Ron Paul Return to Candidate Profile Page »

Should the government have a role in expanding access to health care? What, if anything, would you do to restructure the health care system?

No. The problems with our healthcare system are not results of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Patients and doctors, rather than Big Government and Big Pharmaceutical, should be in charge of the American healthcare system. We also need to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care, which has stripped doctors of the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies to drive down the cost of medical care. Additionally, I would res-structure the tax code to allow individual Americans to deduct all medical expenses, as employers can. I would also eliminate federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage, and oppose further expansion of the FDA and other supra-national regulating bodies that impose artificial barriers and costs in healthcare. The bottom line is simple: we need to lessen government involvement in the healthcare industry and return control of healthcare dollars and decisions to the individual.

Do you support allowing a portion of the money currently withheld for Social Security to be put into private accounts? Why or why not?

I want to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security. Currently, the Trust Fund offers nothing more than an IOU to those who have paid into it, as the government spends your Social Security dollars on unrelated programs that it cannot otherwise fund. I support any measures disallowing the federal government from eating into your funds so that we can keep the promises we made to our seniors.

What specific changes would you make to the Social Security program?

First, I would eliminate the government's power to tax your Social Security benefits-this is nothing short of robbery. Secondly, I would end the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor, by disallowing government benefits for anyone who has not paid into the system. I would also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own, by cutting payroll taxes and providing an opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Do you support setting a deadline for either a withdrawal or a partial pullback of troops from Iraq? If so, what would be the date of that deadline?

I support a complete withdrawal from Iraq as soon as militarily possible.

What distinguishes your plan for Iraq from those of the other candidates?

I am the only candidate who has opposed the war in Iraq from its very inception, and who will bring the troops home now. Over 70 percent of the American people agree, and believe we should end the war immediately.

What would be your top three national security priorities if you were elected?

There is no greater priority than securing our borders. Our national security endeavors are meaningless when we've left the backdoor unlocked at home, and we must physically secure America's borders to ward off any prospective attack. We must also remedy illegal immigration and lax visa monitoring before we can pursue any real immigration reform. Several of the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on expired visas-we cannot allow such a threat to our national security to occur once more. Additionally, America must end its military occupations overseas. Washington and Jefferson warned of the dangers of 'foreign entanglements,' and our continued meddling in other countries' affairs earns us no friends. By pursuing a non-interventionist foreign policy of diplomacy and commerce, we will set an example of how peace and freedom brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence and virtue to thrive.

Do you think climate change is caused by human activity? If not, what is your view on the issue? What, if anything, would you do to deal with climate change?

When the federal government facilitates polluters, subsidizes logging in the National Forests, and otherwise rewards those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance while committing economic wrongdoings, it certainly seems that there is a connection between climate change and human activity. The key to sound environmental policy is not bureaucratic regulation, but respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting. In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. A sensible policy like this will aid in combating human environmental wrongdoing.

Should the government have a role in encouraging development of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable energy resources? If yes, how would you do it?

By repealing government subsidies and policies that artificially lower the price of fossil fuels, I will be able to encourage development of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable energy resources. When access to Middle Eastern oil is no longer a central component of our foreign policy, my administration will provide new incentives for private investors to devote more resources into alternative energies such as ethanol, and for consumers to voluntary seek out opportunities to use ethanol. An energy market driven by supply and demand will certainly reward renewable and alternative fuel producers as well as consumers who will benefit from cheaper and more abundant energy sources.

How do you think the United States should handle illegal immigrants? Do you support President Bush's immigration plan?

For the sake of our national security and prosperity, the United States must strongly oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Under President Bush's immigration plan, millions of illegal aliens would be given legal status-which this nation's security and prosperity cannot afford.

What are your top three priorities with regard to immigration?

First, we need to physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. Second, it is imperative that we enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. Third, we cannot allow amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

Do you support affirmative action? If you do, why do you think it is a benefit to our country? If not, what do you think would be gained by changing or eliminating it?

I do not support any government action that strips citizens of their own individual integrity. It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender, and government-administered affirmative action is no exception. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government has come to think it can best decide who succeeds and who fails, and thus breeds hostility and suspicion in others. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. The true antidote to this is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence --not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

Do you agree or disagree with the argument that only the wealthiest Americans are benefiting from the current economic growth? Why or why not?

There is a common misperception that the American economy is flourishing when in fact, for too many Americans we are in the middle of a recession. This perceived growth is counterfeit, and not a consequence of free markets-instead, because of the inflation tax, we are seeing a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. While the Federal Reserve is inflating and debasing our currency, the poor and middle class are being wiped out and the only growth is occurring in the pockets of the banks and those on Wall Street.

What are the three most important things you would do to promote economic growth and prosperity?

