Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: marijuana). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Judge Napolitano: Tonight on The Docket, the economy, oil, and personal freedom. The DOW plunged early today amid a slew of troubling news on the economy. It did come back at the end of the day on news that the deal is closer on a bailout in Greece. But here at home, the International Energy Agency said it would release 60 million barrels of oil, 30 million of which are coming from America’s strategic petroleum reserve. The stated purpose: to ease the oil shortages in Libya. The move is surprising, because Libya doesn’t produce that much oil. And oil prices have already been falling over the past month. So why this sudden move, and will this market manipulation pay off, or is it just a political ploy to please voters? More on that later in the show. Also, troubling Wall Street today is news that House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and Senate minority Rep John Kyl, both walked out of the deficit reduction negotiations with Vice-President Biden. Could this mark the beginning of the end of the Vice-President’s talks? And without these key Republicans, can a bi-partisan deal be reached? Add to all that, the Republicans in the House who want the United States out of the war in Libya, and add to that, a new bi-partisan move to legalize marijuana. Here now to tell us more of what all this means, for the fate of the nation’s debt ceiling, for our foreign policy, and for personal freedom, is Texas Republican Congressman, Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, a lot to talk about, it’s a pleasure, welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge, it’s good to be with you.

Judge Napolitano: Let’s start with what happened not too far from where you are today. How do you read the Republican’s politely but firmly leaving these negotiations that the administration put together in an effort to cut some deal that would persuade people in the Congress that it’s actually a good thing to raise the debt ceiling and let the government put us deeper into debt?

Ron Paul: I’m not a bit surprised, I would have predicted that would happen, because the problems we face are so overwhelming and some people just aren’t willing to cut the spending and some people just want to raise taxes, and they’re at logger heads. So that’s why this is going to continue and we’re going to continue to have our economic problems.

Judge Napolitano: In your view, do your Republican colleagues in the House have the personal and political courage simply to say to the President and the Treasury Secretary, “No, we’re not going to authorize you to borrowing another 2.4 trillion dollars. You’ve borrowed and spent enough, we don’t trust you to spend less. The only way you will keep the government living within its means, is if we make it unlawful for you to borrow”. You think that will happen, or is this a pipe dream that I have?

Ron Paul: Ah, you’re back to dreaming again, Judge, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think there is going to be a lot of debate up to the final moment, and then there’ll be a decision and the Republicans will get something. There’ll be some promises, and they’ll say, “Okay, yes we really will. We will cut some spending”. And maybe they’ll even cave in a little bit on taxes, but they won’t call it raising taxes. It will be called “tax reform” or something to get more revenues, and that would be different. I think something will happen. I think they will frighten the members of Congress enough to say that a default, which is the default on paying interests on our securities, is so, so devastating. But what they won’t admit to is we default continuously; we’ve been that way for many, many decades, because we just pay off our debt through cheap money. And the Fed, as a matter of fact, I think is looking forward to more inflation so that the real debt goes down by the depreciation of our money.

Judge Napolitano: Most of your Republican colleagues who’ve come on Freedom Watch have indicated to us that a tax increase is dead-on-arrival on the House. Are you suggesting that the Republican leadership might somehow raise taxes, but not call it a tax increase?

Ron Paul: Well, they’ve done that before. It will be reform and I’ve heard things like that; they cut some here and cut some here. So when we look at those bills in my office when we have to do it, we add and subtract. You get the benefit here and a subtraction here and, of course, my rule is that there is no net new revenue. But sometimes they’ll make the bill very complicated and hard to figure out because, well, they’re giving a tax break here, but they’re closing loopholes. You know, they close loopholes, but you don’t raise taxes. So I think they’re quite capable of doing that, the Republicans have done that in the past. But I’m hoping they stick to their guns, and with the help of the freshmen, maybe we will. But I’m still predicting that they will raise the debt limit, they will not go down to the wire and default in the way they argue that they might.

Judge Napolitano: I’m sorry to hear that, but obviously you have your thumb on the pulse of what your colleagues are talking about. I want to switch gears: how is it that the unlikely pair of Ron Paul and Barney Frank came together to propose legislation to keep the federal government out of the issue of marijuana and to leave it to the states.

