NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Rep Ron Paul r TX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep Ron Paul r TX. Show all posts

15 May 2011

Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’ 15MAI11

ron paul is a warped and twisted person. The fact that he is elected time after time speaks poorly of his constituents, a majority of them have to be as warped and twisted as he is. Here is his latest rant via ThinkProgress....
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:
WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.
Watch it:

As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul’s crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document’s text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution’s unambiguous words limited to “extreme liberals.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that “It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically.”
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul’s fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul’s apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.
Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution’s words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.

29 January 2011

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them 29JAN11

AYN RAND, SOCIOPATH, hypocritical darling of greedy right wing politicians, the gop  and tea-baggers benefited from the very social safety net programs she felt the poor, working class and middle class Americans have no right to....and these hypocrites carry on her legacy by working to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act while keeping their own government subsidized health care and pension systems because they feel they are entitled to them. From AlterNet....... 
 
Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”
“Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”
Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:
[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”
Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.
“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.
Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.
But at least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of the real world – one in which people get sick, and old, and many who are perfectly decent and hardworking don't end up being independently wealthy.
The degree to which Ayn Rand has become a touchstone for the modern conservative movement is striking. She was a sexual libertine, and, according to writer Mark Ames, she modeled her heroic characters on one of the most despicable sociopaths of her time.
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
"One reason most countries don't find the time to embrace Ayn Rand's thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" she promoted in her more famous books. These ideas were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America's most recent economic catastrophe -- former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox -- along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.
The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked Atlas Shrugged as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after the Bible.
The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others." (The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' favorite book -- he even requires his clerks to read it.)"
Ames’ conclusion is important for understanding today’s political economy. “Whenever you hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between ‘producers’ and ‘collectivism,’” he wrote, “just know that those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie....And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—and bragging about how they are slashing these programs for ‘moral’ reasons, just remember Rand’s morality and who inspired her.”
Now we know that Rand was also just as hypocritical as the Tea Party freshman who railed against “government health care” to get elected and then whined that he had to wait a month before getting his own Cadillac plan courtesy of the taxpayers.
But, as I note in my book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy, that's par for the course. A central rule of the U.S. political economy is that people are attracted to the idea of “limited government” in the abstract—and certainly don’t want the government intruding in their homes—but they really, really like living in a society with adequately funded public services.
That's just as true for an icon of modern conservatism as it is for a poor mother getting public health care for her kids.

18 January 2011

Ron Paul: GOP ‘Could Be’ Hypocrites For Using Gov Health Care For Themselves, Repealing It For Public 18JAN11

SHOWING THEMSELVES FOR WHAT THEY ARE, HYPOCRITICAL, GREEDY, SELF-SERVING AND CONTROLLED BY CORPORATE INTEREST AND THE WEALTHY THAT PAID FOR THEIR CONGRESSIONAL SEATS, THESE REPUBLICORP MINIONS WILL DO THEIR BEST TO DESTROY HEALTH CARE REFORM (THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT), THROWING THE REST OF US TO SUFFER FROM THE WHIMS OF THE PROFIT DRIVEN INSURANCE COMPANIES AS LONG AS CONGRESS GETS TO KEEP THEIR TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE. WHY? BECAUSE, JUST LIKE THE EXECUTIVES OF TARP RESCUED BANKS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CORPORATIONS WHO ARE STILL GETTING HUGE BONUSES WHILE THE NATION WALLOWS IN RECESSION, THEY FEEL THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT.  THIS FROM THINK PROGRESS....
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who campaigned on a pledge to repeal health reform, gained notoriety shortly after being elected when he complained about a delay in receiving his government-sponsored health care benefits as a member of Congress. While repeal efforts have unified most Republicans, Harris’ comments sparked a debate within the GOP caucus over charges of hypocrisy. Several new Republican lawmakers have turned down their government-sponsored plans, but the vast majority have chosen to accept taxpayer money to help pay for their own health benefits and coverage for their staff.
Speaking to ThinkProgress shortly after the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) explained to us that — although he supports repealing health reform — he hasn’t evaluated his own package of taxpayer-subsidized health benefits for himself and his staff. At first, Paul said he wasn’t sure of the size of the taxpayer subsidy. Asked if he thought it was hypocritical for members of Congress to accept government subsidized and regulated health plans while repealing similar benefits for everyone else, Paul replied blithely, “[c]ould be”:
KEYES: Do you think you’ll be voting for it when it comes up, voting for repeal?
PAUL: I would.
KEYES: Do you think you’ll also be giving up government-sponsored health care for yourself?
PAUL: I would hope so. [...] Well, I will be voting against all of this stuff, but whether I’m going to be changing my policies or not, I have Blue Cross Blue Shield. I pay a fee every month for it.
KEYES: But the government, the members of Congress and their staff are all subsidized by taxpayers, government subsidies.
PAUL: I don’t know how much the subsidy is — [...]
FANG: Do you think it’s hypocritical to take government subsidized and regulated health care as a member of Congress but repeal it for everyone else?
PAUL: Could be.
Watch it:




Members of Congress on average receive a $700 a month taxpayer subsidy for their health insurance plan, which they can choose through a highly regulated exchange offered by the government. The federal exchange establishes a minimum benefit plan, which bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions and other insurance industry abuses, and provides a menu of private sector plans to choose from. Congressional staff members receive the same plan as members. The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable.
Few Republicans have been as candid as Paul. For instance, Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) tried to tell ThinkProgress that his congressional health benefits don’t qualify as any special privilege. “It’s a policy that’s issued by Anthem and it’s a policy that any — it’s open to the public,” Hurt claimed. However, millions of Americans, unlike Hurt and other members of Congress, can be denied health coverage because of what insurance companies deem as “preexisting conditions.” And other than government employees and veterans, few Americans enjoy the type of taxpayer subsidies given to members of Congress like Hurt and Paul.

26 August 2010

$960 BILLION IN DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FAT 25AUG10

THE Defense budget should be subject to the same scrutiny all other department budgets are subject to, and if waste and abuse are found they should be deleted from the budget and returned to the Treasury. The military-industrial complex's hold on our economy has to be broken, and Reps Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have a proposal in Congress to start this by trimming $960 billion in "defense" spending. Please see the campaign from TrueMajority below and participate by clicking the link to send a letter to your representative to support them. Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower may have said it best: "The United States should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not a penny more."

TrueMajority
Dear Craig,

"Hey, Congress, trim the fat!"

Barney frank
Barney Frank wants to save billions. Will you help?
add your voice

We could cut over $960 billion from the Department of Defense and be just as safe as we are now. Perhaps even safer.

With the national debt continuing to soar, unemployment teetering around 10 percent and the threat of a double-dip recession hovering, the last thing we need is for a government bureaucracy rife with inefficiencies to continue costing us billions of dollars with no overhaul in sight.

But there is another way.

Led by Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul, a bipartisan group in Congress is demanding an honest look at military spending without sacrificing our safety.

The good news? Over $960 billion could be cut without endangering our current safeguards and programs. The bad news? This opportunity is probably not on your member of Congress's radar.

Which is why we need your help. Send a message to your member of Congress, asking him or her to sign on in support of Congressman Frank's effort to clean up the wasteful spending in the Pentagon!

We'd like to believe that our military power stems directly from a financially sound American government and a vibrant economy that supports not just the protection of the people, but the education, health and well-being of the people as well.

But we have to speak up for what we believe.

Will you tell your representative to help put an end to wasteful government spending by supporting Congressman Frank's letter?

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower may have said it best: "The United States should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not a penny more."

We hope Congress thinks so too.