creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
23 May 2012
Keeping Business Honest

Instinctively, we look for people's motives. We need to know whom we can trust and whom we can't. We're … Read More.

16 May 2012
Making Life Fair

When my wife was a liberal, she complained that libertarian reasoning is coldhearted. Since markets produce … Read More.

9 May 2012
Creating a Risk-Free World

A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business.… Read More.

Ron Paul: Less Lonely These Days

Share Comment

The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.

"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."

Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.

"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."

Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.

"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"

The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.

"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself — don't ask the government for anything."

The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.

Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax — essentially a user fee.

As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.

In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.

"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."

A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.

"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."

But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.

"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government — you cannot have these deficits — if you don't have the Fed."

We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.

He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"

Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."

Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
When our country was established, the term "state" referred to a sovereign nation. The "United States" were a collection of sovereign nations with individual constitutions that would meet periodically to vote on matters that were common to all and affected the survival of all the states (such as an invasion by England). Since then, at these periodic meetings of Congress, our state representatives have handed over a majority of our sovereingty to the "Union of States" or what we know as the federal government. The Federal Government was not intended to be the all-seeing all-powerful entity it has become. Now, each tax payer must ante up to pay for their own State's government as well as the ever-expanding federal government. Why do we pay for 2 governments? Why does the Federal government increase in size each year without any plans for decreasing? It only goes up in price and what are the benefits the Federal government provide that can't be provided by the state (or are already being provided by the state is the better question).
Thankfully, we have people like Ron Paul that are able to put aside personal agendas & special interest ideology to stand out on the limb of reason to eliminate duplication of government, reduce taxes, and bring the power of decision back to the state and local governments.
Comment: #1
Posted by: SpellCzech
Thu May 26, 2011 10:18 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

18 May 2011 Plentiful Fuel

11 Apr 2007 The Edifice Complex

29 Jul 2009 A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs