This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.
Jan Mickelson: We’re joined by Dr. Paul, he’s also a congressman, he’s also a presidential candidate. Welcome back, sir, welcome back to Iowa.
Ron Paul: Thank you, it’s nice to be here.
Jan Mickelson: So when did you get in?
Ron Paul: I got in about 22 minutes ago.
Jan Mickelson: It looks like you have a serious pizza addiction, because it looks like you’re going to be at pizza places all over the state here today.
Ron Paul: Well, I didn’t know about that. I had some pizza the other day, and it was late at night and I was so hungry I ate so much. But I’m ready again.
Jan Mickelson: Oh yea, I can see you’re bulking up.
Ron Paul: Yea.
Jan Mickelson: Do you share the pizza theory that Herman Cain has: the more toppings, the less prissy you are, the less of a wimp you are?
Ron Paul: I didn’t hear about that one, all I know is I like a lot of mushrooms on my pizza.
Jan Mickelson: Well, he had some kind of theory – I don’t want to waste my time with this – but somebody quoted him as saying, “Well, that’s just another one of his problem he has with women”, because he made this crack about how many pizza toppings he considers to be manly.
Ron Paul: But he also came down hard on vegetarian pizzas, too. I don’t think he liked that, that wasn’t manly enough.
Jan Mickelson: Well, that’s a good sign, don’t you think? But let me read you something, do you mind? I’m looking at a book, this is Andrew Napolitano’s most recent book.
Ron Paul: He’s my good friend.
Jan Mickelson: We’re going to get a chance to talk to him in a couple of weeks. His new book says, “It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong”. And he wrote this, “This book is dedicated to Congressman Ron Paul, physician, philosopher, economist, public servant and defender of the constitution. Through his tireless efforts, freedom itself has been rekindled in the hearts of millions of Americans”. Did you know he wrote that?
Ron Paul: I do know that, and I think that’s very nice and very generous.
Jan Mickelson: That’s really cool. He could have put anything he wanted to in there, and this is going to be on the permanent record, it goes into his permanent record.
Ron Paul: I hope he sells lots of books.
Jan Mickelson: I do, too.
Jan Mickelson: So how did you make friends with him, how did you connect?
Ron Paul: Well, it was an outreach on his part, it was through getting involved with the Mises institute. He liked Murray Rothbard, he liked Lew Rockwell and he promoted Austrian economics. Early on he came by, although he had been on TV, he wasn’t a major personality on TV yet, that was shortly after the contest with Bush in the election. That’s when he got on TV. But he came by and he was in Washington and he wanted to meet me. And he used to come and talk to my liberty group and I’d have dinners and he would come in and be a speaker. So we’ve goten to know each other real well over the years.
Jan Mickelson: I really like him, he’s really a smart guy. And you guys are working on the same side of the same street when it comes to a constitutionally limited government.
Ron Paul: There you go.
Jan Mickelson: There is something I want you to hear, use your earphones, and this was from John Stewart the other night from comedy central. And here’s when he was talking about you, and he was talking about now that you’re doing better, will you get better treatment by the mainstream media.
Jon Stewart: Some of the names have fallen out, Bachman, Perry, Cain. Perhaps Ron Paul will now get his shot as the media frontrunner.
TV Speaker: Ron Paul has no chance of being elected.
Jon Stewart: His poll numbers actually have been consistent, not mercurial and “he’s got no chance”. You’re giving everyone else a chance, for God’s sakes, a woman who never entered the race, Sarah Palin, got more heat from the media.
TV Voice: If you get a video of Sarah Palin, or get a sound bite from her, bring that back to us, you can hold the Ron Paul stuff.
Voice: The thought of covering him amuses me.
Jan Mickelson: That’s really interesting, because, I don’t know if Jon Stewart is your supporter or not, but he really gouges the media for not paying attention and being just easily distracted.
Ron Paul: I doubt if he is. We’ve had conversations and he’s pretty moderate on some of the entitlement systems. But I think he doesn’t like hypocrites and he likes to be honest. And when people are dishonest or hypocritical, I think he likes to poke a lot of fun at them.
