Ron Paul .com

Spending Freeze Not Likely

by Ron Paul

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

Channel: Fox Business
Date: 1/27/2010

Transcript:

News Anchor: Well folks, we are joined right now by a very special guest, Congressman Ron Paul, who in a little while will get a chance to question the secretary as today’s hearing continues. Congressman Paul, what do you plan to focus on during your questioning with Mr. Geithner?

Ron Paul: Probably why we need transparency of the Fed. I mean, he comes out and says, “Oh yeah, transparency and auditing the Fed is all fine, except for those things they want to keep secret”. But if we’d have clear knowledge about what’s been going on and what has gone on, maybe there wouldn’t be so much of this going on, all this secret bailing out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and sticking the taxpayers with all these worthless assets. So to me it’s a travesty, and yet they say this is a wonderful system and Geithner takes the argument that if we wouldn’t have done it, it would have been the end of the world. Yet today, it’s the end of jobs for a lot of average citizens at the same time that Wall Street gets bailed out.

News Anchor: Well, congressman, though it’s the same point. We’ve been listening and we’ve been monitoring his testimony over the last two hours, and he has said over and over, “I had no knowledge, I didn’t instruct AIG to cover up any type of payouts to the banks.” You’ve heard several other attorneys, people that worked on the deal from the New York Fed say, “Look, there were legalities involved with AIG and that we had to do the payouts. There were contracts made with the banks, between the banks and AIG. You can’t stop that, you can’t change the law midstream”. How would you respond to that?

Ron Paul: Well, you’d wonder why they allow a company like Lehman to go bankrupt. They said this one was just too big to allow to go bankrupt. I just don’t happen to believe that. The good assets of AIG would have been bought up. There would have been no reason for us to have to buy these bad assets that have no value and bail out Goldman Sachs and the banks. That, to me, is just an atrocious action that we shouldn’t tolerate. These hearings are great. They make the point that the Federal Reserve is very much involved and it makes my point that we need more transparency, and we shouldn’t allow the Federal Reserve to be doing these things. It also makes the point that as much as I blame the Federal Reserve, I blame the Congress. The Congress created the Fed, they’ve exerted no oversight and I don’t think anything will ever be the same again. I think that from now on the American people know about the Fed and know why we should have transparency.

News Anchor: Alright, Congressman Paul. I mean, I know that you propose legislation for more power to audit the Fed, I understand that. But should we not be focusing on Ben Bernanke? Why are we focusing today on Tim Geithner, who said over and over that he does not have anything to do with these payouts to AIG. Why not move over to the Fed today?

Ron Paul: I think no. I don’t think anybody believes that. I mean, if it is true, how can you be the head of the New York Fed and say, “I didn’t even know what they were doing”. So we made him secretary of the treasury? I mean, if he didn’t know what was going on, he did make the important decisions. The only thing that he denies is that he had anything to do with keeping it secret. That’s what he is saying. He isn’t saying that he didn’t participate in the decision making. There is a big difference. And you know, when people in higher places need the people under them to make decisions, they conveniently allow them to make some decisions. But, nevertheless, the details of this are less interesting to me than the overall policy and overall monetary policy and the reason that we have to get a handle on the Federal Reserve.

News Anchor: Alright. Well, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, I know you got to get back in there. I know that your turn at the lectern is coming up. I’ll let you go. Thank you, Congressman Paul, great to talk to you, sir.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Congressman Ron Paul will present “The Case Against the Fed” at Loyola University Maryland on Wednesday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. The event, which takes place in McGuire Hall on the University’s North Charles Street campus, will be followed by a book signing and reception.

Dr. Paul, a Republican and an obstetrician by training who has served Texas’s 14th district for 20 years, will discuss many of the key themes outlined in his book End the Fed, a New York Times bestseller. Dr. Paul is also the co-author of a current bill requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve.