Ron Paul: Well, actually I’ve done this for a long time. I’ve worked with Barney Frank on auditing the Fed and some other things, and then for cutting some of the military budget. So on this issue, we have worked together. It’s got a little bit more attention this time, but I think I like the way you worded it, because it’s not taking a national control of an issue and saying all states will do it. What we are really doing is returning it to the states and trying to treat marijuana like we treat alcohol and maybe we wouldn’t have quite so many people imprisoned and that would be a little bit adaptable. One thing that has strongly motivated me with the marijuana issue, is I am convinced that there have been a lot of people helped medically by taking marijuana where ordinary drugs haven’t helped. Because if a person has cancer or they’re on chemotherapy, many, many people have told me they’ve been greatly helped. But isn’t it a shame that if you have a loved one that’s dying of cancer, and I’ve come across these cases, and I always say, “You know, maybe the marijuana would help them”. So what are you going to do? Tell him to go out and find it. It’s so sad. So I think we should have a little bit of compassion on this issue, follow the constitution. The difficult problems can be solved at the state level.

Judge Napolitano: I am understand that at the Republican caucus today, or wherever the Republicans get together on the House to speak, there is some strong energy there to enforce the constitution with respect to Libya; that President can’t start a war on his own, whether the War Powers Act is constitutional or not, he must at least comply with the laws that have been written. Question: Is there going to be a move on the floor of the House of Representatives in the next few days to force the president to take the troops out of Libya.

Ron Paul: We’re going to have some votes tomorrow and so far I don’t see that type of resolution, which is the right one; take the troops out and deny all funding. Matter of fact, there is one that sort of follows McCain’s proposal and grant him authority to do exactly what he’s doing and be explicit, that will not pass, I believe. I don’t believe there are the votes for that. But then there is another one that sounds good and it’s said that we can’t use any funds except 4, and they list 4 things that they’re already doing. So it’s a trick piece of legislation and it actually pretends they’re doing something but it is an authorization for the president to keep doing exactly what he’s doing and, hopefully, we can stop that. But on the surface a lot of people are assuming, “Well, this looks like a good piece of legislation”. It’s not the McCain approach of endorsing the whole notion, it is a statement of denial, and at the same time the exceptions are endorsing exactly what the President’s doing. So I hope the Congress does not pass that tomorrow.

Judge Napolitano: Sounds like a trick to me. Keep them honest. Congressman, it’s always a pleasure, thanks for joining us.

Ron Paul: Thanks a lot.

Judge Napolitano: Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, met…

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: prohibition). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Larry Kudlow: This story coming out of Washington has lit up Twitter and Facebook. Congressman Ron Paul and Barney Frank will be introducing a bill to end marijuana prohibition. A short time ago, Texas Republican Ron Paul spoke with me about exactly what he’s advocating. Take a listen.

Ron Paul: Well, removing it from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allowing the states to regulate it, like they would alcohol. And this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but I’m only going back to 1937 when that’s the way it was handled. The states always did this, and I’m motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes and it is helpful to people who have cancer or are getting chemotherapy. So this is not a huge radical idea, it’s something that was legal for a long, long time. And the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing. So I would say that marijuana, as far as causing highway problems, is miniscule compared to alcohol, and yet we knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad. So this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems. And, for me, it should be the states.

Larry Kudlow: Alright, let the states regulate, yes, I agree with that, that’s a free market position, it’s a 10th Amendment position. Mr. Paul, in one of the debates, though, you came out for the legalization of marijuana and heroin. Is that still your view?

Ron Paul: Well, you know, I’ve never used the word heroine in my life when I talked about legalizing freedom of choice. And that one, too, was once legal and I concluded that argument and they sort of got the point when I said when they were making a big deal, your freedom philosophy means somebody could use heroine. I said, “You know, if tomorrow we legalize, how many of you in this audience would you heroine? Of course, nobody would.” So it’s a moot point, it’s how you regulate things and whether or not this trillion dollars we spend on the war on drugs … really since the early 1970s, the modern day war on drugs started with Richard Nixon and it’s a catastrophe, just as the prohibition was a catastrophe. So yes, they’re regulations for children and the way the states want to handle it. But, you know, it’s sort of like saying, “I believe in the first amendment”, and they say, “Oh, that means you’re pro-pornography”, or something like that. It’s ridiculous. Permitting something to happen does not mean that you authorize it or endorse it, it’s not an endorsement of what people do.

