Ron Paul's Record on Economic Issues / The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good (CLUB FOR GROWTH)

Club for Growth Releases Seventh Presidential White Paper Ron Paul: The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate Representative Ron Paul (see PDF). The seventh in a series of white papers on the pro-growth records of presidential candidates, the attached report provides an extensive summary of Ron Paul's economic policies during his years in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Ron Paul's record contains some very laudable components," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government."

Unfortunately, his stubborn idealism often takes Ron Paul further away from achieving the limited-government, pro-growth philosophy he advocates. This is certainly the case with school choice, free trade, tort reform, and entitlement reform, in which he votes against vital free trade agreements, competitive school choice initiatives, and tort reform proposals.

"While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect," Mr. Toomey continued. "In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited-government policies, but his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes-especially lower tax rates- across the board. Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.

Ron Paul's record on taxes is excellent, epitomized by his rallying cry for phasing out the IRS[1]. A strong believer in the economic benefits of tax cuts, he declared in a 2006 article, "I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity."[2] Over his career, he has backed up his speeches and articles with many pro-growth votes. These include:

Voted for a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes[3] Voted for a capital gains tax cut[4] Voted for a bill to require Congress to replace the tax code with a simple and fair tax system[5] Voted to cut taxes by $80 billion over five years[6] Voted to override Clinton's veto and repeal the Death Tax[7] Voted to override Clinton's veto and alleviate the marriage penalty[8] Voted to repeal the tax on Social Security benefits[9] Voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001[10] and 2003[11] Voted to permanently repeal the Death Tax[12] Voted to extend the Bush tax cuts[13]

The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending. Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the economically inefficient political allocation of resources.

Rep. Paul's strong belief in limited government translated into an impressive list of votes against increased federal spending. These include:

Voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Act[14] Voted for a substitute amendment to balance the budget by 2002 by cutting non-defense discretionary spending and applying the savings to increased tax cuts[15] Voted for an amendment to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the development of national reading and math tests[16] Voted nine out of nine times against raising his own pay[17] Voted against increased funding for the Legal Services Corporation[18] Voted for the Republican Study Committee budget multiple times[19] Was 1 of 41 congressmen to vote against No Child Left Behind[20] Voted to cut mohair,[21] sugar,[22] and Viagra subsidies[23] Voted against the subsidy-laden 2002 Farm Bill[24] Voted against the 1998 and 2005 Highway bill, only 1 of 9 to vote against the pork-filled 2005 bill[25]

Despite this impressive record, Ron Paul's history contains some curious indiscretions, including a vote for $232 million for federally mandated election reform (only 1 of 21 Republicans to vote for it)[26] and a vote against the line-item veto[27] -even after it was modified to pass constitutional muster. Paul's record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake's anti-pork amendments in 2006,[28] but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth's RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments.[29]

Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's Urban Center; $129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree project;" $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.[30] This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry."[31]

In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the if you can't beat 'em, join 'em position, arguing that "I don't think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."[32] This is a contradiction of Paul's self-proclaimed "opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution."[33]

These strange deviations aside, Paul's record on spending is praiseworthy. Though he represents a district rich in rice and cattle and battered by Hurricane Rita, he consistently voted against farm subsidies, FEMA, and flood aid.[34] When it comes to spending, he stands neither with the Republicans or the Democrats, but the taxpayers, often lambasting his own party for straying from the principles of small government: "Taxpayers are tapped out," he wrote in a 2005 article. "Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?"[35]

Free trade is a vital policy for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America's commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.

Voted against Fast Track Authority[36] Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37] Voted against free trade with Singapore[38] Voted against free trade with Australia[39] Voted against CAFTA[40] Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41] Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42] Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam[43]

While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government's role in the process, arguing that "We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do."[44] His philosophical support for free trade is evidenced by his support for legislation lifting government-imposed trade barriers, such as the Cuba embargo,[45] and legislation allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs.[46]

Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,"[47] but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul's rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists.

America's major middle-class entitlement programs are already insolvent. The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and healthcare programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.

Rep. Paul's limited-government philosophy found a particularly useful victim in the country's entitlement programs. Long in favor of reducing individual dependence on government, Rep. Paul was a vociferous opponent of Medicare Part D, calling it "firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left."[48] Some of his most pro-growth votes include:

Voted to lift the limitations and caps on medical savings accounts[49] Voted to allow individuals to deduct the cost of medical savings accounts from their taxable income[50] Voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill[51] Voted to allow small businesses to band together to buy health insurance for their employees[52] But the recurring theme of Paul's career is his frequent willingness to let unattainable ideals obstruct attainable progress towards those ideals. Just as in trade, this tendency leaves Paul opposing pro-growth reforms of Social Security. He opposes allowing workers to divert some Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts, arguing instead for cutting payroll taxes and leaving it up to workers to do what they will with the savings.[53] While the ideal is admirable, it is not a sufficient reason to oppose the pro-growth, expansion of freedom that personally-owned retirement accounts represent.

