An Analysis of Ron Paul's Issues

I am not sure what to make of Ron Paul. About four years ago, my brother started sending me speeches by a Libertarian from Texas by the name of Ron Paul. My brother is also a Libertarian and likes to discuss politics with me because I am a liberal. The reason he likes to debate with me is that I actually approach politics with an open mind and will be more than happy to discuss any topic without delving into name calling and he enjoys that. Also, being a debater, occasionally I would hear someone quote Ron Paul in their speeches. I enjoyed reading the articles and knew that as a Libertarian, Paul was fighting an uphill battle that he was likely to lose, so when he announced that he was running for President, I figured it was just a chance for him to get some issues out that he wanted and then before the first primary, realize that he was so far behind and go back to the House of Representatives to argue his case. It has come to a great surprise to me that he is polling quite well and is beginning to raise quite a bit of money (not compared to Hillary or Obama, but still quite well). Why is Paul doing so well? Is his message resonating that well because of Iraq or taxes? What is it that is creating so much buzz for a man few barely knew of until a few months ago. Well, I decided to go through his website and look at his issues and see for myself (this was also prompted by my brother asking me if I was supporting Paul, and if not, why not). While I am sure Mr. Paul gets into more in-depth during his numerous speeches, I am only going to be looking at his website and commenting on that. I think everyone should do this on every candidate to see who they should support and why.

Border Security and Immigration Reform

Coming from Texas, it doesn't surprise me that Ron Paul wants to strengthen the boarders. Now, he says we need to "physically secure our borders and coastlines." I'm not sure how we would do this, and he gives no way to do this either. Does it mean we are going to put armed troops along our entire border and have the coast guard patrolling every yard of coastline? That sounds a bit impossible to do unless we plan on spending billions of dollars. He says that we should enforce visa rules, which I feel is a good step. A lot of times politicians like to come up with new laws to solve something when enforcing old laws will usually suffice. He is also opposed to amnesty because he feels that it is rewarding people for breaking the law and I can understand his point however, what about the jobs that immigrants are taking. Many studies have shown that they are taking jobs that most Americans basically refuse to do. They are jobs that pay too little and are too hard for most of us, but not for illegals, who consider it a great opportunity. Paul also states that there should be no welfare for illegal immigrants, that they shouldn't be using our hospitals, clinics, schools, roads and social services. Unfortunately, illegals are going to use the roads, that is an impossibility to stop them using our roads unless you stopped all illegals from coming here, the same with hospitals, they don't deny care for emergency services. Also, as a Doctor, Paul should know that emergency room care is massively expensive and costs us taxpayers much more in health care when people only rely on that type of service instead of using preventative care (health care is a whole other topic that we will get into though later). He also wants to end Birthright citizenship. This one I'm a little perplexed on. I understand why he is opposed to it, but what about legal immigrants who have yet to become citizens but are in the process? Do their kids have to take a test or risk being exported? He is a little unclear about this, but overall I understand where he is coming from. Finally he says we need to pass real immigration reform and that by doing so, we can have up to 60 million more immigrants into our country. However, what plan is he talking about? How would this work? He is very unclear about this and it would be nice to know exactly what plan he is supporting so we as voters can see if it is worthwhile.

Overall on border security, he says that the talk must stop and take real action, but he is very political in the sense that he doesn't really offer any solution to the problems. He talks about we need to do this, but gives no means to achieving it. I would like to see more on his website regarding this, but as of now, he sounds like a typical politician who complains about the current system but gives no means to resolve it.

