Stossel interview's Ron Paul

[Lyion]

Ron Paul Unplugged
John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on the Role of Government
By JOHN STOSSEL and ANDREW SULLIVAN

Dec. 10, 2007 —

In this segment from my interview with Congressman Ron Paul, the unconventional Republican presidential contender offers his refreshing take on what the federal government should  and more importantly shouldn't  be doing.

With politicians from both sides of the political fence touting their new plans to fix America's problems, the Texas Republican believes that the most effective way that a president can lead is by protecting basic freedoms, and relying on the collective power of citizens to sort out the rest.

Government's Role

When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.

"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. & Protect our environment through private property rights. & That's it," Paul said.

Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade  "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."

It's a habit of politicians to identify problems and try to "fix" them with new laws and bureaucracies.

While some of these reforms may be well-intended, says Paul, "good intentions won't solve our problems," and more often they encroach on the personal liberties that have made our country great.

For example, it is a political consensus that the federal government should be involved in K-12 education and guarantee that no child is left behind, but Paul doesn't believe that government should be in control of our kids' education.

He would abolish the federal Department of Education.

He notes, "Since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up."

By contrast, Paul counters, if we introduce market forces into education, competition will create innovative schools that offer our kids a better education for less money.

Paul Targets Government Bureaucracy

The Department of Education isn't the only government bureaucracy that Paul would like to see go. He'd also get rid of the Department of Energy.

He says it's useless, and the free market would allocate energy resources far more effectively.

When the government introduces an energy policy, Paul argues, it's all too often a means to offer up "government largesse" to businesses that lobby for support.

Paul would also eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency. He cites the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina and the avoidable tragedy of Sept. 11 as signposts of government ineptitude.

I asked him about other Cabinet departments.

The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development? Get rid of them all, says Paul.

"We should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments," he said. "I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened."

Getting rid of all this bureaucracy wouldn't be Paul's first act as president.

First, he says, he would "immediately take a pay cut & because I wouldn't have so much to do."

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Tikker]

he almost comes across like a crackpot

he seems maybe a bit too much survival of the fittest to get elected (not that I necessarily think he's wrong)

[Lyion]

There's a big element in America that supports a very, very small government limited in power and scope.

I personally don't, but I like a lot of what he says. However, I think completely free markets and removing most of the government entities would result in carnage for the middle class.

[Evermore]

Lyion


Im a ron paul supporter. I tend to agree with you thou initially the middle class most likely would take a big hit untill the markets settle down. I cant help but think that it cant be any worse then this non-functional crappy government we have now.

[dammuzis]

how dare he support the constitution!

as a libertarian i support ron 100%

[Arlos]

I agree with Toss on this, actually. Right now the government is about the only entity that can (and actually sometimes does) stand up to large corporations on issues. Think ENRON would've come to light without the FTC? Think corporations would actually follow good environmental practices without the EPA?

No, the government shouldn't run the economy, but it should be in a position of oversight, to make sure the middle class isn't getting screwed. Honestly, I think we need some crusaders like existed earlier in the century, where they had a similar widening gap between the top 1% and the other 99% too, and they enacted a number of things to preserve and bolster the middle class, and reign in the ultra-wealthy. Hell, listen to Warren Buffett, he annually calls for much higher tax rates on people like himself, because he can afford it and the middle class needs help.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

I agree with Toss on this, actually. Right now the government is about the only entity that can (and actually sometimes does) stand up to large corporations on issues. Think ENRON would've come to light without the FTC? Think corporations would actually follow good environmental practices without the EPA?

No, the government shouldn't run the economy, but it should be in a position of oversight, to make sure the middle class isn't getting screwed. Honestly, I think we need some crusaders like existed earlier in the century, where they had a similar widening gap between the top 1% and the other 99% too, and they enacted a number of things to preserve and bolster the middle class, and reign in the ultra-wealthy. Hell, listen to Warren Buffett, he annually calls for much higher tax rates on people like himself, because he can afford it and the middle class needs help.

You mean because he shelters all his wealth.

With our current tax code, higher tax rates rarely hurt the hugely wealthy, and generally screw mid income and small business people.

[Arlos]

Actually, from Buffett I believe that he really does want the government to take a much bigger slice of his income. Look how many billions he's already donated to charity, and his will is set up so that his kids barely get a fraction of his money, the rest of it goes to charity upon his death.

I will agree that our current tax code allows the uber-wealthy to shelter too much of their income. Those tax codes need to change.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

I gotta say I don't think Paul has much of a shot, but if I'm pulling for any republican it'll be him. He may be out there on a lot of ideas that simply arent feasible (yet) but to me he seems a breath of fresh air.

[Lyion]

Actually, from Buffett I believe that he really does want the government to take a much bigger slice of his income. Look how many billions he's already donated to charity, and his will is set up so that his kids barely get a fraction of his money, the rest of it goes to charity upon his death.