“Dr. Paul presents a very convincing case that the Federal Reserve is not only the cause of much of our current economic condition, but is continuing with policies that will lead to greater difficulties in the future,” said Thomas DiLorenzo, Ph.D., a professor of economics at Loyola who arranged Dr. Paul’s appearance. “In addition to calling for the first audit of the Fed, he also proposes several alternatives for managing the U.S. money supply.”

Dr. Paul, a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, serves on the House Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees as well as the Joint Economic Committee. He was a candidate for the Republican nomination during the 2008 United States presidential campaign.

The event, part of the Moral Foundations of Capitalism lecture series led by DiLorenzo, is supported by a grant from the BB&T Foundation.

Legalize Competing Currencies

by Ron Paul

Much has been made recently about the supposed economic recovery. A few blips in a few statistics and many believe our troubles are all over. Of course, they have to redefine recovery as “jobless” to account for the lack of improvement on Main Street. But the banks have money, Wall Street is chugging along, and the administration would like to get on with other agendae.

They have even set up a commission to investigate the crisis as if it were all in the past.

The truth is that Americans are still losing jobs, the Fed is still inflating, and more regulations are in the works that will prevent jobs and productivity from coming back. We are on this trajectory for the long haul. The claim has been made many times that this administration has only had a year to clean up the mess of the last administration. I wish they would at least get started!Instead of reversing course, they are maintaining Bush’s policies full speed ahead. They are even keeping the Bush-appointee in charge of the Federal Reserve!They are not even making token efforts at change in economic policy. And for all the talk of transparency, we hear that some powerful senators will do all they can to block a simple audit of the powerful and secretive Federal Reserve.

We have been on a disastrous course for a long time. The money supply has doubled in the last year, our debt is unsustainable, the value of the dollar is going to continue its drop, and those Americans who understand where we are headed feel helpless and held hostage by foolish policy makers in Washington. When the bills finally come due and the dollar stops working we are in for some real social, economic and political chaos. That is, unless we take some major steps now to allow for a peaceful transition in the future. These steps are laid out in my legislation to legalize competing currencies.

First of all, no one should be compelled by law to operate in Federal Reserve notes if they prefer an alternative. We should repeal legal tender laws and allow Americans to conduct transactions in constitutional money. Only gold and silver can constitutionally be legal tender, not paper money. Instead, it is illegal to conduct business using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve notes. Simply legalizing the Constitution should be a no-brainer to anyone who took an oath of office. Consequently, private mints should be allowed to mint gold and silver coins. They would be subject to fraud and counterfeit laws, of course, and people would be free to use their coins or stay with Federal Reserve notes, as they see fit. Finally, we should abolish taxes on gold and silver, which puts precious metals at a competitive disadvantage to paper money.

The Federal Reserve is a government-sanctioned banking cartel that has held far too much power for far too long and is in the end stages of running the dollar into the ground, and our economy along with it. The very least Congress can do, if they are not willing to abolish the Fed, and perhaps not even conduct a serious audit of it, is to allow citizens the freedom to defend themselves from being completely wiped out by their monopoly power.

Show: Larry King Live
Channel: CNN
Date: 1/25/2010

Transcript:

Larry King: Before we get into the stimulus project as promised, CNN’s Ann Andrews reports tonight that President Obama is set to announce a three year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. That move would freeze discretionary spending at $447 billion dollars.

Joining us now to talk about that and to debate the stimulus and whether it’s actually working, is Robert Reich. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, now he’s a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkely. His most recent book is “Super Capitalism” and is out in paperback. And Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. He’s also the author of “End the Fed”. We’ll start with you, Robert. What do you make of the freezing of the domestic programs for three years?

