Ron Paul on Government Reform Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Voting+Sponsorships
• Other issues under Government Reform

More needless and harmful regulations today than ever

Tea Party members are outraged by what our government has done to private property rights and how citizens are manhandled in our airports. Millions of young Americans flocked to my campaign rallies in the last 4 years to hear the message of liberty and how important it remains as they face an uncertain future. Countless independent voters and even some liberal Democrats are increasingly fearful of a government that continues to damage individual rights and civil liberties.

It is the rising generation that gives me hope that we can turn the tide. There are more needless and harmful government regulations today than at perhaps any other time in our history. There are also more Americans willing to sit idly by and take this abuse than ever before.

What we say, do, and think has become government's business

What we can say, do, or think has somehow now become the government's business. It's as if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never even existed.

If Congress doesn't earmark, the Executive Branch decides

PAUL: Earmarking is designating how the money's spent. If the Congress doesn't say the way the money should be spent, it goes to the executive branch, and that's the bad part. You don't want to give more power to the executive branch. Even if I'm president, I don't want more power over that funding. That should be with the people and with the Congress. But the reason we get into trouble with earmarking is the irresponsibility of Congress. Take your highway funds. We're supposed to pay a user fee; we should get our fair share back. But what do they do? They take the highway funds and they spend this money overseas. And then when the highways need building, then you have to go and fight the political system and maneuver and try to get some of your money back. If you say you're against earmarking, the answer is vote against the bill. That is what I do.

Preach the gospel of liberty

PAUL: I would continue to do what I'm doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. I think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant, and that is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted away. It involves our right to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought to understand what sound money is all about, and we ought to understand what national defense means. That means defending this country. That is the bully pulpit we need. We need to defend liberty.

All spending should be designated by earmarks

PAUL: I call it being a constitutionalist, because I believe we should earmark, or designate, every penny. You designate weapons systems. You designate money to go to spend $1 billion on an embassy in Iraq. That's an earmark, too. I say the Congress has more responsibility.

Veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment

PAUL: Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution.

Q: Anything else?

PAUL: Well, government is too big in Washington. It's run away. If we want government, it is proper to do it at the local level. But there's no authority in the constitution to do so much what we're doing. There's no authority for [the federal government] to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with our personal lives!

Some Executive Orders are legal; but power has been abused

PAUL: The executive orders have been grossly abused by all administrations for a lot of years. Some executive orders are legal. When the president executes proper function like moving troops and other things, yes, it's done with an executive order. But the executive order should never be used to legislate. That is what is so bad. I have made a promise that as president I would never use the executive order to legislate.

I believe in market regulation, but not federal regulation

A: In theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. We live in a society where we have been adapted to this, and you can't just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it. On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it. So the marke would dictate it. You can't commit fraud. If you need detailed regulations, you can do it at the state level. But the federal government is not authorized to nitpick every little transaction. The way they use the interstate commerce clause is outrageous.

Everything government does is a mandate

PAUL: Absolutely. And it would help the poor, the people who need a job. The minimum wage is a mandate. We're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial. But mandates, that's what the whole society is about. That's what we do all the time. That's what government does: mandate, mandate, mandate. And we talk so much about the ObamaCare mandate, which is very important, but what about Medicare? Isn't that a mandate? Everything we do is a mandate. So this is why you have to look at this at the cause of liberty. We don't need the government running our lives.

Don't use Executive Orders for controversial laws

PAUL: Forcing 12-year-old girls to take an inoculation to prevent STDs is not good medicine. It's not good social policy. But one of the worst parts about that was the way it was done. You know, the governorship in Texas traditionally is supposed to be a weak governorship. I didn't even know they could pass laws by writing an executive order. He did it with an executive order, passed it. The state was furious, and the legislature, overwhelmingly, 90%, repealed this. But I think it's the way it was passed, which was so bad. I think it's a bad piece of legislation. But I don't like the idea of executive orders. I, as president, will not use the executive order to write laws.

FEMA just conditioned people to build where they shouldn't

PAUL: Well, what happened before 1979? We didn't have FEMA. FEMA just conditioned people to build where they shouldn't be building. We lose the market effect of that. But, yeah, my position is, we should have never had it. There's a much better way of doing it. I mean, this whole idea that the federal government can deal with weather and anything in the world, just got to throw a government there? FEMA's broke. They're $20 billion in debt. But I'm not for saying tomorrow close it down. A lot of people pay the insurance. I work real hard to make it work, and I did that in my district, too. But I'll tell you how we should do it. We're spending $20 billion a year for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cut that $20 billion out, bring in--take $10 off the debt, and put $10 into FEMA or whoever else needs it.

Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment

PAUL: There shouldn't be any government assistance to private enterprise. It's not morally correct; it's illegal; it's bad economics. It's not part of the constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they'll decide how R&D works or where they invest their monies. But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get malinvestment. They do dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it's a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn't happen.

CAIN: The government should not be selecting winners and losers. The free market will figure it out.

