Page 20«..10..19202122..3040..»

Category Archives: Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare’s Abortion Mandates | FITSNews – FITSNews

Posted: February 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

WILL CONGRESS STOP FORCING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS?

Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical. That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Donald Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagans Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, President Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life causes path to victory will not come through politics. Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician. Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Banner via iStock

Originally posted here:
Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare's Abortion Mandates | FITSNews - FITSNews

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare’s Abortion Mandates | FITSNews – FITSNews

Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is ‘the neocon’s neocon’ – Personal Liberty Digest

Posted: February 11, 2017 at 7:44 am

In a new interview with host Michael Tracey at The Young Turks, libertarian communicator and former presidential candidate Ron Paul expressed much concern about President Donald Trump potentially appointing Elliott Abrams to be deputy secretary of state. Paul says Abrams has a lousy record. Continuing, Paul calls Abrams the neocons neocon, noting that there has never been an intervention overseas that he didnt seem to enjoy.

Paul says in the interview that all of these interventions that Abrams supports did not work. Victory may be claimed in a sense from these interventions, Paul suggests, if they remade the Middle East so we had thriving democracies there where civil liberties are being protected and [each country] had a constitution somewhat leaning toward ours. But, in fact, Paul says that isnt the case as the wars have caused more harm than good.

Indeed, Trump has discussed this failure of US intervention in regard to the Iraq War. Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump brought up his opposition to the United States starting the Iraq War in 2003. In a February of 2016 debate, Trump called the Iraq War a big, fat mistake, a mistake that, Trump continued, cost two trillion dollars and thousands of lives. In addition, Trump asserted that Iran is taking over Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Concluding, Trump said:

George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

Therefore, it surprises many people that reports suggest Trump is considering Abrams for a State Department appointment. Abrams continues to support President George W. Bushs decision to wage war on Iraq.

Watch Pauls complete interview here:

Paul, along with co-host Daniel McAdams, discussed in detail the potentiality of Abrams as deputy secretary of state in the Tuesday episode of the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

In the Ron Paul Liberty Report discussion, Paul argues that Abrams could be one of the most important Trump appointments, and McAdams offers a possible big reason why Trump would want to consider appointing Abrams to the State Department position. McAdams explains that, while people will say that Abrams is so different from Trump, regarding Iran they are in lockstep: Elliott Abrams agrees with Trump and with [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and with [National Security Advisor Michael Flynn] that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism, which is absolutely not true.

For an in-depth discussion by Paul of his views regarding neoconservatism, read here Pauls July 10, 2003 US House of Representatives speech Neo-Conned.

. Bookmark the

.

Read more here:
Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is 'the neocon's neocon' - Personal Liberty Digest

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is ‘the neocon’s neocon’ – Personal Liberty Digest

Ron Paul: Don’t just reform taxes, cut them – Herald & Review

Posted: at 7:44 am

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American people's tax burden.

Congressional leadership's one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is "revenue neutrality." So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congress's obsession with protecting the government's coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congress's insistence on "offsetting" tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This "border adjustment" tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyone's taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that "capitalism breathes through loopholes."

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, "private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do." Instead of making the tax system more "efficient" by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be "offset" with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserve's monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

Continue reading here:
Ron Paul: Don't just reform taxes, cut them - Herald & Review

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Don’t just reform taxes, cut them – Herald & Review

Ron Paul: Don’t just reform taxes, cut them – Winston-Salem Journal

Posted: February 10, 2017 at 2:42 am

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American peoples tax burden.

Congressional leaderships one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is revenue neutrality. So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congresss obsession with protecting the governments coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congresss insistence on offsetting tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This border adjustment tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyones taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that capitalism breathes through loopholes.

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do. Instead of making the tax system more efficient by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be offset with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserves monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Ron Paul is a former congressman and presidential candidate.

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul: Don't just reform taxes, cut them - Winston-Salem Journal

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Don’t just reform taxes, cut them – Winston-Salem Journal

Ron Paul: Don’t reform taxes, cut them – Red Bluff Daily News – Red Bluff Daily News

Posted: February 9, 2017 at 5:43 am

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American peoples tax burden.

Congressional leaderships one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is revenue neutrality. So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congresss obsession with protecting the governments coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congresss insistence on offsetting tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This border adjustment tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyones taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that capitalism breathes through loopholes.

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do. Instead of making the tax system more efficient by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be offset with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserves monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Advertisement

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

See original here:
Ron Paul: Don't reform taxes, cut them - Red Bluff Daily News - Red Bluff Daily News

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Don’t reform taxes, cut them – Red Bluff Daily News – Red Bluff Daily News

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : A Better …

Posted: February 6, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesnt pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to remake the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trumps plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.

The rest is here:
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : A Better ...

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : A Better …

Ron Paul: Cut, Don’t Reform Taxes – FITSNews

Posted: at 2:45 pm

WASHINGTON NEEDS TO STOP PLAYING ITS GAME OF SEMANTICS AND END THE INCOME TAX

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American peoples tax burden.