Jan Mickelson: Oh, well, that explains it.
Ron Paul: Yea, maybe it’s good for ratings. But no, I consider him very friendly in a philosophic sense. He gives me fair time, he’s had me on his show I think three times.
Jan Mickelson: The KCRG survey of Iowa Republicans has Herman Cain is at 25%, you that 20%. That’s pretty good around here, you know, what kind of significance do you give to that?
Ron Paul: Well, I think it’s very significant and it goes along with what we have found in our own polls for a couple of months, that we are doing quite well and we have never been second-tier in the last 3 months in Iowa or in New Hampshire. But that’s where we’re spending our money and that’s where I spend my time.
Jan Mickelson: You’re doing fairly well in New Hampshire, too.
Ron Paul: Right, that is true, and we’ll keep doing that and, you know, in the after-debate polls they always accuse us of spamming and all this kind of stuff. And they always warn that if Ron wins those polls, they have no meaning because they know how to do it. But now I heard one this morning in which they said, “If Romney gets beaten by anybody else, it would have a lot of meaning”, you know, if he doesn’t come in first in Iowa. But if Ron Paul beats him in Iowa, it has no significance, so they’re already trying to get people to understand what the results were. “If he wins, it has no meaning”. Well, we’ll have to prove our stripes, and that means that we have to do very well in both the early states where we’ve invested so much time.
Jan Mickelson: It’s interesting you have appeared to have annoyed Bill O’Reilly over and over, too. Because we’ve had this conversation before, he went on the air a few weeks ago talking about how you can’t have real money, you have to have paper money. it was not in the constitution, that’s easily refuted, and you usually refuted that. But apparently he’s annoyed at you now for another reason, he was taking after you the other day, here’s what he said:
Bill O’Reilly: Well, there is an orchestrated campaign to hurt “Killing Lincoln” on www.Amazon.com. Who’s doing that, the occupiers? There is some far-left involvement, but the primary people dishonestly sliming the book are Ron Paul supporters. Amazon and Congressman Paul are aware of the situation, and I want to thank all of you who have actually read “Killing Lincoln”.
Jan Mickelson: Alright, so that’s the idea that apparently up on the Amazon website where people give comments about Bill O’Reilly’s book, he says your people, the Ron Paul people, are trash-talking Bill O’Reilly.
Ron Paul: I never knew I had people, that I was in control of people. I have control of myself and my ideas, and hopefully people will endorse those ideas. But one of the things I don’t want to control is other people. I don’t know all the details or the technical problem that Bill’s having with Amazon, but I guess he’ll have to work that out. I have no idea what is occurring with the interference with him selling his books.
Jan Mickelson: Admit is not the right world, but you’ll have to acknowledge that you have an extraordinarily faithful, aggressive and dedicated core of supporters. I mean, they’d crawl over broken glass for you.
Ron Paul: Yes, and I turn that around because I know my limitations and I feel good that they place confidence in me. But what I’m convinced of, is they are dedicated with the things I’m talking about, they understand what I’m saying about personal liberty, about a different foreign policy, about the Federal Reserve, sound money, limited government, cutting spending, following the constitution. That’s what they tell me when I talk to them, and I talk to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of them when I go to the campuses, and that is what they’re interested in. And I think they do want to associate with a personality, but I consider that very secondary to their enthusiasm for the issues I’ve been talking about.
Jan Mickelson: The biggest thing that has propelled you to the awareness of not my generation, but the next generation as well, is your steadfast support of honest money, honest currency. You’ve warned for as long as I can remember that our system is not sustainable and that if you hand the power of the printing press over to anybody, they’ll eventually wreck it, there’s never been an exception to that.