Larry Kudlow: Do you worry, sir? I mean, look, I’m recovering alcoholic and drug abuser. I’m coming after 16 years, with God’s grace. Do you worry, sir, that this opens the door to more drug use, sets the wrong example, sends the wrong single? It’s an honest question on my part, do you ever worry about that? You yourself are a doctor..

Ron Paul: No, because I think it’s much worse because kids today have an easier time finding marijuana than they can alcohol. And how many cases of drug addiction were prevented by the laws? Do the laws really do it? Would putting you in prison for about 5 years, do you think that would have helped you? Would that have cured you? No, this is a medical problem, it’s not a legal problem. You shouldn’t be a criminal because you have a problem with drugs. So I just don’t think putting you in prison would have been helpful at all.

Larry Kudlow: Alright, well, I did it through a faith-based self help program, but I appreciate your point of view.

Ron Paul: The market, Larry, that’s the market way of taking care of a problem.

Larry Kudlow: I guess I do. I want to agree with you on why the states should have the jurisdiction on this and so many other things. I think that’s exactly the right position.

Ron Paul: We should be very consistent.

Larry Kudlow: I got to go. Congressman Paul, you’re terrific for helping us out tonight, I appreciate it.

Ron Paul: Alright.

Hard as it is to believe, the federal government is actually spending time and money prosecuting small businesses for the “crime” of meeting their customers’ demand for unpasteurized milk! Recently the Food and Drug Administration conducted a year-long sting operation targeting Rainbow Acres Farms in Pennsylvania. As a result of this action, Rainbow Acres’ customers will no longer be able to purchase unpasteurized milk from this small Amish farm.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans who the government wishes to deny the ability to purchase unpasteurized milk have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.

I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

Text of the bill:

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1830

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 11, 2011

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INTERSTATE TRAFFIC OF UNPASTEURIZED MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS.

(a) Sale Allowed- Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance issued under such Act or section, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, if such restriction is based on the determination that, solely because such milk or milk product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal law.

(b) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) The terms `interstate traffic’, `milk’, and `milk product’ have the meanings given those terms in section 1240.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).

(2) The term `packaged for direct human consumption’ means milk and milk products that are packaged for the final consumer and intended for human consumption. Such term does not include milk and milk products that are packaged for additional processing, including pasteurization, before being consumed by humans.

(3) The term `pasteurized’ means the process of heating milk and milk products to the applicable temperature specified in the tables contained in section 1240.61 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), and held continuously at or above that temperature for at least the corresponding specified time in such tables.

Date: 05/16/2011

The Milk Police

by Ron Paul

On April 20th, after a year-long undercover sting operation, armed federal agents acting on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raided the business of Pennsylvanian Amish farmer Dan Allgyer to prevent him from selling his unpasteurized milk to willing, fully-informed customers in Maryland. Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to catch Allgyer committing the “crime” of selling his milk. He was not tricking people into buying it, he was not forcing people to purchase it, and there had been no complaints about his product. These were completely voluntary transactions, but ones that our nanny-state federal government did not approve of, and so they shut down his business. The arrogance of the FDA and so many other federal agencies is simply appalling. These types of police state raids on peaceful businessmen, so reminiscent of our tyrannical federal drug war, have no place in a free society.

The FDA claims its regulatory powers over food safety give it the authority to ban the interstate sales of raw milk, but this is an unconstitutional misapplication of the commerce clause for legislative ends. As we have seen, if the executive branch feels hamstrung by the fact that our framers placed lawmaking authority in the Legislative Branch, they simply make their own laws and call them “regulations.” We all know how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses such bogus regulation authority to harass, hinder, and shut down countless other legitimate businesses. Sadly, Congress has been far too lax for far too long as the executive branch continues to encroach on its areas of responsibility and thereby undermines our system of government.