Robert Reich: I don’t think it makes much sense, Larry, and I’ll tell you why. The government, under the circumstances we now face, is the purchaser of last resort. Consumers are not buying. They’re still scared, for good reason. Businesses are not investing very much, they don’t want to invest if there are not enough consumers out there. So government has got to spend. This is something that a lot of people have difficulty understanding because you don’t want bigger deficits in the long term. But in the short term, government has got to spend more to get the economy moving, to get jobs so people can actually work and generate a larger economy, and therefore get the outside budget, the long term budget down. So having a freeze right now on discretionary spending and effectively saying to the world, to Wall Street, to the country, “We’re not going to do anymore deficit spending” makes absolutely no sense.

Larry King: Congressman Paul, your thoughts?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think Mr. Reich has too much to worry about that things are going to be frozen in Washington DC. Matter of fact, even what Obama is saying is not going to into effect for a year, and the Congress won’t let it happen. I think Mr. Reich’s sentiments are well represented in Washington [...] because I actually want to see more money spent, not less. It’s just that who has the discretion to spend it; that’s the issue. When the government spends it they malinvest, they misdirect it. They can’t direct capital correctly. We don’t have our problem because there has not been enough consumption, enough spending. We had too much, we borrowed, we’re in debt. So that is not going to solve the problem. What we should have done is maybe suspend the income tax for 3 years. It would have cost us less than bailing out the big banks and all these special interests. I mean, with more money the people could make their decision on whether they should liquidate their debt or how they world investment it. And this could be a wiser choice. (more…)

Show: Glenn Beck Program (Radio)
Date: 01/25/2010

Transcript:

Glenn Beck: Now, we always have Ron Paul on when we talk about the economy, because Ron and I are … well, he’ll probably disagree with and so would many of his supporters … but I think we’re pretty close to lockstep on many of the things that he believes in the economy. The Fed is absolutely just evil. We have gone away from the gold standard, we’re spending money like crazy people, and we’re destroying our nation. We’re just destroying it.

I also think of Ron Paul and I as in the same territory when it comes to progressives and the idea of the big government, and he is probably closer to our founding fathers than probably anybody else out there right now, as far as the understanding of limited government goes.

However, sometimes we go off the track and that’s why I wanted to talk to him today. Because I’d like him to explain it to me. Ron Paul, welcome to the program, sir. How are you doing?

Ron Paul: Good, good to be with you, Glenn.

Glenn Beck: Would you say that what I just said about our viewpoints is accurate or not?

Ron Paul: I think that’s pretty good. It seems like you’ve nudged your way a little bit closer to what I’ve been, so maybe you’ll come over these things we disagree on.

Glenn Beck: Ron, I am not a guy who’s afraid to admit when I am wrong. I am not a guy to … I think anybody who stops growing is dead. And I’ve come a long way towards you, you know, I didn’t really understand the progressive movement up until I’d say two years ago I really started to get a handle on it. And I really started to look at the history of our country, and coupled that with the context of the founders. And I’ve come a long way towards your way of thinking.

Ron Paul: Glenn, I might say that you’re one of the few that will interview me. A lot of other times they don’t interview me. They ask me a question, and if they don’t like the answer then they start shouting. But you, over these last couple of years, have been willing to interview me, and I really appreciate that.

Glenn Beck: Well, that’s not a problem. And I want to make sure that this doesn’t sound like a giant love fest between us, because I do disagree with you. But I want to see if you can make sense to me on this. You said, in fact, can we play the audio? Do you have that? Here’s the audio clip.

Ron Paul: They’re almost like they live in a different world. The military is down, the morale is down, the money isn’t there, but they’re looking for more wars to fight. It makes no sense whatsoever. (more…)

Ron Paul was interviewed on Fox Business’ “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” concerning the government’s involvement in the economy, Fannie and Freddie, and the controversy surrounding Ben Bernanke’s nomination to another term as Fed chairman.

Channel: Fox Business
Show: America’s Nightly Scoreboard
Host: David Asman
Date: 01/22/2010

Transcript

David Asman: Here to talk about all these things is one Congressman who’s been warning us all about these houses of cards that were about to fall down, for years. Congressman Ron Paul joins us by phone from Texas, and our own Elizabeth MacDonald is here to guide us through all those weeds of regulations and lamebrain laws the politicians come up with and we’re all subjected to them.