Ron Paul: And that’s been going on for a long time, thousands of years. Money was an issue in biblical times, they talked about honest weights and measures. My understanding of the bible was never to curtail commerce, but that you should invest your money and you should have honest weights and measures and that you shouldn’t cheat people. And yet, it’s been going on. Like you say, they’ve destroyed so many times, and gold has withstood 6000 years of history, paper is never maintained. And now we’re in the midst of the elimination of the change over from the dollar reserve standard. It’s been undermined for many, many years since we’ve had our Federal Reserve, but it was really accelerated in 1971 when the last link to gold was severed, so we’ve had 40 years of that. But the big crack in that system occurred in 2008, that’s why this economy hasn’t gotten back on its feet again. And they will not address the subject of big government, spending money, printing money, borrowing money. And these efforts in Washington are very superficial. I do not believe that we can restore prosperity in this country without address the subject of money, along with the role of government: what should the government be doing, should we authorize the policing of the world and endless undeclared wars as well as runaway welfare? No, if you got to eliminate that incentive, then you have to change the monetary system, live within our means and once again trust the people. Trust the people to run their own lives and spend their own money, and we could be free and prosperous in a short period of time if we would do all those things at once.
Jan Mickelson: Despite the fact that some in the mainstream media continue to marginalize his candidacy, according to public opinion surveys, the people of Iowa have not marginalized him, he’s up at the top of the tier here. Let’s talk to as many Iowans as possible, try not to mess it up, okay?
Ron Paul: I’ll do my best.
Jan Mickelson: We’re doing great.
Ron Paul: Help me out if I need some help.
Jan Mickelson: This is John. Good morning, John.
John: Good morning. I was watching 60 minutes this last weekend and I saw a segment that convinced me of the corruption that’s worse than what I thought it was. It basically demonstrated how members of Congress can engage in insider trading without any reprisal, and I would like to know if the Congressman would support legislation to stop that?
Ron Paul: Well, my understanding is that a member of Congress is under all laws, so if it’s against the law to do insider trading, then the congressman can’t do it. Now, I’ve heard the other side of the argument, and I don’t have the final answer on it. But the real answer for this is, if you only had ethical people in Washington, you wouldn’t have to deal with this problem because people wouldn’t do it and they wouldn’t be listening to lobbyist and they wouldn’t be trading. But additional laws … I did see one bill and I briefly looked at it. Actually it would be a rule for the House members, and it was almost like I’d have to get permission to transfer savings and put it in checking; it was not that quite bad, but it was like you had to get a report to do every single thing. And I think they’re missing the boat. If they think that they that have unethical people in a system that is rotten to the core and the government does too much and there’s too much conflict of interest, to write another rule isn’t going to do it. But if a member of Congress has participated, had truly inside information and benefitted by it, that should be exposed, the voters ought to retaliate and he ought to be convicted of a crime if it’s against the law.
Jan Mickelson: Well, John’s talking that 60 Minutes thing, I’ve seen excerpts of it, and that was just a very powerful presentation. And 60 Minutes confronted Nancy Pelosi, for instance, for insider trading.
Ron Paul: Right, there are a lot of them on both sides of the aisle, and I think they should be punished.
Jan Mickelson: Well, what tools do you have at your disposal to do that?
Ron Paul: Well, you go to Nancy Pelosi and Boehner and say, “Look, punish these people who are breaking the law”.
Jan Mickelson: What if they’re participating?
Ron Paul: Yea, that’s the whole thing.
John: No, no, no. If you watch the segment, they’re exempt from any punishment for that. There was one congressman that tried to get a bill to stop it, and only 6 people would help sponsor it. We’re not going to have angels in Congress, we all know that, so we need legislation to stop this kind of corruption.
Ron Paul: Okay, I would admit that I don’t have the final answer on this, but I’m not ready to accept what they said on TV, because if it’s against the law to commit theft and fraud and shooting people, the congressmen aren’t exempt from it. So if there’s an FCC law and rule that says you can’t do such a thing, there’s nothing written that says, “Oh yes, this law is written you to punish you, a private citizen, but the congressmen are exempt”. I’m quite confident that doesn’t exist. Because of the corruption in this system, maybe they get around it just like rich people get around the judicial system all the time. Rich people never go to jail for long periods of time, or rich people don’t ever get electrocuted, it’s poor people that do. So it’s the system that is bad. But I, quite frankly, would have to be convinced that there’s a law that says that you punish average citizens, but the congressmen are exempt from committing fraud or breaking these laws.
