Who is Ron Paul? His Political Positions

Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist who professes a libertarian philosophy. He opposes presidential autonomy and judicial activism, and rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government.[1] Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.[2] He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[3] His unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”

Paul supports free trade, states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, unofficial and voluntary school prayer,[4] changing the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on both heterosexual and homosexual behavior,[5] and expanding the free market in health care. He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security.[6] He is also an advocate of private property rights for pollution prevention,[7] habeas corpus for political detainees,[8] greater ballot access,[9] and jury nullification rights.[10]

Paul opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, the income tax, federalized health care,[11] the federal War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations.[12] He has voted against funding joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption.[13] He opposes abortion and most capital punishment, stating that the individual states must be allowed to decide such issues in accordance with the 10th amendment.[14]

Foreign policy

Nonintervention
Congressman Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy that avoids entangling alliances.[15] He believes that when a war must be fought, it must be fought to protect the citizens, be declared by Congress, planned out, won and then left: "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[16]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Paul, defining them as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.[17] He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007. [18]

Iraq War
Paul spoke and voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[19][20] which authorized the war, and continues to condemn the US presence in Iraq, and what he charges is the use of the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. His position is that if the country was going to go to war because of the September 11 attacks, it should have been with the actual perpetrators of the war, al Qaeda, rather than with Iraq, which had no connection to the attacks.[21] He believes that if a war is sought, it must be fully approved by Congress with a complete declaration of war, which would allow total resources to be dedicated to victory. This did not happen for the Iraqi invasion. According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[22] Accordingly, Paul has introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[23]

Paul said of the 2003 invasion, “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[24]

His base of support had been mostly among conservative and libertarian Republicans,[25] but after 9/11 he gained some strong support from liberal Democrats in central Texas because of his consistent opposition to the War in Iraq. As an example of this shift, the Austin Chronicle newspaper, a liberal[26] alternative weekly newspaper in Austin, Texas, described his views as erratic in 2000.[27] After 9/11, though, the Chronicle took a much more favorable view of Paul,[28] praising him for his strong, principled opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War.[29]

Iran
Paul has spoken against the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[30] He has also broken with his party by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and again in 2005, and is opposed to reintroduction of the military draft. He opposes political organizations that override U.S. sovereignty such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. He thus supports withdrawal of funds and the end of participation in such organizations.[31]

In a speech before the House of Representatives, Paul expressed his concern about the possibility of an Iranian War. He claimed that the current circumstances with Iran are similar to those under which the Iraq War began, and urged Congress not to authorize a war with Iran.[32] Paul is only one of two congressmen (the other is Dennis Kucinich) who voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution which calls on UN to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention and UN charter.[33]

Civil liberties during times of war
He has spoken out against torture[34] and the abuse of executive authority in the Iraq War to override human rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

9/11 Commission Report
Ron Paul has voiced support for re-opening the 9/11 investigation to discover why the FBI did not act on 70 field tips from an agent reporting student pilots (and eventual 9/11 hijackers) who were learning to take off but not land and why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to possibly prevent the attacks.[35] He has called the 9/11 Commission a "charade" for its intrusive and bureaucratic recommendations and expansion of government. He has said, "Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. 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."[36]

Other interventions
In a National Public Radio interview, Ron Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct intervention in humanitarian missions such as Darfur or the Rwandan Genocide.[37] In keeping with those views, he was the only Nay vote on H.R. 180: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.[38] H.R. 180 was intended to provide federal funding for state and local governments that wish to divest in order to end federal contracts with companies which conduct business with the government of Sudan.[39]

Denies involvement in 9/11 conspiracy theories
Paul denies that the attack on the World Trade Center was a part of a government conspiracy, and has distanced himself from the "9/11 Truth Movement." On the Mike Gallagher radio show on July 19, 2007 he said "Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position. I do think government's basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. 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. So, I don't think that's a conspiracy. I think that's a lot of bureaucracy that doesn't work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it's 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not - and that is a lot different than saying 'Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.' I don't see it that way. But, I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done." [40] When Paul was asked by Shawn Wasson in an interview on LiveLeak.com if he believed that "9/11 was orchestrated by the government," Paul responded emphatically, "Absolutely not."[41] Paul was again asked in an interview on Fox news on August 5 if he agreed with the conspiracy theorists; he explicitly said that he does not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that he does not think the government would stage an attack.[42]

Free trade
He is a proponent of free trade, although he has opposed some "free trade agreements."[43] He opposes these agreements and calls them "managed trade" controlled by an international trade organization; he says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[44] He often instead proposes that the United States engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (this was the approach of Hong Kong).

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), claiming that it increased the size of government, eroded US sovereignty and was unconstitutional.[45] He also believes that the "fast track" powers given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate free trade agreements on the country's behalf are unconstitutional, and Congress should be constructing free trade agreements rather than the executive branch.[46]

Secure borders and immigration
Ron Paul believes that the federal government has been neglecting its constitutional responsibility to protect its own borders and concentrating instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[47]

At the height of the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[48] which was intended to replace the strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction with a strategic defense.