The Congressman was also 1 of only 4 Republicans to join the Democrats in voting against the extension of welfare reform in 2002.[54] While Paul probably opposed the bill because of his distaste for government welfare in general and the authorization of additional funding, the legislation was an important step towards weaning millions of Americans off the government dole and imposing new work requirements on welfare recipients.

Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.

Nicknamed "Dr. No,"[55] Rep. Paul has spent his career voting against a slew of big-government, regulatory bills. These include:

Voted against a minimum wage increase[56] Voted against an amendment that imposed costly arsenic standards on small water systems[57] Voted against an amendment imposing new mileage standards on automobiles[58] Voted against a bill granting union and collective bargaining rights to all who transfer into the Department of Homeland Security[59] Voted against an amendment to establish strict limits on radio and television licenses and increase the power of the federal government over broadcast media[60] Was 1 of 3 representatives to vote against the burdensome Sarbanes-Oxley bill[61] Voted against a ban on internet gambling[62] Voted against a bill to criminalize so-called price gouging among oil companies[63] Voted for an amendment that prohibits any use of federal funds on private property obtained through the power of eminent domain for private development[64] Voted for a bill to prohibit federal officials from nominating U.S. lands for protection without prior congressional approval[65] Voted to set aside last-minute ergonomic rules imposed by the Clinton Administration[66]

This impressive record contains a couple of odd votes, such as his vote for an amendment delaying oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.[67] More curious is Paul's support for legislation requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare drug prices with drug companies,[68] which is likely to lead to de facto price controls. These votes aside, Paul's record on regulation demonstrates a consistent aversion to government intervention in the private sector and an appreciation for the role limited government plays in furthering economic growth.

The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credits that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education can only lead to higher quality and lower costs.

Ron Paul's opposition to school choice stems from his opposition to the government's role in education, arguing that federal voucher programs are "little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education."[69] He consistently voted against voucher programs, including a 1998 school voucher program for D.C. public school students,[70] and a 2003 bill for a DC voucher program.[71]

Instead, Paul supported education tax breaks[72] and introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000, available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school.[73] While Paul's sentiment is understandable, it doesn't change the fact that his votes are a direct impediment to achieving high-quality school choice. By voting against school choice programs, Paul is aligning himself with Democrats and the National Education Association in opposing progress towards achieving a truly competitive, market-based education system.

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Ron Paul has a stellar record of protecting political free speech. He has consistently voted against pernicious bills seeking to gag political speech in the public sphere. Whether it is his votes against the anti-speech 527 Reform Bill[74] or his votes against the various versions of McCain-Feingold,[75] there is no question about Rep. Paul's steadfast respect for the First Amendment.

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Representative Paul opposes federal tort reform for the same reason he opposes most federal solutions-he believes the federal approach "damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules."[76] To that end, he has voted against many tort reform measures in Congress:

A bill prohibiting lawsuits in federal or state courts against restaurants, food manufacturers and distributors based on claims that the food contributed to the plaintiff's obesity or weight gain[77] A bill barring lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of firearms and ammunition making them liable for gun violence[78] Bills limiting the liability of volunteers,[79] tool makers,[80] users of defibrillators in emergencies,[81] donators of firefighting equipment,[82] and nonprofit volunteer pilots[83] A bill to limit lawsuits resulting from Year 2000 computer failures[84]

Paul recognizes the danger of runaway lawsuits and bemoans "malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business."[85] To his credit-and somewhat incongruous-Rep. Paul voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers,[86] for liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives,[87] and for a bill that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts in order to stop the pernicious practice of court shopping.[88]

Instead of traditional federal tort reform, he proposes "private contractual agreements between physicians and patients" that "enables patients to protect themselves with 'negative outcomes' insurance purchased before medical treatment."[89] In theory, Paul's solution may help alleviate the situation, but it is politically untenable. While Paul's idealism is laudable, he has not offered a viable alternative for dealing with a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses, while diminishing our international competitiveness.

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

IMO, the Club For Growth is arguably the most outstanding political organization in the United States and they really nail another one here in offering a great and impartial analysis of Ron Paul's positions and record.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the CFG is the most outstanding political organization out there, but I agree they nail Ron Paul on economics, an interesting Congressman, the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues.... , a useless President, ...his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too. .

Based on the CFG analysis I should reject Paul as an executive, probably concentrate on Giuliani. Giuliani could accomplish the pro-growth record he did in the hostile environment of New York City, the potential for him to accomplish even more amid the more politically balanced federal government is greatand Romney we are reasonably optimistic that, as President, Mitt Romney would generally advocate a pro-growth agenda, maybe Thompson, .