Jan Mickelson: Thank you, John, I appreciate it, sir. This is Dan, good morning, Dan.
Dan: Hi, I guess my question kind of leads into that. Congressman, I enjoy many of the ideas that you have for the country, but my question is, how do you plan on getting those ideas through to benefit the country and the people that made that up so much when we have such a diseased portion of our country as the Congress? And how do you plan on getting these bills through Congress?
Ron Paul: Right, to get any change in the direction of the country, you do have to change people’s minds, and that is the reason I’m running for the presidency. If I get elected, that changes people’s minds because my direction is completely different than the way we’ve been going. And, in order to win that, you have to change a lot of votes, the attitude of the Congress would change. Members of Congress are not philosophically dedicated, so if they know the country is changing and the country wants these, and the country is waking up, so the Tea Party Movement did have an effect in the last go around. But it’s such a monumental task to take upon ourselves this change in the economic system of spending and debt and fiat money and foreign policy, so all I can say is, I will continue to do what I’m doing, convert people’s thinking, and get people to support these views. And I’m actually encouraged from this, not from what I see in Washington, but especially with the younger generation; they’re listening to this, they’d like to see it, they’d like to see this cleaned up and they’re sick and tired of what they’re inheriting. Especially the young people don’t have jobs and all they see is debt and government agents all around us. So it’s a struggle, there’s no doubt it’s not easy.
Jan Mickelson: Do the occupy people have half a case?
Ron Paul: They have half a case; that’s well put. Because I complain about corporations and banks ripping us off, getting the bailouts, and the poor people losing their jobs and losing their houses. But, unfortunately, there are some in this occupation group on Wall Street who are saying anybody who’s made an honest living has to be penalized. But if you make an honest living because you get an inside contract with the government, or you’re in the military-industrial complex and you promote war in order to build weapons, or if you’re in the financial system where you benefit from this moves, no, nobody should be taxed. I think it should be much worse, they should be denied the benefits, we have to change the system. But to come across and say anybody who has ever produced wealth and gave a good product to the consumer – and the consumer rewards them with a good income – is in the same category, is a very dangerous move on their part.
Jan Mickelson: Ron Paul is here in the studio with us, at 284-10-40 or 800-469-4295. Earl is joining us, good morning, sir.
Jan Mickelson: Hi.
Earl: Hi, yea, we were at the straw poll, both this year and the last one, and one of the reasons why we will not vote for Ron Paul is because of his supporters. They’re rude, they’re obnoxious, they’re right up in your face. I was wearing a Marine Corp t-shirt, and one of these guys walks up behind me and says, “Well, there’s an unapologetic marine”. I turned around and I looked at him and I said, “Well, precisely what is it I’m supposed to apologize for?” His people are downright rude, and they are basically his agents, and they reflect him.
Ron Paul: Well, let me answer that. First thing is, they do that against my advice, but of course, I have no control over every single action of a supporter. But does that mean if you had a communist come up to you and he was very polite, you would be sympathetic? Well, no, that’s the extreme of it. But no, they shouldn’t do it, you don’t win converts this way. They know that I do not like that, and believe me, if you ran into one, there’s probably two or three more, but that is not the majority. Just come to one our rallies, come to one of our rallies on one of the campuses. I think it was here in Iowa where we had 3,000 young people turn out and we saw none of that. It was a very diverse crowd and they are polite. But to run into somebody that happens to be rude and think that it’s unique to Ron Paul’s campaign, that’s foolish, it’s unfair, because you can find rudeness in everybody’s campaign in every philosophy. But my whole life I have preached the message that you don’t win converts by pushing people or grabbing people or arguing with people, you have to persuade with people. That’s why I reject our foreign policy, because it’s that attitude: “We’re going to change the world by bombing them and threatening them and doing all this”. We can only change the world through setting a good example and through persuasion. So, I am sorry that happened, but I would just suggest be as objective as you can and don’t write a whole philosophy of liberty off because somebody was rude to you. And I take a strong stand against the process on how people act and, therefore, I’m not happy to hear that, but also I think that you got to put it into perspective.
Jan Mickelson: Alright, thank you Earl, I appreciate it. this is Dan, good morning, Dan.