Enough bipartisanship; gridlock can be the friend of liberty

Tax-funded elections are worse than campaign finance reform

People shouldn't be able to vote to take away others' rights

Government "insurance" is really just a transfer payment

I vote for term limits, but they won't solve anything

Lobbyists shouldn't see bills before Congressmen

My dad pointed out that virtually everyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act had not seen the final bill and, whether it's the PATRIOT Act or bank bailouts, Ron Paul has always been able to see through scare tactics both parties use to push through more big government.

Paper money makes Congress believe it has no spending limit

What the Fed and paper money have done for Congress is lead legislators to believe that there are no limits on what they can spend, on what they can propose, and what they can accomplish. They really do behave like college student on spring break who are using their parents' credit card with no limit. But they would hit the roof is the card were ever declined.

The point is, unless one has a strong love of liberty, ignorance regarding money is not something that most members of Congress regret. This ignorance is what allows conservatives and liberals alike to spend, borrow, tax, and inflate to finance their various programs, both foreign and domestic.

Introduced Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Sen.Sanders

He may well be protected by the law, but he is in defiance of the Constitution. The courts, under today's circumstances, will never rule that the Federal Reserve Bank chairman must reveal the information that the Congress or the people seek.

One thing I have noticed in studying the issue is that the more power the Fed has gained, the greater the secrecy they demand. Transparency is currently a hot issue in Congress because the people have awoken and have sent a message. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it's not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is pervasive, across the political spectrum.

I introduced a Federal Reserve audit bill the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, which Bernie Sanders introduced in the Senate.

The "living Constitution" is the death of democracy

Those who would give us a ‘living' constitution are actually giving us a dead constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against encroachments of government power.

Constitution defines much smaller government

Somewhere along the way though, we have drifted away from the constitution, and we as conservatives, especially conservatives running the Republican party, we have drifted a long way from the positions that we used to hold about limited government. We're going in the wrong direction, and if we continue to do what we are doing, we're going to have a financial crisis, because you can't continue to spend too much.

Received the most campaign contributions from the military

Dismantle agencies that have no Constitutional role

A: OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King. I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing governments.

Q: Would you abolish them?

A: I would not abolish all their functions. But let's go with the CIA. They're involved in torture. I would abolish that, yes. But I wouldn't abolish their requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes. That's quite different.

Supports compulsory term limits, not voluntary for himself

A: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There's a big difference. I didn't sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left. I didn't run on that. I support term limits. We had 16 votes on term limits, and I voted yes for them. But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits.

Q: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily [limit your own term]?

A: Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

DC voting representation should be determined by Amendment

A: It's very clear, under the Constitution, that we couldn't give the vote to the residents of DC without an amendment to the Constitution. And it should be pursued in that manner.

No federal voter ID card; but state ID cards ok

A: I think the states have the prerogative & obligation to identify the voters and they should. But the reason I get worried about when we start talking about it nationally is, you know, they might want to use the Real ID. They might want to think it's a good excuse to have a national ID card to vote, and I am positively opposed to any move toward the national ID card.

Constitution was written to restrain the federal government

A free country is designed for individuals to deal with a subject of virtue and excellence. Once we defer to the government to get involved in worrying about our virtue and our excellence and perfect, fair economies, it is done at the sacrifice of liberty. If we do that and we sacrifice that liberty and the job of virtue and excellence is taken over by the government, you can only do that through tyranny.

We are drifting rather rapidly into a totalitarian state

And I would like to reiterate the true doctrine of war written by Christianity, the doctrine of just war, is that you do it only under certain circumstances. You don't do it for UN resolutions. You don't do it for weapons that don't exist. You need to do it with a moral justification. If we would have declared a war, we wouldn't be debating the war now. It would be over, and we'd all be a lot better off, and we would have 5,000 Americans still alive, and 30,000 uninjured!

Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

End government secrecy; restore openness of information

A: I would restore openness to government. I do not think in this country we should have secrecy of government. The purpose of government is to provide privacy for the people. I would never use executive privilege to deny information to the Congress, with the full realization that you protect security information, but in the very general sense, we should be very, very open. We want a transparent government. Currently I believe we could improve on that.

With neocon philosophy, Cheney is more powerful than Bush

A: I certainly wouldn't support an amendment to change the role of the vice president. But there's no way to know exactly what goes on, but if you take perceptions from Washington, most people there behind the scenes think the vice president is more powerful than the president. Philosophically, I think this is the case. It's obvious that he represents a neoconservative viewpoint. And my objection is that that has been the rejection of the Republican Party platform and traditional conservatism. And I think this is where we have gone astray. We have drifted from our fundamental premises and the conservative values that this party used to get.

Signing statements erode constitutional balance

• First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, thus upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances.
• Next, these statements grant the President power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch.
• Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enacted in order to avoid.

Conservatives support big government war policies

Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security

THOMPSON: There are several programs that need to be cut in Washington, several of those in my former department. I would first make every agency come in with a budget at 95% of last year's budget and one at 100%. And you will be able to use that exercise in order to reduce budgets all across the line.