The best thing the government can do to promote economic growth is to cease its heavy-handed involvement in controlling the economy. Today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future -- and yours. In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply -- making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to 'we the people.' Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending. Therefore, to promote economic growth and prosperity I would curb government spending and waste by eliminating inefficient and exorbitant spending programs, make taxes as low as possible for every American, and eliminate the income tax, and disallow central banks from dictating the size of our deficit.

If elected, would you balance the budget? If you answered yes, how soon would you do it?

Balancing the budget would be a top priority of my administration. If elected, I would inform Congress that I will veto any budget that is not balanced.

Would you roll back tax cuts that were supported by the Bush administration?

No. I would seek to broaden the tax cuts by pressuring Congress to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and permanently end the income tax, and I would also seek the end of any taxes not expressly authorized by the Constitution, including the death tax and payroll taxes. My administration will work with Congress to end the IRS.

Do you support the No Child Left Behind program? Why or why not?

"No. No Child Left Behind leaves all children behind by tying the hands of teachers and encouraging them to teach to the test instead of educating their students. It only more deeply involves the federal government in controlling schools and children's lives.

What changes, if any, would you attempt to implement in national education policy?

I would work with Congress to return control over education to the states, local school boards, and, especially, parents. American education flourished before the federal government took it over. For education to be returned to local control, the Department of Education must be abolished and its functions returned to the states. I also support removing the federal subsidies that only serve to inflate costs and drive down the quality of education by encouraging bureaucrats to get more involved in children's lives. As I work to make that happen, I will support the more immediate steps of providing tax credits to families toward the costs of education. The credit will be available to all parents per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This also includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools. I also support tax credits for teachers, letting them keep more of their hard earned money and encouraging good teachers to stay in a grossly underpaid system.

What is your position on the proposed constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman?

I do not support amending the constitution to define marriage. Marriage has traditionally been under the purview of the church, not government. I support leaving this issue to each state to individually decide, and taking away federal court jurisdiction so that the states can be free to act in the manner they choose.

What is your position on civil unions between same sex partners?

This matter should also be left to the individual states to decide.

Do you support the Roe v. Wade decision or would you like to see this decision overturned? Why or why not?

Roe v. Wade nationalized the issue of abortion, and it has ripped our country apart ever since. I support taking jurisdiction over abortion law away from federal courts and allowing the states to set their own abortion policies, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade without a new Supreme Court decision. Because the Constitution neither gives the president nor Congress any authority to act in these areas, I will abide by the decision of each state and will not seek to interfere.

Should the federal government have a role in seeking an end to poverty? What would you do, specifically, to deal with poverty?

The misguided federal 'War on Poverty' has proven disastrous to our nation. Federal intervention only resulted in more poverty, as the welfare rolls grew while employment shrank and mothers were encouraged to have children out-of-wedlock because the more children they had, the bigger the check they got from the federal government. I propose getting the federal government out of the way of private charities and institutions that wish to deal with the impoverished, and I want to end federal regulations and subsidies that restrict businesses, discourage renovation and expansion, and further the plight of the poor. Eliminating many taxes and regulations will allow businesses to hire more workers, and make it easier for impoverished areas to be renovated with private and corporate money. True compassionate conservatism means letting individuals, churches, and other groups, not indifferent federal bureaucracies, provide help.

Do you think gun control has an impact on crime rates in the United States?

The best example of the impact gun control has had on crime rates is Washington, D.C. Our nation's capital has some of America's strictest gun control laws, and it consistently has one of the highest crime rates. It has been proven that tighter gun laws bring more crime. In contrast, those cities that most respect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have some of the lowest crime rates. Gun control laws only serve to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals living in cities with tight gun control laws not only ignore restrictions, but also have an easier time committing violent crimes because they have no fear that they may face armed resistance.

Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?

The federal government, bound to uphold the Second Amendment, should have no authority to place restrictions on those wishing to buy a firearm. Gun store owners should be allowed to place their own restrictions in their own stores.

If elected, would you keep the current ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research in place? Why or why not?

es, I would keep the current ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in place. The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. The debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious, and ethical questions -- questions Congress is particularly ill-equipped to resolve. Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds, and distort the natural market for scientific research.

What would be your top three overall priorities if elected?

My first priority would be to bring our troops home as soon as possible. I would further address our national security by strengthening our border security with Mexico and Canada, seeking to remove America from the entangling alliances the Founders warned us against entering, and returning to the constitutionally mandated principle that all wars must be declared. I would work with Congress to remove us from the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, NAFTA, and CAFTA, while promoting true free trade with and travel to all nations. And I would once again focus on the search for bin Laden. My second priority would be to address the abuse of civil liberties here at home. I would seek the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Tribunals Act, and other legislation that gives the federal government powers to invade our private lives. My third priority would be to return the United States to a sound monetary policy by abolishing the Federal Reserve, balancing the budget, and requiring that the only currency manufactured by the federal government be that allowed by the Constitution: gold and silver-backed currency.