Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Libertarian Party's Ron Paul Sends "Dear Frank" Letter
from the Libertarian Party News, March/April 1987
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Following is the text of a letter sent to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of
the Republican National Committee, by Ron Paul, former member of Congress
from Texas and now a member of the Libertarian Party.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter.
My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise
philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast
my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.
Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was
going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974.
Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied
to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited
government, and balanced budgets.
Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a
Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the
U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide
its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still
exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents
a danger to our constitutional system of government.
In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the
four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other
Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his
efforts.
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the
Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.
Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing
deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party
of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated
red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill,
although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic
growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent;
Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to
four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit.
But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government
spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the
federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.
Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter,"
the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and
Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the
spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been
legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was
tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about
his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile
effort to hold on to control of the Senate.
Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of
Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less
secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's,
Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign
intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for
foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments
abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial
problems.
Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President
and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-
item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of
California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President
he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending.
Instead, he has encouraged it.
Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees
to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation
than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit
increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and
America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over
Keynesianism.
Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when
he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to
abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.
Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the
Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial
privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to
conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people
really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at
one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a
clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive
"lie detector" tests.
Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more
arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has
"sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their
substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the
President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend
the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the
IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more
revenue for the government to waste.
Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan
disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal
funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with
the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given
us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate
military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming
foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our
personal liberties and privacy.
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and
out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be
carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the
Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in
the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called
them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government.
It has become big government's best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which
Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is
no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of
government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is
ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my
membership card.
Why don’t you call those that support Ron Paul, Ron Paul supporters instead of names? You do know ridicule is the political weapon of choice for the lefties, are you a Progressive Republican?
I also have a picture that was taken when Barry Goldwater introduced me to John McCain, but that does not mean I supported the crazy one. I just like the picture of Goldwater, but I bet you also dislike him, because he was not a surrender monkey like cut and run. (Him being Goldwater, not McCrazy)
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed. Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
Kook.
Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military
It doesn’t matter if there are earmarks in a bill - IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR THE BILL.
Ron Paul doesn’t vote for the bill.
That’s a bad bet on your part.
But your biggest argument against Ron Paul is a lie, so it doesn’t surprise me that you are guessing wrong about me as well.
earmarks don’t = spending.
With Ron Paul in the White House, I would not be in the least concerned about our nation defending itself against an attack. Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Afghanistan resolution in the aftermath of 9/11, and simply because he doesn't embrace every neocon wet dream military intervention doesn't make him weak on defense.
He believes in the original intent of Founders like Washington, who didn't believe in excessive foreign entanglements.
Having said that, Rep. Paul does need to nuance his rhetoric in the realm of national defense, given that so many are apt to misconstrue him. But he simply is not a neocon, and never will be, and I don't have a problem with that.
People need to understand that they will never find any politician whom they agree with 100%. Ron Paul is only one man, and if he got to the White House, the odds are that, after being adequately briefed, his national defense policy would probably become a bit more "hawkish", just like several other Presidents.
For national defense, I believe President Paul ultimately would do whatever needed to be done.
They get paid for by a separate yes or no vote.
People either vote yes to spending or no to spending.
Ron Paul votes no to spending.
So you are admitting cut and run is just dishonest.
What are you talking about?
Ron Paul does not vote for spending.
Political bullshit. He plays the game...nothing special about him. He’s a dumbass.
His followers are even dumber than he is....fools in fact.
He wouldn’t even give the order to take Bin Laden down.
It’s sad watching people defend him.
He’ irrelevant and I leave you to your irrelevancy and his 3% of the vote......as usual.
He got over 10% in a good number of states. Over 10% in Iowa.
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.