Q: I didn't hear three programs. Can you tell me one?

THOMPSON: The first one I would eliminate is a program in the Department of Health and Human Services in CDC that deals with the stockpile. The stockpile does a great job, but there are some inefficiencies there.

Q: [To Paul] Can you do better than that?

PAUL: I'd start with the departments--the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. There's a lot of things that we can cut, but we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do.

Judges have become legislators by de-emphasizing juries

Our government routinely lies to us

Our government routinely lies to us. The luxuries of the current generation are financed by the sweat and blood of the next. Yet flowery slogans are used to describe the wonderful prosperity we enjoy, with few realizing the seriousness of the indebtness incurred in the process. In the midst of a market glut, more and more people each year get pushed into the poverty class.

Federal abuses today worse than King's in 1776 revolution

Today's oppression is entrenched and a great threat, but it is nevertheless tolerated by most Americans. The numbers of those who are resentful of government's abuse are growing, and this is a positive sign.

Today's simmering economic, social and political problems will eventually boil over. Big government advocates will spare no abuse, no resources, not cost, no tricks, no force in order to maintain the status quo of state power.

Statism itself will be at stake and those in power will feel threatened. They will easily win unless the determination of those who love freedom is superior to the desires of those in charge to cling to their power.

Politicians dislike gold standard--it disallows dishonesty

Because gold is honest money, it is disliked by dishonest men. Politicians have learned how to buy votes with the people's money. They promise to vote for all sorts of programs, if elected, and they expect to pay for those programs through deficits and through the creation of money out of thin air, not higher taxes. Under a gold standard, such irresponsibility would immediately result in high interest rates and subsequent unemployment. But through the magic of the Federal Reserve, these effects can be postponed for awhile, allowing the politicians sufficient time to blame everyone else for the economic problems they have caused

Spending without taxation causes inflation

Everyone in Congress talks about a balanced budget, but few consistently vote for one. Each Member always hopes that it will be the other man's projects that will be cut, not his own. [Each Member] knows that the money for pork-barrel spending bills would either have to be taxed or printed up.

Liberals we expect to be big spenders, but it's disheartening to see conservatives who should know better voting for business and farm subsidies. Without a far-reaching change of attitude, the budget won't be balanced, the printing press will continue to run, the dollar will be further debased, and prices--as a consequence--will continue to rise relentlessly.

Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district

A: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Q: No, but you put them in the bill.

A: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back.

Q: If you put it in the bill, and then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you don't refuse the money.

A: Well, no, of course not. It's like taking a tax credit. I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get the money back for the people.

Q: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.

A: No, no, that's not it. They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money. I'm trying to save the system, make the system work

No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district

A: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right [to our money back from taxes].

Q: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.

A: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I'm saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit. The whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything. I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.

Q: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.

A: I don't take it. That's the system.

Q: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.

A: I'm trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it rather ironic and entertaining.

Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment.

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
1. The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.
2. The US Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.
3. The National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.
4. The National Endowment for the Humanities should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.
5. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.
6. Subsidies to agricultural and other businesses should be eliminated.
7. Corporate taxes should be eliminated simultaneously and proportionally with the elimination of subsidies to businesses.
8. Recommendations by the Grace Commission and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) should be reviewed and implemented, where possible, beginning immediately.
9. Privatization of government assets, management and services should be implemented for cost-effectiveness wherever applicable.

Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure.

The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
1. Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
2. No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members’ expressed consent.
3. All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
4. There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.

Reduce the salary of Members of Congress.

Effective with respect to pay periods beginning after the date of the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2012, the rate of basic pay for each Member of Congress shall be reduced by 5%, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.

This adjustment shall be in lieu of any adjustment which might otherwise take effect, in the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress.

No recess appointments without Congressional approval.

Congressional Summary: Resolution Disapproving of the President`s appointment of four officers during a period when no recess of the Congress for a period of more than three days and expressing that those appointments were made in violation of the Constitution.

Text of Resolution:

• Whereas the Constitution states, `Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days`;
• Whereas, on January 4, 2012, President Barack Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and appointed Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board; and
• Whereas these appointments broke the long-established precedent of Congress being in recess for more than three days before the President can make a recess appointment:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the President`s appointment of four officers when no recess of the Congress for a period of more than three days was authorized.

OnTheIssues Notes:Pres. Obama attempted to appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in May 2011; House Republicans disapproved of Ms. Warren. House Speaker John Boehner disallowed the Senate`s adjournment resolution, which meant the Senate was legally not adjourned and Pres. Obama could not make a `recess appointment` which would otherwise be allowed. This Resolution brings the issue to the fore again, for another set of Obama appointments for which House Republicans disapprove.

Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.

Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.

Constitutional Authority for This Act: This Act proposes to establish new procedures by which legislation shall be considered by Congress and is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution establishing that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

Repeal automatic Congressional pay raises.

A bill to prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.

For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule.