|
There are very few political figures for whom I have any respect. One exception
is Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Ron has been a personal friend of mine for
many years. I can assure you that he's a "stand up guy," who has voted "no" more
times in Congress not just more than any other member, but more than the rest
of that august body combined. He's often called "Dr. No."
The fact that he has managed to get reelected numerous times -- in Texas,
of all places -- in spite of his outspoken stands against the so-called "War
on Drugs," the "War on Terror" and other popular stupidities is one of the
few things that make me think all is not absolutely lost in America.
How does he do it? Ron's an almost archetypical country doctor; he simply
radiates honesty and sound principles. He's about the last person you'd expect
to see in Congress. The voters may not agree with everything Ron believes in,
but they know they can trust him to do what he says he'll do: always vote for
lower taxes, less regulation and, in fact, against absolutely anything not
specifically authorized in the U.S. Constitution.
His campaign for the U.S. presidency on the Republican ticket - once laughed
at by mainstream apparatchiks from both parties - has generated a huge groundswell
of national support. Recently, his campaign broke the record for the most funds
raised online in a single day. That, in itself, raised a lot of eyebrows -
and the money has since been put into high-profile ad campaigns libertarian-minded
candidates could previously only dream of.
Ron is famous for his principled rejection of fiat currency, and advocacy
of hard money - the gold standard. That's a matter of particular interest to
us, with obvious investment implications. We thought, therefore, we'd get an
update from Ron, to see if his thinking has changed any.
The following interview is from the December 2007 edition of the International
Speculator, our flagship publication dedicated to uncovering highly prospective
opportunities in pretty much any market sector, but these days mostly in
junior precious metals exploration stocks - a sector that has treated subscribers
very, very well in recent years.
And they should only continue to do well unless Boobus americanus stands
up on his hind legs and demands some radical changes, at which point we'd happily
sell the gold we own as a hedge against the fiscal calamity that is now all
but inevitable. Importantly, Ron Paul's campaign isn't about the relatively
trivial issue of who should govern, Tweedledee or Tweedledum. It's about what
the nature of the government should be - and how much and how fast we can cut
it down.
If you like what you read, then check out Ron's web site and give serious
consideration to making a donation. You can learn more and donate by clicking
here. https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate?c=GOLD05
Doug Casey
CR: Why would the typical American, who gets far more from government than
he or she pays, even consider voting for Ron Paul?
RP: Even those Americans who receive a higher nominal amount in transfer
payments than they pay in income taxes suffer from Big Government. Their standard
of living is eroded by inflation, their wages are garnished by income and payroll
taxes, their civil liberties are under constant assault, and their economic
prospects are limited because of the drag the welfare-warfare state places
on the economy. Furthermore, unless we reverse course quickly, future generations
will suffer a declining standard of living and loss of liberty. Thus, I expect
many Americans to vote for me not only out of concern for their own well-being,
but out of concern for their children.
CR: What is your outlook for the U.S. dollar, absent any significant change
in the current course of things?
RP: Unless we return to a sensible monetary policy and rein in government
spending, I expect the value of the dollar to continue to fall.
CR: Do you think we could see currency or capital controls being implemented?
RP: History shows that governments tend to react to economic crises
by increasing government control over the free market, so, yes, it is quite
possible that the U.S. Government will respond to a future economic downturn
with currency and capital controls.
CR: We have seen the other presidential candidates perform all sorts of
linguistic gymnastics when asked how they would handle the looming fiscal
problems of Social Security and Medicare. While the solutions will obviously
not be quick or easy, where would you start?
RP: I would transfer some of the money saved by my cuts in foreign
programs and unconstitutional domestic bureaucracies into the entitlements
programs to keep the promises to those relying on the system. I would then
work to transition to a market system, phasing in an option for younger workers
to opt out of Social Security and Medicare taxes in return for agreeing to
provide for their own retirement and health care needs without participating
in a government entitlement program.
CR: Further on domestic issues, just what do you think the role of the
federal government should be?
RP: Ideally, it should be limited to providing protection from foreign
threats, securing the borders and ensuring free trade among the states.
CR: By what % would you estimate that federal government spending could
be cut without causing any great hardship? Which agencies would you cut first?
RP: I don't have an exact percentage, but I am confident that if the
welfare state were cut, along with a corresponding reduction in taxes, private
charities would quickly step up to help the truly needy - and do so in a much
more effective and compassionate way than government bureaucracies. I would
cut the Iraq war, foreign aid and all foreign commitments immediately. Domestically,
I would work to shut down the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce.
I would also work to eliminate all forms of corporate welfare and business
subsidies.
CR: Any idea how much of the total federal debt could be paid off if the
government sold all the land, buildings, equipment and other assets it doesn't
need for activities authorized by the Constitution?
RP: I do not have an estimate on that, but it is definitely something
I would pursue.
CR: There is much talk about the Chinese deliberately keeping their currency
cheap in order to undercut U.S. and European manufacturers. And we are increasingly
hearing discussions about layering on more tariffs aimed at the Chinese.
We assume you are anti-tariff, so do you do anything at all about "unfair" competition
or just let the global marketplace sort things out over time?
RP: The United States does not have the authority to tell China, or
any other country, what to do with their currencies. The values of currencies
should be set by the market. Instead of worrying about the speck in China's
eye, I would focus on the beam in our eye by reducing the national debt, restoring
a market in currency by repealing the legal tender laws and ending the continued
debasement of the American currency.
CR: Much of the politicking this campaign season has certain religious
overtones. Are you a believer in a strict separation of church and state?
RP: Yes. However, I believe state and local communities have the right
to adopt policies such as school prayer without interference from the Federal
Judiciary or any other branch of the federal government.
Additional Resources:
1) Doug Casey and Ron Paul recently join forces to debate Larry Abraham and
Dinesh D'Souza. You can view the debate by following this link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC-ZxzYneOQ
2) For more on Doug Casey's International Speculator and a special 30
day risk-free trial, click here.
3) And don't forget, to learn more on Ron Paul's campaign and to make a donation
to his campaign, visit... https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate?c=GOLD05
|