Congressman, first to you. Is this the pot calling the kettle black when we hear all these politicians wagging their fingers about the bad things the bankers have done that got us into this mess?

Ron Paul: I think there is no doubt about it. Especially congressional activity of telling them what kind of loans to make, and making low interest loans and low down payments, the whole works, and these affirmative action type loans. But then again the major part that I talk about so much is the whole process of easy money, you know, I say easy come, easy go. And easy money has been there and it’s been pushed into the banking system. So the banks were participants, but they were more or less participating in a system that was created by the politicians, the monetary system, the financial system, as well as the congressional mandate. It was destined to come down, and it has to come down.

But the tragedy is that the politicians and the same economists are still in charge and they said, “Well yeah, maybe we spent too much, borrowed too much and printed too much. The only thing we know what to do is to do more”. So they’re doubling their efforts, and there’s not a chance in the world that we’re going to have an answer coming out of Washington very soon.

David Asman: Spend too much, borrow much, we’re looking at Ben Bernanke, by the way, who might get thrown under the bus as well. But Elizabeth, the president’s very proud about his roots as a community activist. But one of the prime things a community activist did was try to force banks and get their buddies in Congress to make banks make loans to poor people who probably shouldn’t be in houses, the mortgages of which are driving this whole system bankrupt.

Elizabeth MacDonald: Yeah, you’re right there. Why don’t we have a rent policy until you can afford to own? You know, it’s no small irony that at a time when the president is moving to cap risk at the nation’s bank, that the government has uncapped the credit pipeline that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoy into the treasury. In other words, they uncapped it. It was at $400 billion, and they just took that cap off. And even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their securities filings say that the nation’s housing policies will cost taxpayers money. They’ve already cost about $110 billion dollars in taxpayer losses. And, you know, the TARP losses, let me talk about that. The banks today have yet to cost money to the TARP. It’s AIG, the auto makers and the home loan modification program that’s costing taxpayers money.

David Asman: Well, because the president’s buddies in the unions essentially own the car companies. But Congressman, you know, when you see the fact that Fannie and Freddie Mae are now… year have Barney Frank saying, “Well, maybe we should get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”, after he was the one who prevented them from being auditing, prevented them from getting rid of some of their worst subprime loans when everybody else was telling them to. I mean, that’s the worst hypocrisy here.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and you know, early on I had tried to remove that line of credit. It was a line of credit which was very symbolic because even though they didn’t use it, but the guarantee was there. And it wasn’t $2 billion, they ended up using $400 billion of credit. But the whole principle of the lender of last resort, the government insurance, the FDIC and too big to bail and the line of credit and the guarantees, that’s all built into the system. And there is no attempt to address that. And maybe there will be some improvement, but it’s just back and forth. What we probably need are stricter regulations. We have built in all these mistakes, we expect them to happen, but if we had more regulations you might be able to protect the people from all the mistakes that the banks are doing and are destined to make. (more…)

Show: AntiWar Radio
Host: Scott Horton
Channel: KAOS 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas
Date: 01/22/2010

Download the interview as an MP3 file here. (29:49 minutes)

Transcript

Scott Horton: Alright, it’s Anti War Radio, KAOS 959 in Austin Texas, streaming live worldwide on the internet at kaosradioaustin.org and antiwar.com/radio. And I’m happy to welcome our next guest, Dr. Ron Paul, representative from district 14 down there on the Texas Gulf Coast and the only decent congressman in American history. And, of course, we all know him from his run for president in 2007 and 2008. Welcome back to the show, Ron. How are you doing?

Ron Paul: Thank you, doing well.

Scott Horton: I really appreciate you joining us on the show today.

Ron Paul: Good to be with you.

