|
|
Ron Paul on Welfare & PovertyRepublican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President |
| Where Ron Paul and Rand Paul agree on Economic issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Where they disagree: | Ron Paul | Rand Paul |
| Free Trade: | Hard core support | Support with incentives |
| Social Security: | End Social Security | Fix Social Security |
| Welfare & Poverty: | It's unconstitutional | It perpetuates poverty |
PAUL: Entitlements are not rights. Rights mean you have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty. I, in a way, don't like to use terms [like] gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right, it's your right to your liberty. It's caused divisiveness when we see people in groups because, for too long, we punished groups, so the answer then was let's relieve them by giving them affirmative action. I think both are wrong. If you think in terms of individuals and protect every single individual, no, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. There's a lot of good intention to help poor people. But guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys get them, the rich people. They run the entitlement system, the military industrial complex, the banking system.
A: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism, he expects the government to take care of him. But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy.
Q: But if he doesn't have that, and he needs intensive care?
A: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.
Q: Are you saying that society should just let him die?
A: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid. In the early 1960s, the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. We've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy.
PAUL: Well, I'm sure, when he did that, he did it with local government, and there's no rules against that. That'd be fine. But that doesn't imply that you want to endorse the entire welfare state. No; it isn't authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn't work. All it's filled up with is mandates. But, yes, if there are poor people in Texas, we have a responsibility--I'd like to see it as voluntary as possible--but under our Constitution, our states have that right--if they feel the obligation, they have a perfect right to. This whole idea that there's something wrong with people who don't lavish out free stuff from the federal government somehow aren't compassionate enough. I resist those accusations.
In a 2003 hearing focused on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the future GOP presidential candidate warned liberal Banking Committee members that their efforts to protect Fannie and Freddie from the realities of the free market would soon crippled the economy:
"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread credit default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market, like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When house prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out."
The libertarian leader then predicted that the economic pain cause by a subprime collapse would be devastating to Americans. Ron Paul saw the future and predicted the subprime fallout
Anything that is seen as protection against risk causes people to act with less caution. Even if their actions may seem risky, someone else suffers the consequences, and moral hazard will encourage bad economic behavior.
Moral hazard, from whatever source, is detrimental because it removes the sense of responsibility for one's own actions. Interventionism conditions business people to believe they can enjoy the rewards of the market, yet pass on the penalties to others. That's what's happening today.
Although I'm talking here about financial moral hazard, the whole notion of the safety net permeates a socialist or welfare state, encouraging carelessness and dependency on the government.