American Independence and Sovereignty

This section is dedicated mostly to targeting international organizations such as the ICC, WTO and the UN as well as free trade agreements such as NAFTA AND CAFTA. Rep. Paul is quite adamant that these organizations and free trade agreements are taking away our sovereignty away and putting our future in the hands of "unelected foreign elites." I'm not sure how free trade deals are a threat to our independence, but I'll get to that later. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the US because we won't recognize it and NAFTA, GATT AND CAFTA don't elect anyone and don't take power away, we are the ones who brokered that deal and we can break it, there is not foreign powers overlooking us, I think he's trying to scare us there. The only agency that actually exists is the ICC and the WTO, which we basically run. The WTO is run by a US appointee and has been for years, and we are the ones who basically fund the WTO to try and develop other nations economies. They have absolutely no control over us. And how will the WTO and CAFTA force American's to get a doctors prescription for alternative treatments? That makes no sense since it is only the FDA that controls drugs. Next, he tries to claim that NAFTA is the first step in creating a "North American Union" that will be run by a "new unelected bureaucracy and money system." I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this statement. This is where I begin to lose any support for Ron Paul that I had. Unlike the EU, we don't need to combine Canada and Mexico to compete globally like the European countries have. This is a scare tactic to scare people into thinking that we are going to lose our constitutional government to some unelected bureaucrats. He then tries to claim that the UN is going to "impose a direct tax on us." The UN has absolutely no power to tax us, I have no idea what he is talking about here, but my only guess is that there are some in congress that feel that we should be paying our dues owed to the UN as a member of that organization, that is not a tax, in fact, we hardly pay the dues as it is, that's not a tax, that's called a membership fee, if you are a member of an organization, you sometimes need to pay the dues to fund that organization, now we can discuss the validity and effectiveness of the UN, but this argument does nothing to infringe upon the freedoms and independence of the US.

Debt and Taxes

On this topic, Rep. Paul points out a lot of problems but offers us only one solution by stating "We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It's called the Constitution of the United States." This is about as broad as a stance as you can take. What does that mean even? Sure, we are all for lower taxes, but which ones are we going to lower? Are we going to eliminate all taxes? How will we fund the government? Who will fix our roads? Who will provide funding for our military, social security, etc.? He is mum on all of this. I know that he wants to abolish the IRS, but at what cost? There are some issues on this topic that he makes sense on. First off, we are in a mound of debt that is becoming increasingly problematic. Having that amount of debt is not a good thing and we need a serious plan to eliminate our debt. However, is eliminating the IRS the answer? Not so sure on that one. I would like to hear what he would cut and how he would cover the spending of things like protecting every inch of our border and coastline like he wants. As for our government being funding by China and Saudi Arabia he is right on. Those two countries are the biggest investors in our country and they are buying up our debt so we can continue to spend. It is a scary thought that our economy hinges on these two countries not bailing on us.

So overall, I think he has some legitimate grips about spending and debt, but he offers no real explanation as to how it is going to be achieved.

Health Freedom

Rep. Paul spend a lot of time going off on the FDA and I do see some issues with it. I was glad to see that he had some more specific stances on issues instead of the usually political blabber. I am glad that he supports information on supplements and natural remedies and that American's should be able to use alternative medicines. However, before agencies such as the FDA, there were remedies abound that told of the amazing power that they held to solve for who knows what, and most of those items contained Valium, cocaine, etc. Child's cough medicine came with those types of drugs, I'm sorry, but I just don't trust businesses enough not to hurt me, and I know, the government can't be trusted always either, but have you seen some of the ridiculous claims made by these supplements and that they can cure so many things? It ludicrous and they need to be ensured they are healthful. Rep. Paul also claims that the FDA has not protected us from dangerous drugs, which has happened from time to time, but could you imagine what would happen if we didn't have someone testing drugs to make sure they didn't kill us? There have been plenty of times when a drug company was found to be hiding information that would have prevented it from being approved in the first place. While the FDA can certainly be improved, I am glad we have some standard to protect ourselves. He does make an excellent point regarding the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005 section 304 which authorized the vaccination of citizens against small pox against their will. I agree that American's should have a choice if they want to be vaccinated against a disease.

Privacy and Personal Liberty

This is one of the few issues where Rep. Paul puts forth a clear problem and what needs to be done about it and it is an issue that I completely agree with. It is sad that our government is the biggest threat to our privacy. When the Patriot Act was pushed through, our rights as citizens greatly decreased and we were told that it was necessary because of "national security" and that it was meant to protect ourselves. I am glad that he has fought against this law and has pushed for the repeal of it. This issue is not Republican or Democrat, if you value your privacy and your rights, you should support this.