So, so most important thing here to start with, I think, is a story in Harpers Magazine by the other Scott Horton, renowned international human rights lawyer and anti-torture hero, about three men who quite apparently were murdered on the night of June 9th, 2006. And apparently there is a massive cover up involving the Navy criminal investigative service, the justice department, the FBI, and perhaps even parts of the Congress, in trying to kill this story. And I just wonder whether there is anything that you can do about this as a member of the Foreign Relations committee? Would you have any jurisdiction to hold some kind of hearings or do anything to further investigate this?

Ron Paul: Well, it’s probably judiciary. I don’t think they would touch it, probably even the committees that are responsible are not likely to touch it. But it’s just another tragedy; there are so many of those tragedies around. So I’m not predicting that much will happen, but I know international relations wouldn’t touch it.

Scott Horton: And, I mean, how troubling is that? Did you have a chance to read the article?

Ron Paul: You know, I read it; it was a rather long article. I did not get the whole thing read, but I just got the gist of it and it just got me so upset because it’s just another cover up, another atrocious act by our government. So it’s a real shame.

Scott Horton: Well, I learnt when I was a kid that what brought Nixon down wasn’t the crime, it was the cover up.

Ron Paul: Yeah.

Scott Horton: It’s really not a big deal on Washington DC, you know, a few CIA agents torture a guy to death; we’re used to that. That happens all the time. But the problem here is that the FBI and the Justice Department and all these other people making sure that the investigation doesn’t go anywhere.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and I think that principle must be the same thing that helped me on getting the Audit the Fed Bill along. Because we were often talking about transparency, we weren’t talking about what exactly what the Fed was doing. But it’s the transparency; the hidden activities that they have, or the cover ups. So, I think good people, left or right or center, always say, “You know, that’s wrong. That is wrong. The cover up is bad and the hiding of government is so bad”. I’ve always argued that we have things turned upside down here. If the governments have a function they ought to be protecting and guaranteeing our privacy. But what do they do? They protect their secrecy. And they go and they do tricks like this to hide what they do. At the same time they undermine our privacy. So I think our government is absolutely on the wrong track.

Scott Horton: Well now if you were the president after September 11th, how would you have set this up? Because this seems that now that Obama has come into power, not too much has changed. They say they’re going to give trials to some of these men, but then they say, “Well, if they’re acquitted we’ll go ahead and hold them anyway”. And some of these people are going to get military trials, others aren’t going to get trials at all, though. They’ll just be held by the military indefinitely. So we we’re not sure how much of a change Obama’s making to the Bush policy. But what should be done with Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and the rest of these guys? Just put them on trial in New York, Dr. Paul?

Ron Paul: Well, you know, long term what you have to change is the foreign policy so that we can get ourselves out of this business. But, yes. I would try them in our courts. You know, the individuals that committed the bombing, I believe it was in 1993, they were arrested, brought to trial, they committed the crime in this country and they’re imprisoned for life. I mean, what is so horrible about that? I mean, it’s this whole idea of secret rendition and secret prisons and torture, the assumption that that if somebody declares you a enemy combatant, one individual, that that is equal to being a terrorist. You know, they’re suspects. But that means you can be tried by one individual and held forever.

And American citizens are subject to that as well if you’re declared an enemy combatant. And I think the conditions are just horrible. If we have a breakdown of law and order here and if our economy really tanks and there is more violence, you can see where they could declare martial law and start holding people like this. So I think these are key issues, although for the average guy on the street this is rather esoteric. “Oh, they haven’t come after me”, that sort of thing and they pass it off. But I think what they’re doing is setting a precedent for being able to handle domestic violence here. Because what happens if they get careless with the definition of ‘enemy combatant’. Almost anybody who talks sympathetically or even not sympathetically, but just tries to explain the situation, they say, “Oh, you’re one of those guys that blame America first, and you could be declared an enemy combatant”. So I consider it very dangerous. (more…)

In his 2010 State of the Republic address, Ron Paul outlined the following 8 point plan for a transition to a free society:

• Balance the budget by reducing spending
• Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention
• A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve
• Legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies
• Regain respect for civil liberties and privacy while reigning in the CIA
• Wean ourselves off the dependence of wealth transfers by government
• Abolish crony capitalism: no subsidies, no bailouts, no regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military-industrial complex
• Eliminate the income tax, inheritance tax and taxes on savings and dividends.

Transcript

Date: 01/21/2010

As we start the new year 2010, the establishment politicians, economists and Wall Street are trying to convince themselves that we have turned the corner and economic growth has once again begun. The predictions that conditions are getting back to normal come from those who never saw the crisis coming and don’t have the vaguest notion what caused it. Some of them concede that it could be a jobless recovery. That will establish a new definition for a recovery.

Official unemployment is at 10% but even the government knows that if everyone is counted, including those individuals that are too discouraged to even be looking for work, the unemployment rate is 17%. Free-market economists claim the actual unemployment rate is closer to 22%.

There’s reason to believe that the correction has just barely started and has a long way to run. If the financial bubble came from excess credit created by the Federal Reserve, doubling the money supply can hardly be a solution. It wouldn’t make much sense for a doctor taking care of a very sick patient from severe infection to deliberately give the patient another infection. Yet that’s what the PhD doctors are doing to our very sick economy. It can’t work. It will make the economy much sicker. If our leaders don’t wake up soon, the economy will be brought to its knees. Great danger lies ahead.

In foreign policy, it’s always crucial that the motives of those who would do us harm are understood. Denial of the truth and accepting more politically palatable excuses will guarantee that threats to our safety will continue as we pursue a seriously flawed involvement overseas.

It’s the same in economic policy. If there’s denial or ignorance of the real cause of financial bubbles and the inevitable corrections that must follow, the economy cannot be reenergized.

We should have learned the lesson from the Depression of the 1930s that it was a predictable result from the Federal Reserve’s orchestrated excesses of the 1920s. Instead, the new-born Keynesian economists who took charge made certain that the correction would not be a one or two year affair as were the previous corrections in our history. The aggressive intervention by Hoover and Roosevelt, the Republicans and the Democrats, turned a short recession into the Great Depression, which lasted until the end of World War II. (more…)

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti
January 21, 2010

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.

Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.

Show: Rick’s List
Host: Rick Sanchez
Channel: CNN
Date: 01/20/2010

Transcript

Rick Sanchez: Alright, joining me now are two congressmen who’ve had some of the most colorful quotes, to say the very least, on this story so far. Republican Ron Paul of Texas, Democrat Anthony Weiner of New York. My thanks to both of you.

I’ve been trying to figure out what happened last night at Massachusetts, just like both of you have. And I’m wondering whether this really was a repudiation of Democrats and an embracing of Republicans.

Ron Paul, I want to ask you first, congressman. First of all, do you see yourself as a Republican or more as a Libertarian? I’ve never been able to figure you out.

Ron Paul: Yes. I think both. You’re allowed to be a conservative Republican, you’re allowed to be a liberal Republican, why can’t you be a libertarian? Libertarian just means you’re a constitutionalist.

Rick Sanchez: I’m not taking anything away from you. I’m just thinking that you’re in a unique position to try and define for us whether these folks in Massachusetts last night were saying, “Look, we don’t care, we don’t like either of you, and we’re tired of the same old stuff. And we’ll vote you out no matter who you are”. Or whether they were really saying, “We don’t like Barack Obama”, as the Republicans are telling us today that they are. What’s your take?

Ron Paul: Well, my take is that I’m apolitical and I think right now that’s very popular: the people that say they’re independent. I’ve never thought a whole lot of the political parties, though some of my legislation gets as much support from the Democrats as they do from the Republicans. So no, I think the issue is whether you’re right or wrong. And I happen to believe strongly in transparency and privacy and lot of liberal democrats will support me on that. And they will support me on foreign policy as well.