Which again, shelters his wealth from the government, and it's 55% estate tax upon death, sans if it goes to charity.

So even when he dies Buffett still ensures he isn't paying taxes.

Hypocrit.

[Zanchief]

Actually, from Buffett I believe that he really does want the government to take a much bigger slice of his income. Look how many billions he's already donated to charity, and his will is set up so that his kids barely get a fraction of his money, the rest of it goes to charity upon his death.

Which again, shelters his wealth from the government, and it's 55% estate tax upon death, sans if it goes to charity.

So even when he dies Buffett still ensures he isn't paying taxes.

Hypocrit.

That clever bastard is sheltering all his money by giving it away!!!! Oh the silly government.

[Arlos]

How dare he make the largest charitable donation in the history of the nation! The nerve of that guy!

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

There's a big element in America that supports a very, very small government limited in power and scope.

I personally don't, but I like a lot of what he says. However, I think completely free markets and removing most of the government entities would result in carnage for the middle class.

Why do you think having a very small government is not a good idea? Are there any of the Departments that you agree with Paul on about being unnecessary? Also, keep in mind that the President does not have the power to do all the things he is suggesting, and they certainly could not all happen during a single presidency. He assumes that, if elected, Congress will take the hint that the people want to see some major changes and live of to their responsibilities. If the Government's role was shrinked more and more each year, rather than growing more and more, I do not think the result would be carnage fo the middle class. If all of these changes were to happen in a relatively short time, then we would have some problems.

Removing the government from regulating the market doesn't mean that huge corporations will become more irresponsible and do things that they aren't already finding ways to do today. They would still have their reputations on the line, and I'm sure there'd be plenty of trusted consumer groups and such looking out for our best interests much better than the federal government can and does now.

I know a lot of what Paul talks about seems extreme, but I am curious about what people here think of our current government. Do you think we should be staying where we are today, or moving in the direction of more, or less, government (at the federal level)?

[araby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVBLFroSM

[Martrae]

How dare he make the largest charitable donation in the history of the nation! The nerve of that guy!

-Arlos

Geez you mean a rich person is actually helping poor people without the government forcing him too or sticking their hand into it? What a concept!

[Harrison]

They would still have their reputations on the line, and I'm sure there'd be plenty of trusted consumer groups and such looking out for our best interests much better than the federal government can and does now.

There is no way anyone believes that.

Ok, I feel like a dirty hippie for even saying that.

[Lyion]

Why do you think having a very small government is not a good idea? Are there any of the Departments that you agree with Paul on about being unnecessary? Also, keep in mind that the President does not have the power to do all the things he is suggesting, and they certainly could not all happen during a single presidency. He assumes that, if elected, Congress will take the hint that the people want to see some major changes and live of to their responsibilities. If the Government's role was shrinked more and more each year, rather than growing more and more, I do not think the result would be carnage fo the middle class. If all of these changes were to happen in a relatively short time, then we would have some problems.

Removing the government from regulating the market doesn't mean that huge corporations will become more irresponsible and do things that they aren't already finding ways to do today. They would still have their reputations on the line, and I'm sure there'd be plenty of trusted consumer groups and such looking out for our best interests much better than the federal government can and does now.

I know a lot of what Paul talks about seems extreme, but I am curious about what people here think of our current government. Do you think we should be staying where we are today, or moving in the direction of more, or less, government (at the federal level)?

I'll go from the bottom of your questions up. I like the level of government we currently have. I don't want more, but also do not feel we need a lot less. Instead of slicing off departments in the Executive Branch, I'd rather see a lot less pork and expenditures. The enemy of our current budget is simply pork, not the Department of Education, or not using the Gold Standard.

I think it's hightime for a balanced budget amendment, and a call to quit spending frivolously on entitlements. Granted, most elections are won by promising the most things to people, and it'll probably bankrupt our country, but we really need to be more worried about spending than in changing the overall structure.

In regards to removing government from regulating markets, as Martrae rightly quotes, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Remove government and it'll end up a bloodbath for the middle class, with the upper tier exerting even more control in a shoddy system.

In regards to what Paul can do, you belittle the power of the Presidency, probably due to wrongly reading Bush-deranged angry liberals who scream about abuse without a clue about the real authority of the CINC, or our legal framework. The Presidency has a tremendous amount of power, and if he wanted he could vacate the posts and expenditures of a lot of the Departments within his cabinet. Granted, congress can still pass veto proof legislation, and SCOTUS can oversee what a President is doing, but as long as it's within the legal framework, the President can enact massive change from his chair in the White House.

I think shaving off a few departments is one thing. Reverting back to a 1700s form of Government with minimal oversight and removing some essential programs, such as HUD and Energy is a bad idea and will only hurt the average American.