Dan: Hey, good morning, Jan, and, Dr. Paul, I’m a supporter and I’m one of the polite ones.
Ron Paul: Good.
Dan: I do a little campaign calling from one of your offices there and I talked to a lot of people yesterday who have seen all the debates and still couldn’t decide on who to vote for. And my advice to the general voting public on that is, among the candidates that are running, who’s voting record matches up to what they were saying, and has been saying the same thing throughout their political career. And, of course, that person is Ron Paul. So when you go to the caucuses, please keep that in mind.
Jan Mickelson: Thank you, Dan, I appreciate it.
Ron Paul: Thank you.
Jan Mickelson: 284,10-40 or 800-469-4295 is where you can find us. This is Chris, good morning, Chris.
Chris: Good morning, thanks for taking my call.
Jan Mickelson: You bet.
Chris: My question is, all the candidates are running because they have a vision for a greatness of America, I really believe that they all feel that way even though they might come to different conclusions on what that looks like. I just want to hear Mr. Paul speak about what he thinks America’s destiny is, and what he thinks is America’s greatness, or his view of how America is great?
Jan Mickelson: Alright, what’s your 4th of July speech, sir?
Ron Paul: Well, I have a very strong vision of what America should be about and what it would be like, because it would be a goal of peace and prosperity. When a country embarks on empire building and spreading military operations around the world, it bankrupts the country, and that’s where we are today. So it would be completely different, there would be no … in the last 10 years we lost 8,500 American military personnel, 44,000 came back with serious injuries, hundreds of thousands now are begging for help at the Veterans Administration. In my world, that wouldn’t be the case. But we would be at peace, we would have less enemies, we would be at more peace, we would have a gold standard, we would have prosperity and we would have set an example. We would be an exceptional nation, but this exceptionalism of what they’re talking about today is, “We are so good, we’re going to jam it down your throat”, back to the tactics again. That is absolutely wrong. We should set an example, and once we do this, other people would want to emulate us, and I think that should be our goal. But the destiny of this country is up for grabs right now. Boy, I’ll tell you what, I’m worried enough to even run for the presidency because I think we’re in the wrong direction and I think if we continue to do this, the bankruptcy is coming. We’re going to make our economic conditions about 10 times, if not many times, worse than compared to 2008. I mean, we are embarked on a system of spending and deficits and printing money and nobody wants to cut anything. All this talk in Washington right now is pure talk. They’re not talking about real cuts in the budget, and that is not a solution. So I would say, unless we change our ways, unless we look to what we were given: our constitution and our devotion to liberty, things look bad for us. But I’m also optimistic that more people are joining our efforts to emphasis individual liberty, and if we did it, we’d have a rough year or two, but we could be back on our feet again if we could just get the government out of the way.
Jan Mickelson: Okay, we’re talking here in the studio with Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for your patience. And this is Sam, good morning, Sam.
Sam: Good morning. I’d like to start out by saying that I honestly agree with Mr. Paul about on about 90% of everything he says. But I’m honestly afraid that, for example, Iran is not going to pick up on this good example that we’re going to set, and if we are really going to pull back all our military from around the world, can we, at the very least, leave a set of keys to a nuclear weapons sub with Israel? I mean, just in case Iran doesn’t pick up on our example.
Jan Mickelson: Okay, thank you, Sam, we appreciate it.
Ron Paul: Everything that we should do, should be designed for the security of this nation. That’s the only thing that we have authority for; it’s to defend this country. So when our national security is threatened, we do whatever is necessary. But worrying about Iran not responding to a more open foreign policy where we actually talk to people … we have 12,000 diplomats, and I keep thinking, wonder why we don’t use more diplomacy in the world? We use a lot of bombs, but no diplomacy. I would think that they deserve as much correspondence and diplomacy as Khrushchev did when he was ready to bomb us and burry us and he had 30,000 nuclear weapons and communism had killed hundreds of millions of people, as well as China. Well, how did we do it? We talked to them, we started trading with them. Just think of the wasted military effort in Vietnam; 10 years of the Americans and the French killing a million Vietnamese, we lose the war, we lost 60,000 people, we ushered in the age of inflation of the 1970s. Guess what, they’ve become westernized, there was no domino effect. So we accomplished a lot more in peace than we did in war. So I think the war propaganda is war propaganda, it’s identical to what they did against Iraq. The real threat from Iran is way blown out of proportion. But be prepared for anybody that might attack us. I actually like submarines, you know, even at the height of the Cold War, I advocated that probably we could defend this country with 6 real good submarines because we could be at every place and we could retaliate and nobody would attack us. Nobody is going to attack us.