-----------------

Ron Paul Summation

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Fred Thompson Summation

Senator Thompson's eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.

His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.

While this strong federalist philosophy casts a redemptive light on his opposition to tort reform, it does not fully excuse or explain a number of his votes. His persistent federalism also es his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold all the more disappointing. It is difficult to reconcile Thompson's fervent belief in a limited government with his enthusiasm for increasing government regulation on political speech. Thompson has never adequately addressed this contradiction and will have to do so. His recent doubts over the legislation's efficacy are encouraging, least of all because all politicians make mistakes, and rare are those willing to admit their own.

Mitt RomneySummation

As Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney's record on economic issues was generally good. He demonstrated a willingness to take on his Legislature and deserves credit for the many pro-growth measures he advocated and the modest reforms he was able to achieve. While his record on taxes, spending and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations, and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions.

At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric. His strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies. His landmark steps in the health care arena also exhibit a mixture of desirable pro-free market efforts combined with a regrettable willingness to accept, if not embrace, a massive new regulatory regime. Nevertheless, given his outstanding private sector entrepreneurial experience; the strong pro-growth positions he has taken on the campaign trail; his overall record as governor; and the fact that the U.S. Congress will not be as liberal as the Massachusetts Legislature, we are reasonably optimistic that, as President, Mitt Romney would generally advocate a pro-growth agenda.

Rudy Giuliani--Summation

There is no doubt that Rudy Giuliani took some anti-growth positions over his eight years as mayor of America's largest city. From his support for extending income tax surcharges, to his affinity for corporate welfare projects, to his vocal opposition to NAFTA, there are undoubtedly some stains on Giuliani's fiscal record.

However, any exploration of a municipal executive record has to be colored by the unique context in which that record is achieved. Some of Giuliani's positions are understandable given the liberal constituency he represented-such as his support for New York City rent control; others-like his support for McCain-Feingold and the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan-are not. In New York City, Rudy Giuliani governed a locality that was thoroughly dominated by liberal Democrats; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and a powerful local news media actively hostile to a limited-government philosophy. In the face of such tremendous headwind, Giuliani's fiscal accomplishments are remarkable.

Despite powerful local obstacles, Giuliani was able to significantly cut taxes; hold spending increases down below the rates of inflation and population growth; overhaul the welfare system; deregulate and privatize many local government services; and join the fight for school choice. These accomplishments played a crucial role in transforming New York City from an economic basket case into a thriving economy.

The most important question is what Giuliani's mayoral tenure tells us about how he would govern if elected president. The answer is not clear cut, as some of his local positions are worrisome and some of his federal positions are still unknown. Nonetheless, one cannot help but conclude that if Giuliani could accomplish the pro-growth record he did in the hostile environment of New York City, the potential for him to accomplish even more amid the more politically balanced federal government is great.

John McCain--Summation

While John McCain can easily point to a handful of pro-growth votes over his twenty-four years in Congress, a deeper look at Senator McCain's record and rhetoric, especially in recent years, ought to give American taxpayers a long and hard pause.

To give credit where it's due, John McCain's record on spending, school choice, and free trade is extremely positive. His go-it-alone moralism sometimes results in pro-growth policies, as is the case in his anti-pork crusades. However, this moralism often manifests itself in the form of more government, less freedom, and a distrust of the individual and the free market system. This is dramatically the case in his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his class-warfare rhetoric, his occasional support for large-scale increased government regulation, his willingness to raise Social Security taxes, and of course, his abysmal record on political free speech.

Senator McCain's outspoken pursuit of anti-growth and anti-free-market policies in the realms of taxes, regulation, and campaign finance reveals a philosophical ambivalence, if not hostility, about limited government and personal freedom. This ambivalence, combined with a rebellious nature, often leaves taxpayers the victims of his latest cause célèbre. Despite his positive votes-and there are several-his negative positions have tainted, perhaps beyond repair, the positive ones over his twenty-four years in Congress. The evidence of his record and the virulence of his rhetoric suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently strong economic policies from a McCain administration.

Mike HuckabeeSummation

Governor Huckabee's record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.

While Governor Huckabee's record displays some flashes of economic conservatism, especially during his early years, the overwhelming evidence of his record and rhetoric over the past ten years leaves the Club for Growth and economic conservatives around the country to wonder if a President Huckabee would espouse the relatively pro-growth policies of Governor Huckabee circa 1997 or the anti-growth policies of Governor Huckabee circa 2004. While the Governor has made a concerted effort to defend his record, calling oneself an economic conservative does not make one so. His recent refusals to rule out raising taxes if elected President-the cornerstone of a pro-growth platform-perhaps indicate which path he would choose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.