« Ron Paul, Part Deux | Main | I lied... »
Just This, Then I'm Done. Really.
January 29, 2008
See, I tend to write these things when I'm not supposed to be, so time is limited and I don't always get to include everything I'd like.
One of my points in all my Ron Paul rantings is that I don't think everyone sees past his views on the Iraq war. I've heard from a lot of people who looked a bit further and realized that he really just wasn't the candidate for them.
I avoided talking about the issues at first, because for once in politics, I didn't think it was relevant to the more important problem that his newsletters presented. But my ranting is not just about the newsletters, but it's about taking the narrow view and buying into something without really knowing what's on the list of ingredients.
How to do that? It's easy to look at what Paul or his opponents say he's about. It's somewhat illuminating to see how he voted on certain measures. It's much more informative to look at bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.
A smattering:
Paul says abortion is a matter that should be left to the states. He has said he's pro-life, though he dodges the issue a bit. That's OK, I can respect that. But some strongly pro-choice folks should know where he really stands, and it's also interesting that he's not been real consistent with his stance.
It's one thing to propose legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for family planning activities or abortions - he doesn't want to use federal funds for anything, so he's just being consistent.
So, what's up with the three bills (HR 2597, HR1094, and HR776, all introduced "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception"? Or, House Resolution 392, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States "guaranteeing the right to life."
Much to the chagrin of my pro-choice friends, I do have some pro-life friends with views I respect. But for all of us, it goes downhill from here...
There's the multiple attempts (H.R.300, H.R.4379, H.R.5739, H.R.3893)to enact the "We the People Act", seeking to prevent the Supreme and lower federal courts from adjudicating:
(A) 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;(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) 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;
The Act would also prevent the courts from relying on any judicial decision on these issues. Why? Because
Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
He also takes the odd stance for a libertarian on flag-burning, though I'll grant that it's via a Constitutional amendment empowering the states to prohibit it. While this looks like the usual states' rights thing, it's actually removing the federal government from being in a position from declaring such laws unconstitutional, which is the current state of affairs. In other words, by changing the status quo, he's clearly defining a preference. This is the case with a lot of his proposed legislation that masquerades under the guise of simply removing federal influence.
He's also twice tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act. While OSHA can be a hassle for employers, it has provided workplace standards that have protected workers for over thirty years.
Again, no doubt this is a states' rights/federal government messes everything up issue. The thing is, laws like this get enacted for two reasons: 1) there's a problem, and states have not all been handling it themselves (see: slavery), and 2) if some states handle the issues themselves, and others are lax, where will the unscrupulous employers go? Laissez-faire economics of the Von Mies variety that Paul admires says that once things get too bad, the market will insist on change, making regulation unnecessary and even counterproductive. But really, how well has that worked out in history?
Let's see... he's also tried to "repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment (i.e. eliminate minimum wage laws)," repeal the National Voter Registration Act, and tried to specifically make Iranian students ineligible for any federal financial aid (this during the hostage crisis in 1979).
Wow, this is getting long. But let's just hit some more fun highlights:
H.J.RES.42: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.
H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.
H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating. (Uhhh... what?)
H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade. (One of the "obstacles" explicitly being those pesky environmental regulations.)
And those of us who thought we should have let the U.N. do more with the Iraq situation, and that railed against the installation of Bolton as our amb-ass-ador to the UN?
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.285 (A038): An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.190 (A024): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.
H.AMDT.191 (A025): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for use toward any U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping operations.
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.306 (A006): Amendment sought to eliminate the authorization of funding for any United Nations program.
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.138 (A010): Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.
H.R.1146: To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.
H.R.3890: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.
H.R.3891: A bill to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.
H.R.6358: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.
H.R.14788: A bill to limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations.
Oh, also, we'd like the Panama Canal back:
H.CON.RES.231: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.H.RES.1410: A resolution in support of continued undiluted U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction over the U.S.-owned Canal Zone on the Isthmus of Panama.
H.R.2522: A bill to prohibit the use of any United States funds to implement the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 unless the use of those funds for that purpose is hereafter expressly provided for by the Congress and to prohibit the transfer to the Republic of Panama any territory or other property of the United States in the Canal Zone unless the Congress hereafter enacts legislation which expressly authorizes such transfer.
This is rich: H.R.2779: "To repeal section 5103 of title 31, United States Code."
And what, exactly, does Section 5103 say?
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
Huh? Maybe there's some companion legislation that will clear this up...
H.R.3931: A bill to amend the Coinage Act of 1965 to provide that coins and currencies of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations, shall be legal tender only for the payment of Federal taxes, duties and dues.
Oh. Ah. Well, here ya go.
Gee, there's so much more, and I'm out of time.
You can certainly do this with all of the significant candidates, and in fact, a lot of it has done for them. But the even the essential details get glossed over a bit in the ReLOVEution. In fact, of all the incredible things pulled off by his campaign, the concealment of the sheer nuttiness of his views is the most amazing...
Posted by Rob at January 29, 2008 02:04 PM