Jan Mickelson: You were in the military?
Ron Paul: I was in the military for 5 years in 1960s as a flight sergeant, and it was not a good time. I was called to service during the Cuban missile crisis, and that was difficult. But just think of how we resolved that; Kennedy gets on the phone and talks to Khrushchev, but Khrushchev says – I’m paraphrasing, obviously – “Well, we have the missiles in Cuba because you have them in Turkey and Eastern Europe”, and Kennedy says, “Oh, okay, I’ll take some of them out, but I don’t want to tell the America people because they could be annoyed if I did that”. But they did it, the weapons left Cuba, and we didn’t have a nuclear holocaust. What we ended up doing was we waited until the economics of the Soviet Union collapsed, as Austrian economists predicted, because it was a non-viable system. But those same economists say that what we’re doing, our invasion and occupation of these countries, will lead to the same consequence, we will be beaten by our economic problems. The biggest threat to us now is our unwillingness to cut anything in this debt. So we’re not going to be attacked, nobody is going to attack us. Even China, we spend 7 times more for our military than China does right now. What are we doing right now? I want to bring troops home from Japan and Korea, well, our President just sent troops over to Australia because he thinks there’s going to be a fight with China. I think he wants to stir something up. So I think all that, whether it’s China or whether it’s Iran or whatever, I think we should be strong, willing to defend this country. The greatest danger is that we’ll overreact to false information like we did in Iraq.
Jan Mickelson: Is there ever a justification for a pre-emptive strike, can you imagine the circumstances? He was talking about the Defense Department, they call it the defense department, he said they used to call it the War Department at one time. Philosophically, is there ever a justification for a preemptive strike?
Ron Paul: No, not a true preemptive attack, because that’s aggression. We’ve committed attacks against countries like Iraq, they did not aggress against us. the Iranians have never attacked us.
Jan Mickelson: Right.
Ron Paul: So no, there’s no reason. But the President, even without congressional authority, has an obligation to retaliate if we’re attacked. He’s also obligated if the attack is imminent. Let’s say they’re ready to land on our shores, you don’t have to wait until you get direction from the Congress. But other than that, when you go to a country 6,000 miles away that has no ability to attack us, never has attacked us, and then say, “Well, we have to have a preemptive attack”; that is aggression and that’s not what America is all about. That’s why the founders were very clear, they did not want the president ever to make these decisions. It was to be made by the people through their members of Congress, it should be very restrained, and they advocated more friendship, more trade with people whomever would be willing to trade and talk to us. And that was their advice for our foreign policy.
Jan Mickelson: Sarah, you’d like to follow up on that?
Sarah: Hi, that leads perfectly into what I was going to ask, and that is, under what specific circumstances would you, as president, Dr. Paul, ask Congress for a declaration of war?
Ron Paul: Well, if we’re threatened, if our national security is threatened. Somebody brought up the subject and we don’t know the details of what he was describing, but he said to me, “What if there was a major military operation by some foreign operation that was going to close down the Panama Canal, what would you do?” And, of course, the temptation now for most candidates and presidents is to say, “I’d be there in a minute and I’d blow them all up”. I said, “I would get the information, I would study it, I’d take it to the Congress. And if they thought that it was indeed a threat and an attack which would lead to a direct attack on America and our national security was threatened, I’d ask them for a declaration of war. But then it would be all out, I mean, I would know exactly who the war was been declared against, and fight the war, win it, and get it over with. But it would be much more precise. Now we go to war in Korea and Vietnam and now in Afghanistan; it’s nebulous, we don’t even know who the enemy is. In Pakistan, we bomb the people and we give money to their government; it’s a schizophrenic foreign policy and it makes no sense. So we antagonize the people, and at the same time, we’re subsidizing their government. But if our national security is threatened, if the evidence is presented to the Congress and they say we go to war, then that’s when we do it.