Most Americans understand that if you don’t want to drink unpasteurized milk you simply do not buy it. But the federal government solution is pre-dawn raids which destroy the livelihoods of honest, hardworking families in this time of continued economic hardship.

I am outraged by this raid and the many others like it, and that is why last week I introduced HR 1830, a bill to allow the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes the unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products.

Many Americans have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment or thwart their wishes. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.

I am hoping my colleagues in the House will join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring this legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left?

Date: 01/19/2011

Date: 01/03/2011

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report 10/06/10 from joe safety on Vimeo.

This week marks six months since Congress passed the healthcare reform bill in what has become all-too-typical legislative chicanery. Those in power crafted a mammoth piece of legislation and rammed it through Congress under a dire sense of emergency. Insisting on time enough to read the bill was dismissed as dangerous and crazy in a time of crisis. We were told that if we really wanted to see what was in the bill we would have to pass it first. I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers intended that Congress legislate in this manner. I would think if a member is not absolutely certain the entire legislation meets constitutional muster, the default vote should be “no” in accordance with our oath of office. But now that Congress has had six months to read the new law, there is a significant amount of buyer’s remorse on Capitol Hill.

The more constituents learn about the law, the more angry they become. 60% of Americans are now to be said in favor of repealing the entire thing. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to repeal a law than it is to pass a bill. I wrote a while back about the egregious provision to require businesses to issue 1099s for all transactions over $600 as a way to partially pay for it. I have co-sponsored legislation to fix this issue, yet this is just the tip of the iceberg.

First of all, in spite of the administration repeating over and over that this legislation would not increase costs for Americans, they are now saying they knew all along that it would. The Congressional Budget office estimates that American families will see their premiums rise by an average of $2,100 by 2016. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the cost of compliance is forcing some insurers to increase premiums by up to 20% as soon as next year. Also, in spite of repeated claims from the administration that we could all keep our plans and doctors if we liked them, the administration’s own officials are now predicting that won’t be true for up to
117 million Americans who will lose their current plans.

Major insurers are also dropping child-only plans because of mandates and price fixing on such policies leaving parents with fewer choices for their children, not more. In addition, in spite of claiming this law would contain government costs, not increase them, administration actuaries now predict it will increase healthcare spending by over $300 billion. This additional spending comes along with doctor shortages, fewer choices and more taxes, perhaps, worst of all, increases in labor cost because of health insurance mandates are discouraging employers from hiring new workers and even triggering more layoffs.

Anyone with a basic understanding of Austrian economics could have predicted the unintended consequences of these new healthcare policies. Central planning never increases choices and quality or cuts costs as promised. Price controls and government mandates always create artificial scarcity. Healthcare is not a right or privilege. It is a product, like food or clothing. As with any good or service, the free market regulation of supply and demand provides the optimal quality to the maximum number of people.

Once we realize the problems we are trying to solve today were created by government intervention beginning in the 1960s, we can begin to put patients back in control of healthcare, rather than third party oligopolies and government bureaucrats. The sooner the better.

Washington’s Idea of Fiscal Restraint

by Ron Paul

It has been months now since the new healthcare reform bill was passed into law. As is so typical, this massive piece of legislation was passed with a sense of urgency so acute that leadership declared America could not afford to wait until legislators, their staff and the general public had time to thoroughly read the bill.

The truth comes out eventually, however. Much like the recently discovered exemption from Freedom of Information Act requirements for the SEC that was slipped into the equally massive and “urgent” financial reform bill, we are finally seeing what other insidiousness has been hiding in the fine print of the healthcare reform bill. It seems that all provisions in this poorly written and poorly conceived monstrosity need to be repealed as soon as possible.

One such disaster-waiting-to-happen is one of the revenue generating provisions used to claim that the healthcare reform bill was “paid for”. $17 billion in additional tax revenues is supposed to come from an onerous new IRS reporting requirement that any taxpayer with business income who spends over $600 in one year with one business will have to report those expenditures to the IRS. Mind you, this is a cumulative total of $600 in transactions in one year. This will involve so much extra accounting and paperwork that the IRS claims it will be unable to deal with it effectively, and even the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (to whom it should be a boon) has come out against it! Apparently they realize they will actually lose customers, especially small businesses, to bankruptcy because of this!

