More about why I don't support Ron Paul

Disclaimer: For those who don't already know, web dev girl and I have been having an interesting blog conversation about Ron Paul. For the record, web dev girl and I are very good friends and I appreciate her desire and willingness to converse with me about Ron Paul and our upcoming presidential election. We do, in fact, differ wildly on our views in this and several other things from religion to politics, but I am happy to have a friend who, in addition to being one of the most helpful and giving people I know, constantly challenges my perspectives. I just wanted to put that out there, lest anyone should read back through the last several entries and comments and think that anything untoward was going on.

Ok, now this entry is part in response to my last entry and web dev girl's subsequent comment, and in part just a breakdown of my views of some of Ron Paul's proposed solutions to issues. All of my analysis is in response to the information Paul has posted on his site, http://www.ronpaul2008.com.

Web dev girl wrote:

It's a shame so many of the people who write articles, such as the one on Slog, rely on sound bites for their information rather than doing their research. Congressman Paul's position on both of the issues mentioned - earmarks and immigration - is far different from the picture painted by the sound bytes put out by the mainstream media and many others - and is one I think most Americans would agree with if they were given all of the data.

For example, Ron Paul is not against LEGAL immigration. He's all for immigration as long as people do so LEGALLY. He knows that the rampant influx of ILLEGAL immigrants not only threatens our national security, it threatens our way of life -- the very way of life immigrants seek to avail themselves of -- by putting an incredible strain on our infrastructure and our resources.

As for earmarks, Ron Paul believes voters should get to use their taxes. He simply wants to get federal funds back to his home state as a way for Texans to get something in return for their tax investments. He has openly criticized many of the earmark requests made over the years by many lawmakers, and claims the difference is the money benefits the people of Texas and not a limited number of supporters.

For the facts go to: www.ronpaul2008.com

Actually, the reason I agreed with the article on the Slog is particularly because of what I found on Ron Paul’s own web site and from interviews I have seen with him. The Slog entry and original article just summarized my own opinion about his views on the issues. It's really just a difference in framing.

For example, I think Paul is an alarmist about immigration. I find that a lot of people overstress the issue of illegal immigration as some huge threat and drain on society. Before I started my career in the technology field, I worked with immigrants for several years-trying to help them learn English, find work, and become citizens of the US. It is easy for those of us born in the US to take for granted how good we have it-even US citizens who are in the lower class. People who come here often cannot wait or may not have the resources to do so legally- at first. In addition, our economy relies, in part, on people filling the jobs that citizens do not want to do. And unfortunately, we do rely heavily on low-skilled and low-paid labor, especially in the agricultural sector.

Ron Paul’s six-point immigration plan won’t reduce governmental interference in our lives – it will increase it. Who else will be working on physically securing borders and coastlines (a stupid solution, I might add), enforcing visa rules, removing amnesty for illegal immigrants, ending birthright citizenship, and limiting the amount of immigrants that would be allowed with current reform proposals. Keeping people out is not the answer.

In addition, Ron Paul is against organizations that I support, such as ICC, WTO, NAFTA, and the UN. In an increasingly globalized world, Paul wants to remove the US from organizations that help partner countries from coming to agreements and enforcing those agreements. I don't think that a more nationalistic approach is in order in our life and times.

As far as his plan on taxes and debt, of course people like lower taxes. But I don’t want lower taxes to mean cuts in important social programs, which Paul wants to cut. And the fact that he's supported pork that benefits his home state of Texas rather than other states doesn't make him any different in that regard than other politicians. But, I do agree with Paul about the war – I’ve never supported the war, and that is what has caused us to go so far into debt. I just don't think that cutting social programs is the way to balance the budget - don't hurt people who need help the most. Of course there are people who take advantage of the system, and we need to figure out better ways of weeding those people out. But that doesn't mean that we should get rid of these programs altogether.

Also, Paul is very much against the Department of Education and suggests, “Returning control of education to parents…” while using his “authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities.” While I disagree with the No Child Left Behind law, I don’t agree with undermining the Department of Education. There does need to be some standard of learning in the country so that we ensure all students get a minimum of education across the country. I just don’t agree with penalizing programs in poorer areas, and producing laws that give schools incentives to cheat when they don’t pass. And, I personally think that kids miss out when they are home schooled and never experience going to school. I think home schooling can be good, but it does cause a problem for socializing kids. I’m also not sure whether all parents are equally intelligent and open enough to provide a well-rounded education to their own children.

I’m also vehemently opposed to his defining women’s reproductive rights as his “life and liberty” issue. If anything, Row v Wade should be upheld so that the government (both federal, state, and local) do not interfere with a woman choosing her own destiny with respect to pregnancy and birth control. His following statement is completely ridiculous: “I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.” Ending the federal court tyranny and causing the deaths of 45 million of the unborn? I’m sorry, but no man is going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body and any pregnancy. Until that embryo can live outside of my womb, it’s my decision, not the decision of the government. Period. He lumps abortion in with his issues of violence, crime, and murder. This is an anomaly and is not the job of the government-state or federal-to dictate women's reproductive rights.

His stance on the second amendment is typical republican mumbo-jumbo slamming those who support the right to bear arms along with safety and common sense legislation. He supports and works toward the repeal of many important protections we’ve gained, such as those protections under the Brady Bill, and opposes legislation which would keep dangerous individuals, such as those with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, from owning a gun. As I’ve written before in past entries, I think that we can uphold the second amendment without it being a blanket statement that everyone and anyone can own any kind of gun.