policy and thwart QE2 is if it finally lets Paul loose on the chairmanship.
Paul expects it will. "I'm assuming that I'll get it,'' he said. "I've had no indication at all that I won't.''
Representative Barney Frank, the outgoing chairman of the Financial Services Committee, agrees. "I think the GOP is afraid to deny him that chairmanship. The Tea Party would revolt."
- The Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee.
One important indicator will be who is chosen to lead the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. First in line for the job is Representative Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian renegade Republican, frequent presidential candidate, and outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve who wrote the best-selling polemic, "End the Fed.''
Were he to assume the chairmanship, Paul would represent an altogether different type of critic: he really means what he says. But he's no lock for the job. His views on monetary policy, and his disinclination to defer to the GOP leadership, have twice before led his own party to ignore his seniority and deny him control of this subcommittee, in 2003 and 2005. One acid test of whether the Republican Party is serious about trying to aggressively influence monetary policy and thwart QE2 is if it finally lets Paul loose on the chairmanship.
Paul expects it will. "I'm assuming that I'll get it,'' he said. "I've had no indication at all that I won't.''
Representative Barney Frank, the outgoing chairman of the Financial Services Committee, agrees. "I think the GOP is afraid to deny him that chairmanship. The Tea Party would revolt."
- The Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Ron Paul Profile
From the Atlantic, a profile on our own Rep. Ron Paul. The comments are probably more interesting than the article.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Ron Paul, Subcommittee Asssignments, and Investments
Just in time for our discussion of committee assignments comes this Washington Post story on Ron Paul.
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
As we saw in class, he a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He uses this post to advocate for a return to the gold standard, but he also invests heavily in companies that mine for gold. He doesn't consider this a conflict of interest, but the articles author isn't quite sure. What's more, nothing he is doing is unethical under Congressional guidelines, though it is illegal for executive officials and others.
Though Paul is the subject of the piece, he is far from the only member of Congress in a position to pass laws that benefit their investments:
In both houses of Congress, a host of other committee chairmen and ranking members have reported that they have millions invested in business sectors that their panels oversee, according to a Post analysis of financial disclosure records through 2008, committee assignments and lawmaker investments by industry.
The disclosure reports covering 2009 will be made public in the coming days. But because lawmakers still use a pen-and-paper method of reporting, it will be months before the information is entered into a database by the Center for Responsive Politics and then made available for analysis by The Post.
For more information about Dr. Paul's gold standard positions:
- What was the gold standard?
- Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Monetary policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- FRB: Monetary Policy
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Vote and Gets Booed
Our own congressman Ron Paul won the straw vote for president in the CPAC Convention held last weekend, and then gets booed for it. Apparently he was not CPAC's preferred candidate.
- Rep. Ron Paul on Getting Booed at CPAC, Intentions for 2012
- Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Crowd Boos
- CPAC red-faced over Paul's straw poll win
By the way, CPAC is the annual convention held by the American Conservative Union. Keeping tabs of this group is a great way to keep track of what "conservatism" means at a particular moment in time.
- Rep. Ron Paul on Getting Booed at CPAC, Intentions for 2012
- Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Crowd Boos
- CPAC red-faced over Paul's straw poll win
By the way, CPAC is the annual convention held by the American Conservative Union. Keeping tabs of this group is a great way to keep track of what "conservatism" means at a particular moment in time.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Dr. Paul on the Tobacco Bill
Our very own Ron Paul argues that the recently passed Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act violates the Constitution:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
We have a right to make bad decisions:
My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.
Regarding the first point, I'm reasonably sure that advocates would argue that the bill falls under the Commerce Clause, so he may not be convincing in his argument. I'm unfamiliar with the argument that an inspection is a search and seizure, but I'll do some homework on it. Tobacco advertisement has also been restricted for years so I'm also unsure about the strength of the First Amendment argument.
He raises an important point in the later paragraph about the role that government should play regarding lifestyle choices. One might argue however that certain lifestyle choices place costs on others and then become subject to governmental intervention. I also think that proponents of the law would question whether smoking is really a choice in the conventional sense. It's an addictive product, so by definition it is not a choice once one become addicted--but then again one could say that we can make a choice to become addicted (I'm wincing while I write that though). The law's backers might say that this is not about individuals and their choices, but firms and their efforts to promote the use of an addictive substances.
Does that make the law reasonable?
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
We have a right to make bad decisions:
My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.
Regarding the first point, I'm reasonably sure that advocates would argue that the bill falls under the Commerce Clause, so he may not be convincing in his argument. I'm unfamiliar with the argument that an inspection is a search and seizure, but I'll do some homework on it. Tobacco advertisement has also been restricted for years so I'm also unsure about the strength of the First Amendment argument.
He raises an important point in the later paragraph about the role that government should play regarding lifestyle choices. One might argue however that certain lifestyle choices place costs on others and then become subject to governmental intervention. I also think that proponents of the law would question whether smoking is really a choice in the conventional sense. It's an addictive product, so by definition it is not a choice once one become addicted--but then again one could say that we can make a choice to become addicted (I'm wincing while I write that though). The law's backers might say that this is not about individuals and their choices, but firms and their efforts to promote the use of an addictive substances.
Does that make the law reasonable?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Libertarian Pork
Ron Paul voted against the stimulus bill but was still able to secure almost $100 million in earmarks. The best among Texans, but others did well too.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
TAx Rebate Proposal Passes House
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 385-35 to approve a tax rebate for over 110 million Americans. The Senate is considering its own plan which must be reconciled with the House plan before being sent to the president for a signature. The overwhelming vote suggests that the bill is not likely to be vetoed.
The official name of the bill is the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, and the number is H.R. 5140.
This link takes you to the roll call vote, notice that Ron Paul voted against it. You can read his justification here. You can get full information about the bill from the Thomas, at the Library of Congress.
I'll post more info about the bill as it continues its march through the legislative process.
The official name of the bill is the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, and the number is H.R. 5140.
This link takes you to the roll call vote, notice that Ron Paul voted against it. You can read his justification here. You can get full information about the bill from the Thomas, at the Library of Congress.
I'll post more info about the bill as it continues its march through the legislative process.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Ron Paul Rakes It In
Our boy Ron Paul set a single day fundraising record for a Republican presidential candidate. $4.2 million, all on line. Here's the site that started it all. It was deliberately held on Guy Fawkes day, the day a group of opponents to the rule of James the 1st tried to blow up parliament. Paul denies wanting to blow up the U.S. Capitol, but argues that he is a revolutionary nevertheless.
Here's one explanation of what's underway.
Here's one explanation of what's underway.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Texas Pork
We're number one! (OK, number three, but we can dream.) Only two states get more in federal spending than Texas. Nothing new in that--think about the Johnson Space Center.
Since we like to consider ourselves to be self sufficient conservatives, are we hypocrites? Or are we simply smart to take advantages of the opportunities we are given?
Note the following about our own Ron Paul: "Rep. Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But the maverick GOP lawmaker and presidential contender also has represented a congressional district that is consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year alone, it received more than $4 billion in federal aid."
He wants to get elected of course. Could he be if he refuses the money?
And how does ACC gets some of this filthy lucre?
Since we like to consider ourselves to be self sufficient conservatives, are we hypocrites? Or are we simply smart to take advantages of the opportunities we are given?
Note the following about our own Ron Paul: "Rep. Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But the maverick GOP lawmaker and presidential contender also has represented a congressional district that is consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year alone, it received more than $4 billion in federal aid."
He wants to get elected of course. Could he be if he refuses the money?
And how does ACC gets some of this filthy lucre?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Wackos?
The Stump reports that one of Ron Paul's organizers is concerned about the number of wackos ("dedicated, vigilant and small.") supporting his presidential bid, wondering if it might limit his appeal to the mainstream. A number of them apparently think, among other things, that 9/11 was an "inside job." They could drive away the moderates.
Maybe, but note that around here the proper term is not "wackos," it's "neighbors."
Maybe, but note that around here the proper term is not "wackos," it's "neighbors."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ron Paul: Cover Boy
He's on the cover of this month's American Conservative.
A sympathetic story gives him the time to defend his views and points out that some of his problems stem from his unwillingness to simplify his positions so that they can translate better through the media. What does this say about the other candidates?
The story clarifies at least one thing for me. I've always wondered how he got away with some of his votes. Why didn't the Republican leadership slap him around in order to keep him in line? Here's why: "The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption."
Our Congressman is the flavor of the month. Pretty cool. The story is well worth the read.
A sympathetic story gives him the time to defend his views and points out that some of his problems stem from his unwillingness to simplify his positions so that they can translate better through the media. What does this say about the other candidates?
The story clarifies at least one thing for me. I've always wondered how he got away with some of his votes. Why didn't the Republican leadership slap him around in order to keep him in line? Here's why: "The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption."
Our Congressman is the flavor of the month. Pretty cool. The story is well worth the read.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
A Bad Idea
This author suggests that Ron Paul should be banned from future Republican debates because he isn't really a Republican, but a Libertarian who won election as a Republican.
This is true, but considering that Republicans have been competitive in recent elections because they have attracted the votes of libertarians (or libertarian minded moderates) and that their losses in the 2006 midterm elections seem due to the loss of this constituency, I can't help but think that they are shooting themselves in the foot by alienating this constituency further.
A radio story yesterday suggested that Paul's supporters may be small in numbers but they are tech savvy and persistent.
He is not likely to go away.
This is true, but considering that Republicans have been competitive in recent elections because they have attracted the votes of libertarians (or libertarian minded moderates) and that their losses in the 2006 midterm elections seem due to the loss of this constituency, I can't help but think that they are shooting themselves in the foot by alienating this constituency further.
A radio story yesterday suggested that Paul's supporters may be small in numbers but they are tech savvy and persistent.
He is not likely to go away.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Pot is Stirred
The fall out from Ron Paul's comments continue.
The back and forth from this post is worth perusing. The poster promises to run against the good Doctor. He says he lives in Angleton--perhaps we can invite him and Dr. Paul to duke it out.
This online poll suggests Dr. Paul won the debate, but if the methodology is probably suspect--clouded by self selection and possibly multiple voting.
Andrew Sullivan thinks that the mainstream media and the Republicans are out to get him now.
Has anything more interesting than this happened yet in the presidential race? I don't think so.
The back and forth from this post is worth perusing. The poster promises to run against the good Doctor. He says he lives in Angleton--perhaps we can invite him and Dr. Paul to duke it out.
This online poll suggests Dr. Paul won the debate, but if the methodology is probably suspect--clouded by self selection and possibly multiple voting.
Andrew Sullivan thinks that the mainstream media and the Republicans are out to get him now.
Has anything more interesting than this happened yet in the presidential race? I don't think so.
Go Ron Go!
Our very own House rep and presidential candidate Ron Paul stole the show at last night's Republican presidential debates by blaming American foreign policy for spurring Bin Laden to attack us on 9/11.
Quote:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
Does he have a point? Is our need to flex muscle bad policy?
Quote:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
Does he have a point? Is our need to flex muscle bad policy?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Dissing Ron Paul
It's true. Neither the mainstream media nor the other candidates want to take him seriously.
Andrew Sullivan calls him the only Republican candidate that respects individual liberty.
Andrew Sullivan calls him the only Republican candidate that respects individual liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)