He has taken some positions on immigration issues that are at odds with the views endorsed by several libertarian think tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[49] He opposes illegal immigration because of the toll he believes illegal immigrants take on the welfare rolls and Social Security. He has expressed concerns that welfare and other aid programs have made the US a magnet for illegal aliens, and that uncontrolled immigration is increasing welfare payments and exacerbating the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[50] Ron Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of a B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[51] Of the other major GOP presidential hopefuls in 2008 who are in Congress only Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter received a higher rating from that organization.[52]

Paul favors that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally under the law through a "coherent immigration policy." He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because it undermines the rule of law and grants pardons to lawbreakers.[53] He has also said that by granting amnesty, it is being subsidized, which will only result in more illegal immigration.[54] Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. He believes that it is a folly to spend so much money policing the borders of other countries, such as the border of Iraq and Syria, when the border between the United States and Mexico can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[55]

Paul also holds that children born in the United States to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship.[56] He has called for a Constitutional amendment to revise the Fourteenth Amendment, to "end automatic birthright citizenship" in order to address welfare issues.[57]

Economy

Lower taxes and smaller government
Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.[58] Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!'".[59] He has said that he would completely eliminate the income tax, and would accomplish this by shrinking the size and scope of government to its constitutional limits. As Congressman, Paul has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the 16th Amendment.[60] Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[61] Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP).[62] In 1999, he co-sponsored a bill titled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 which would have created a new type of employee owned and controlled corporation (EOCC). This new type of corporation would have been exempt from most federal taxes.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in 1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying for the highest score (averaged from 1992 to 2005) among all 2008 Presidential candidates who have served in Congress, along with Tom Tancredo.[63] National Federation of Independent Business president Jack Farris has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."[64]

Paul does not advocate a national sales tax. He 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 the inflation tax." [65][66] He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. 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"[67] of 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.[68][69]

Minimize federal interference
Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process.[70] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, In a speech on the House floor, Ron Paul stated that the act "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".[71]

In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[72]

Importance of hard currency
In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual[65] re-introduction of hard currency including both gold and silver.[24] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation.[73][74] The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section 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 make anything 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."[75]

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[76] In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “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.”[77]

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton 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 in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, 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 against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[78][79]

Income tax resistance
In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage in non-violent resistance when they feel a law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful civil disobedience, but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment. [80] 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.

Civil liberties

Habeas corpus
In the first Republican debate in California, Paul stated that he would never violate habeas corpus,[8] through which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in the American Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.[81]

Domestic surveillance
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.[82] He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping.[81]

Conscription
Paul is opposed to reintroduction of the military draft.[83] In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. [84] In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.[85]

Prohibition/drug laws

Medical marijuana
Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is affirmative to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"[86][87] The federal government's involvement in this industry has led to regulatory conflict with the states that have made it an option, such as California after passage of Proposition 215.

Industrial hemp
Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp farming.[88] This would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.[88]

In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes”.[89] This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.

On February 13, 2007 Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007", with nine original co-sponsors: Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).[90] The Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.[90]

Prohibition
The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. When asked about his position on implementing the 10th Amendment Republican Senator Ron 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 about DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional..." He went on to advocate states' rights and personal choice; "You’re not being compassionate 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 sees prohibition of drugs as ineffective. "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."

Ron Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. "...when people commit violence whether they’re under the influence of drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs or alcohol they should be punished severely. We shouldn’t be putting people in prison for life with no chance of getting out… that never have committed a violent crime. At the same time we hear of cases were murderers or rapists get out after five or ten years or never even go to prison, it doesn’t make any sense."[91]

Second Amendment rights
The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's (GOA) A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. 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 an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[92] Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer. "[93] Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such horrific events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.[94]

Flag desecration
In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.[95]

Judge versus jury
Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge 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 the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this democratic principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[96]

Social policies

Abortion
Paul is personally opposed to abortion. Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being related to this view.[97] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron 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 support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[98] Paul has said that the 9th and 10th amendment to the United States 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".[99]

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[100] Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[101][102] In 2005, Paul introduced the We 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.[103]

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-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 would no longer be binding.[104] 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.”[105]

Capital punishment
Paul has stated that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime," but that he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[106]

Stem cell research
Paul considers the stem cell debate to be another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction:

"Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers...."[107]

Church and State relationship
Ron Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. This includes issues concerning religion. For example, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level. [108][109]

In a December 2003 article entitled, "Christmas in Secular America", (previously erroneously referred to as "The War on Religion") Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[110]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We 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. If made law, this provision would allow displays of religious text and imagery by state, county, and local governments.[103]

Education
Rep. Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective federal program.[111]

Paul has rejected government-issued vouchers in favor of education tax credits. Paul supports the right of state and local school districts to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal level. He says that vouchers are given to certain students favored over others, and it is not fair for some middle-class parents to have to pay their child's own way at a private school while other parents' children are selected for government voucher programs. He says that in their current form, vouchers are a form of welfare given to some over others; they would be worthwhile if they resulted in an equal amount of money being taken out of the public school system, but the end result is usually more money on both vouchers for private schools and more money for the public school system. He says that vouchers would only work if they gave public schools some competition and forced public schools to get better, but when the public school gets all the money it would have and more even with vouchers as competition, the public system has no reason to get better.[112]