Gold dealers are especially alarmed by this provision, as most of their transactions easily top $600. This represents a significant outlay of time and paperwork and no additional revenue for businesses with which to hire people. Not to mention this makes every business a de facto IRS agent, as if they didn’t have enough to worry about already!

Of course, there is a tremendous outcry against this. Several other legislators also see how unreasonable this is and are trying to repeal it. However, this would simply mean that $17 billion in healthcare funding will have to come from somewhere else, and there are no good options. Taxes from some other equally bad collection scheme? Borrowing and more debt? Creating more money from thin air and adding to inflationary pressures?

The best answer, of course, would be to repeal the entire health care law, along with all other unconstitutional spending. But Congress is more likely to continue the shell game to cover the fact that we are broke and can afford none of this.

This whole idea of “paying for” new programs is a political euphemism that suggests that raising taxes is just as good as cutting spending since neither one increases the national debt. Raising taxes and overwhelming small businesses with paperwork and regulations still increases governmental burden on our fragile economy. But this is our government’s idea of “fiscal restraint” in action. Washington needs to stop creating new programs and spending so much money. That would be true fiscal restraint.

Date: 06/14/2010

Authoritarianism Is Bad For Your Health

by Ron Paul

The administration’s terrible healthcare reform bill is now law, but the debate over how — and whether — the federal government should be involved in providing healthcare services is not over. It is not too late for America to correct its course and stop the march toward a government run, “single payer” healthcare system.

Polls show that a large majority of Americans don’t want Obamacare. Congress should seize the opportunity to repeal the very worst aspect of this new legislation, namely the mandate that forces every American either to purchase health insurance or face an IRS penalty. This mandate represents nothing more than an unconstitutional, historically unprecedented gift to the insurance industry. I introduced the “End the Mandate Act” (HR 4995) expressly to prevent the administration from ever putting this provision into effect.

Instead of mandating the same failed entitlement healthcare schemes that are bankrupting Europe, Congress should fundamentally re-examine the case for free-market healthcare. Our current model, based on employer-provided health insurance, did not arise based on market preferences. On the contrary, it makes no sense to couple health insurance with employment. But federal wage and price controls instituted during World War II left employers with no alternative to attract workers in a tight labor market other than offering extra benefits such as health insurance and pensions. Over time these nonwage benefits became the norm, especially since employers could deduct the cost of health insurance premiums from their income taxes while individuals could not. The perverse consequence is that employees lose both their paychecks and their health insurance when they lose their job.

As reliance on third-party health insurance grew, patients became detached from the true costs of their doctor visits. In the 1970s the Nixon administration, along with the late Senator Edward Kennedy, championed the cause of health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Congress accepted the faulty premise that HMOs would reduce costs through centralized management of patients, when in fact the opposite was true: more bureaucracy would only lead to higher costs, less accountability, and worse patient care.

In recent years Congress has only intensified the problem with more laws and more regulations, especially with the disastrous Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit was another example of naked patronage to a politically-connected industry, and it exponentially worsened the federal government’s balance sheet. Obamacare will be the last nail in the coffin of our bankrupt entitlement system.

More laws are not the answer. Instead, we need to allow a market system to operate that reflects consumer choices while rationally pricing services. In a market system patients likely would pay cash for basic services, while maintaining relatively high-deductible catastrophic insurance for serious illnesses and accidents. The cost of most routine medical care would drop if the patient paid the bill on the spot, especially if doctors no longer needed to employ large staffs solely to deal with insurance and billing.

Let me repeat: we need a system in America where patients pay cash for basic services, and carry insurance only for serious illnesses and accidents. “Health maintenance” is the responsibility of each of us individually. We cannot continue to collectivize the costs of healthcare and expect things to get better.

Authoritarianism is bad for your health. Congress should end the Obamacare mandate and allow market-based medicine to flourish.