Rick Sanchez: What are Democrats like Anthony Weiner wrong about that cost them Massachusetts last night? What are the Democrats wrong about right now? What’s Obama wrong about?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t know whether I’ll use the word ‘wrong’, but I think where they’re missing it is that what the people are upset about is that the government no longer can function because it fails. They’re incapable of doing this, they take on too much.

It isn’t who’s going to manage the right way or the wrong way, it’s just that’s its unmanageable. It’s sort of like directing traffic for every single person in the country. It doesn’t work. Markets work better than government.

Government bureaucrats and politicians tend to be political and they tend to mess things up and prices go up and become inefficient. So the process is wrong and I happen to believe in the marketplace; that they’re more capable. I’d like to see people at least consider delivering medical care like we deliver cell phones. Prices go down and quality goes up. But no, when the government does it, the opposite happens.

Rick Sanchez: Alright, Anthony Weiner, you heard that. That’s an interesting analysis he provided you with, giving you perhaps some information you could use as a Democrat. What’s your take?

Anthony Weiner: Well, the only problem with that is if you look at the places the government has entered, we’ve actually done, in many cases, a better job than the private sector. You ask people whether they like Medicare, 96% of people on it say they like it. It has an overhead rate of 1% compared to the private sector, which has an overhead of about 30%. And in terms of containing costs, actually we’re doing a better job on Medicare despite the fact that they’re all senior citizens.

Look, the problems the Democrats have had recently is that we’ve kind of gotten away from the things that we know work and the people like. You know, we’ve made compromises to get rid of the public option, and that would have been competition, more choice going in the direction that Congressman Paul wants to go into. We jettison that on the altar of getting 60 votes from our senators, and we forgot that the American people are pretty smart. They watch these things and they say, “What is it exactly that the Democrat healthcare plan is supposed to be about, if not something like the public option or expanding Medicare?” That, I think, is the mistake we’ve made.

You know, Congressman Paul is one of the rare, truly consistent guys in Congress, and we all respect him for that. I mean, sometimes I’m not sure he’s in touch with the mother ship on some of the things he proposes, but he’s always consistent. But in this case he just happens to have it wrong.

Rick Sanchez: Go head, Congressman Paul.

Ron Paul: On the Medicare: Yes, some people are satisfied with Medicare. But what he failed to say is that it’s bankrupt. The end stages are there, you just can’t whack away like they propose taking away some of the Medicare benefits. Take the housing, you can say public housing is great; everybody gets a wonderful house, we made interest rates low, we give them no down payments, and everybody is happy, until they lose their house and we bail out Wall Street and big banks. So it’s a failed system.

Rick Sanchez: Congressman Paul, you don’t want government in anything?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I do. I want them to play an important role. They should be enforcing contracts. We’re in charge at the federal level on bankruptcy, for instance. We bail them with the money from the people that were successful. So we have everything turned upside down.

Rick Sanchez: That’s a good point, sir. Anyway, Anthony Weiner, how do you argue with the fact that maybe we try and manage too much, which is his principled point?

Anthony Weiner: Well, perhaps that’s right. But I got to tell you, the schizophrenia of our Republican friends when it comes to Medicare… they believe it’s terrible to have government run healthcare, except for this healthcare plan, which covers about 45% of the American population. They don’t like healthcare, but when you try to mix it to get some waste out of Medicare, they scream.

Look, the fact of the matter is you can’t just simply say, “Government is good or bad.” There are some things we do well, some things we don’t do as well. But healthcare is a case that we know the free market is never going to be able to solve every the problem, because they’re never going to cover sick people.

Rick Sanchez: We’re going to have to leave it there, gentlemen. Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Anthony Weiner. You guys are great.

Ron Paul: Up until 1965 they did.

Rick Sanchez: Thank you both. There you go. That’s Ron Paul, getting a last shot in. We appreciate both of you.