War and Foreign Policy

I must say that Rep. Paul knows his history and is not blinded by patriotism to criticize American policies that have been disastrous. He states that we cannot go to war without a declaration from Congress and that we shouldn't have our troops stationed in other countries. He also points out something that is washed over in the history books regarding our foreign intervention into other countries. It seems that Rep. Paul recognizes these mistakes and doesn't want to repeat them. However, he also says that we cannot be isolationists and that we should "have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy with other nations." Doesn't this contradict with his strong anti-NAFTA and WTO policies? He be-raids these institutions and agreements, but then says we need to have open trade and travel with other countries? Again, this is where I think he needs to look closer to his stances and refine them more. You can't be massively against trade agreements and then say we shouldn't be isolationists.

Property Rights and Eminent Domain

This issue is a little murky. He continues to go off on NAFTA, I just don't get it. I know it's not the greatest thing in the world, but it's not like its going to end America as we know it. I do however agree that special interests are creating an Eminent Domain issue. It's funny, because it is usually the private industry that pushes our government to use its force of eminent domain to confiscate land, pay individuals below market price and then give it to developers who are going to make a fortune off of building new buildings. That is why I don't trust businesses, they will do things to make money, even screw people, even if they have to get the help of the government to do it. So I am glad that he is opposed to this concept, but he doesn't give a great deal of detail as to how he would fix this problem, which I would like to see more off.

Life and Liberty

Here he focuses on the Abortion issue. If you are pro-life, you will like him, if you are pro-choice, you will not. That is all I am going to say on this issue because it is so volatile and arguments regarding this topic get way to heated and no one gains a thing from it. I will only say that I am glad that he is clear on his stance and that he is very specific as to what he would try to accomplish if he was elected. I would like to see this focus on all the issues and not just this one.

Home Schooling

Ron Paul appears to be quite the advocate for home schooling and wants to eliminate any national standard testing for home schooled students and also giving tax credits to parents who home-school their kids. He is pretty clear on his stance here and overall I agree with him, but I do find it interesting that he would have a separate section devoted to home schooling. There is not a huge number of people who home-school their kids, and it can't come up too often in the halls of congress or for a president. It's nice to know, but I would like a more broad discussion on education as a whole instead of just focusing on home schooling.

The Second Amendment

Again, if you agree with him that you should have a guaranteed right to hold any type of weapon made, then you will support him on this issue. If you are for gun laws and restricting gun use, you will disagree with him. Again, he is clear in his stance and shows exact legislation that he has put forth or voted against on this issue, so that is a good sign. Personally, I'm not sure we all need to have access to any weapon possible, but if you are a constitutionalists and believe that you have that right, Ron Paul is your man.

Social Security

Here, Rep. Paul is right that we cannot spend the money that is being put into social security to pay for the government. It is wrong and it is creating a huge problem. I am glad that he has worked to repeal taxes on social security benefits and has tried to raise their standard of living. He says that illegal aliens are putting a drain on social security, but unless they are gaining access to an illegal social security number, then I don't see this as a problem. However, overall on this issue, he was clear and stated exactly how he would support or fight for the rights of those collecting social security.

Overall

As for my support of Ron Paul, I would say about 50/50. He has some good ideas and I definitely agree with him on some major issues. However, on a lot of things, he sounds more like someone who is trying to scare us than anything. Talking about how constantly these "foreign unelected entities" are going to somehow take away our freedoms is a little overboard, and I see a lot of empty rhetoric on this site. Maybe it's because it's the campaign season, but its very hollow and if he fixed that, I could maybe see myself supporting him more. His stances on personal freedom and the Iraq War have resonated a lot with people of my generation and all generations. I think if he toned back on some of the more extreme areas of his campaign, he could have a legitimate opportunity. In the end however, it will be up to the people to decide if his ideas are extreme or in line with their ideals.