Congressional leaderships one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is revenue neutrality. So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congresss obsession with protecting the governments coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congresss insistence on offsetting tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This border adjustment tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyones taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that capitalism breathes through loopholes.

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do. Instead of making the tax system more efficient by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be offset with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserves monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be found here.

(Banner via iStock)

Read more:
Ron Paul: Cut, Don't Reform Taxes - FITSNews

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Cut, Don’t Reform Taxes – FITSNews

Trump gently ‘testing waters’ with sanctions relief amid anti-Russia sentiment Ron Paul – RT

Posted: at 2:45 pm

The slight easing of sanctions on Russias FSB is a step in the right direction and President Trump cant be any bolder at the moment, while awaiting reaction from the US political establishment, Ron Paul, the veteran US politician, has said.

Further easing or the outright lifting of sanctions imposed on Russia over alleged meddling in American elections wont be easy for the new US President, since anti-Russian sentiment is very strong within the US political class, the former US Senator told RT.

The order to ease some restrictions on the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is a step in the right direction and a feeler of sorts.

Read more

I think he wants to reduce the sanctions and I think hes going to get a lot of heat for it, Paul told RT. A lot of people believe in all the rhetoric and the discourse about The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, we got to punish them. So he has to deal with this more gently. So he puts on this example of trying to reduce sanctions, and he doesnt remove them, but I think he sort of testing the waters.

Hopefully, the possible opposition against the decision wont be too strong and Trump would be able to be consistent with his campaign promises to seek common ground with Moscow. Its still too early, however, to predict whether the US President will be able to get bold and remove all the sanctions, according to Paul.

I think thats very good, very significant and hopefully he doesnt get too much pressure therefore he backs down and goes in the other direction, Paul said. This is one thing that shouldnt be a surprise because he talked about better relations with Russia, and that is very good.

The decision to impose sanctions over quite weak allegations of Russian hackers meddling with the elections was very politicized in its root. A part of the US political establishment, which is eager to drift back to Cold War times, convinced Obama that it was a serious matter but Trump does not seem to believe that, according to Paul. All in all, intelligence activity, if even there was any, is such a common thing that it shouldnt have resulted in sanctions.

To me that was so superficial and should have been dismissed. Just generally speaking governments are spying on each other all the time. For me it was no big deal either way, Paul said. But I dont think the politicians and the political people, the party people might try to make fun of it People know that all governments spy on everybody, you spy on your friends and everything else. I find it rather disgusting.

READ MORE:Hard to expect a better start: Russian lawmakers & economists optimistic after Putin-Trump call

While the decision to ease anti-Russian sanctions is a good thing, the big picture of past two weeks is quite worrisome, as the new administration has already shown a consistent policy of picking fights.

He looks for battle with China but not with Russia. He wants to get in long battle with Iran. Its back and forth, Paul said. I just cant understand why if something is good for one country, why it cant be good for everybody. And I dont think any country should go out looking for enemies.

Visit link:
Trump gently 'testing waters' with sanctions relief amid anti-Russia sentiment Ron Paul - RT

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Trump gently ‘testing waters’ with sanctions relief amid anti-Russia sentiment Ron Paul – RT

Ron Paul: How About a Better Solution Than Donald Trump’s Border Wall? – Noozhawk

Posted: at 2:45 pm

Just one week in office, President Donald Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His Jan. 25 executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border.

While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about 10 years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive; it is estimated to cost between $12 billion and $15 billion. You can bet it will be more than that.

Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesnt pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Although Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25-year U.S. war in the Middle East and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance and education cost an estimated $100 billion per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents.

The promise of free money, free food, free education and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the U.S. government to provide these services to those who are not in the United States legally.

Likewise, the 40-year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the country.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the United States has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously; however, once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm.

We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year, President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in U.S. drone attacks.

The grand U.S.plan to remake the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately, Trumps plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.

Ron Paul is a retired congressman, former presidential candidate, and founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @RonPaul, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

See the original post:
Ron Paul: How About a Better Solution Than Donald Trump's Border Wall? - Noozhawk

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: How About a Better Solution Than Donald Trump’s Border Wall? – Noozhawk

Ron Paul on Trump’s Travel Ban: Targeting Terrorism Or Iran? – Antiwar.com (blog)

Posted: at 2:45 pm

President Trumps recent Executive Order banning entry to citizens of seven mostly-Muslim countries for 90 days has sparked protest and outrage. Lost in the din created by the protests is the fact that these seven countries have something in common: they have been targeted by the US for bombs or regime change. Where Iraq and Syria are now considered terrorist threats, for example, before US regime change and invasion there was no terrorist problem. Iran has never attacked or threatened the United States, but it is on the list of banned countries. Saudi Arabia was complicit in the 9/11 attacks on the US and 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens, however somehow the Saudis escaped President Trumps notice. Is this really about protecting us from terrorism, or is it about politics? We discuss today in the Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

See the original post here:
Ron Paul on Trump's Travel Ban: Targeting Terrorism Or Iran? - Antiwar.com (blog)

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul on Trump’s Travel Ban: Targeting Terrorism Or Iran? – Antiwar.com (blog)

Page 20«..10..19202122..3040..»