Congressman Paul says that when voucher proponents say that students have a right to a good education and give vouchers as the answer, it means that private schools must fall under federal regulations to ensure that they are meeting students' rights. He says that if given the choice of which private school to attend, parents may choose to use their taxpayer-voucher to attend a school objectionable to some, such as one run by, for example, the Nation of Islam, and for that situation not to happen, government control over which schools are acceptable for vouchers would have to be injected. He asserts that colleagues have mentioned before that to take vouchers, religious schools would have to seek government accreditation under the Department of Education. He argues that this would in effect be a forced accreditation process because schools that choose not to take part will not be seen as having the "government's seal of approval" and may go out of business. He points to how the federal government has used federal funding for universities to tell universities what policies they must accept, and that the government would try to do the same with private schools.[112]

Instead, he has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[112]

Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately 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.[113]

LGBT issues

Adoption
In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia.[114] One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal] funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage."[115] Although the amendment would not have prevented a gay person in a relationship from adopting a child in the District of Columbia,[116] it would have prevented both members of a same-sex couple from adopting a child because no federal money would be allowed to be spent on vetting or registering them.[117] Similarly, unmarried heterosexual couples would also have been unable to adopt children in the national capital.[118]

Marriage
Paul opposes "federal 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.[119] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[119][120] Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[121] Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[122] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[123]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We 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 [or] orientation" 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." If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit same-sex sexual practices and same-sex marriage.[103]

Don't ask, don't tell
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States 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 sexual 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."[5]

Health care
Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[124]

He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.[125]

H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.

H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.

H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.[126]

Rep. Paul believes that the more government interference in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of federal mandate in 1973.[127] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[128] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[129]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.[130]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a prescription for vitamins).[131]

Environment
Ron Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio interview with Dennis Miller, Paul cited the failure of environmental protection under collectivistic countries that do not respect private property, and the effect of private ownership:

";... 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 libertarians 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."[132]
He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the state(s) or region(s) concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[133]

In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China.[134] He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[135] Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[135] He also sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[136] Paul believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help with powering efficient electric cars.[135]

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable biofuels.[88] This would help North Dakota in particular; the state has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[88]

Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England. A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New England would be billions. The bill included $1.8 billion for federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2 billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive. The provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January 2004 by Majority Leader Tom Delay; the bill also included federal subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol, in New England. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a "gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign oil.[137][138][139]

Social Security
Paul says that Social Security 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.[135] He says that he is one of the few members of Congress who has voted for so little spending that he has never voted to borrow from existing Social Security funds. He believes that to stem the Social Security crisis, Congress should cut down on spending, but even with that, the commitment cannot be met. He thinks the only way to meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on Social Security is to reassess monetary policies and spending and stop borrowing so much from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold US treasury bonds. He believes that young Americans should have the opportunity to opt out of the system if they would like to not pay Social Security taxes.[135]

Race neutrality
In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[140] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

"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."[140]

Additionally, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, he compares society's values to the values of television wrestling, citing racism as among the negative qualities:

There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.

In 1997, he voted in favor[141] of ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.[142]

Veterans and the military
Paul believes the Veterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and in fact, the VA hospitals should be phased out. He believes that government should be paying for the treatment of veterans in private hospitals. He believes that in this way veterans will get better care more cost effectively.

He has also said that rather than closing military bases in the US, the government should build fewer bases internationally and keep as many bases open in the US as possible.[135]

Technology
In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress. Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET guide. In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.[143]

Network neutrality
Voted against establishing Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987(Jun 2006)[144], which would have legally protected network neutrality.
"But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[145]
g4 / stickam - one on one with Ron Paul - part 1
Ron Paul Videos On Demand (at http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008 )
at 5 minutes, 42 seconds:
Host: "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?"
Ron Paul: "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."

Election law

Ballot access
As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Congressman Paul has been a proponent of ballot 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 for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[146]

Voting Rights Act of 1965
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[147] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[148] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas' 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.[149] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[149] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, Queens.[150]

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Act:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[148]

State representation
Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment,[151] the one that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One Section 3. Direct popular representation would be retained in the House. Paul believes that increased representation of State interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and Federal government,[152] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

Electoral College
In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the Electoral College, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.”[153]

Congressional appointment
In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints (rather than elects) members of Congress in the event of the death of several members due to an act of terrorism.[154]

Campaign contributions
In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.[155]

Other issues
In order to restrict the federal government to its constitutionally authorized functions, Paul takes positions that are opposed by the majority of his colleagues.

He has been criticized at times for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. According to Texas Monthly, “When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal [along with himself]. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, ‘It's easier to be generous with other people's money.’”[156]

In a speech on 25 June 2003, criticizing giving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair a 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 awarding President 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.”[157] Texas Monthly awarded him the “Bum Steer” award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

He views the new American Community Survey questions as “both ludicrous and insulting”, viewing that the information is simply none of the government's business.[158]

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[159] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

Official sites