Jan Mickelson: We only have a few more minutes remaining with Congressman Ron Paul, who’s running for president. And according to public opinion and survey poll results, he is now right behind Herman Cain. Herman Cain is 25% and Ron Paul is at 20%, followed by Mitt Romney in third place at 16%. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are tied at 4th with 8%. This is Glen Massy, good morning, Glen.
Glen: Good morning, Jan, and good morning, Dr. Paul. I hope everybody in Iowa is tuned in to WHO this morning to hear what constitutional common sense answers sound like. Dr. Paul, we desperately need you in Washington as our President, and I want to thank you publicly for running again. We desperately need somebody who we can get behind enthusiastically, work for somebody, because we just need you there desperately. So thank you for running, that’s what I had to say.
Ron Paul: Thank you, Glen, thank you very much for calling in.
Glen: Bye bye.
Jan Mickelson: Bye bye, cool. Alright, and this is David, good morning, David.
David: Good morning, Jan, how are you today?
Jan Mickelson: Great.
David: Dr. Paul, it’s really a privilege to speak to you. I heard a lot of the presidential hopefuls make references to different types of tax structures. One of the more proper ones I have ever heard spoken of was a flat tax. But I’m wondering, and maybe we would be a bit better off, I want to get your opion, if when we work, we keep everything we make, but we pay a 15% or 20% consumption sales tax on everything we buy. And raw materials at the corporate level would be exempt from that. But the reason I think that’s a good idea is because if you do that, people who evade taxes now will have to pay them, drug dealers would have to pay them, criminals would, all the people from foreign countries on vacation would. I really think we’d have more money as a people and as a country.
Ron Paul: Now, you’re suggesting a program similar to what they call the “Fair tax”. It’s a sales tax. I have not signed on to the Fair tax bill, but I’ve said that anything that would reduce the taxes and reduces the power of the IRS, I would vote for it. And what he described there, 15% and no IRS on all our goods, yea, I would vote for that. But I emphasis the spending, because if you spend too much money, and if we get the Fed to quit printing the money and paying for the bills that way, then you have to collect the revenues. Under current circumstances, you won’t even come close with 15%, you might need 30% or 40% or 45% to pay all these bills, so that wouldn’t work unless you cut back on the government. Now, if we had a constitutionally sized government, I think we could have such a minimal tax, like 5%, 10% even on sales tax. Even up until 1913, we didn’t even have an income tax. But what I liked about what the gentleman said was that, making the assumption that everything you earn is yours, you get to keep it. And I sincerely believe that because the system that we have today is: everything belongs to the government and what you get to keep is only with the permission of the government. They say, “Okay, you can keep this much or this much under these conditions”, and that’s economic control over us. So I think if we were truly to restore a free society, it would have to be that everything you earn you get to keep, and revenues would have to come in a different way. But it would be a lot easier if we could just get rid of so much of this government spending.
Jan Mickelson: this is Patrick, good morning, Patrick, you’re talking with Congressman Ron Paul.
Patrick: Hi, Dr. Paul, I just wanted to tell you I’m a lifelong Democratic, I have been following the nomination process closely and I’ve been listening to the debates. I want to tell you that I think that, unquestionably, you have the most integrity of anyone who has thrown their hat in the ring. And I enjoy listening to you, you make me think, you have me thinking about my political position. I admire your respect for the constitution, not just when it is popular with “Tea Party folks”, but maybe when it’s unpopular with more conservative folks with respect with some of the positions that you take.
Jan Mickelson: Alright, thank you, Patrick. I am just about out of time.
Ron Paul: Well, thank you very much, and I want to let you know that you’re very welcome at some of our rallies. And we always get some Democrats and a lot of independents, so I think the message that we are delivering is available for everybody.
Jan Mickelson: Thank you, sir, we appreciate it.