PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (04-17-08)




RSDavis
04-17-2008, 05:16 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (04-17-08)
by RS Davis
The Freedom Files (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=380977961&Mytoken=6B5CF7C5-924F-456B-835E4B6B97B2491954350584)


Hello Freedomphiles! It's interview time! Today's talk is with rEVOLution candidate Dan Reale, running for Congress in Connecticut's 2nd District.

Dan Reale is a freelance writer that lives with his wife, Kat, in Plainfield, CT. Soon, their twosome is set to become a threesome, as they are expecting the birth of their first child in July.

On his website (http://realedealforcongress.com/my_principles.html), he describes his philosophy of good government as this: "I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. The role of government is to protect, not to provide. If the state is to provide for some, it is to take from others. Upon granting the power to government in order provide, special interests would, and have, sought to use it for their own advantage. That advantage is no better than legalized piracy and oppression."

It is from there that we jump into the questions:

FF: I like your statement of principle about the nature of good government. Very Jeffersonian. Can you elaborate a little on that?

REALE: Read the preamble of the Constitution. Any government short of that purpose and intent is useless. Anything more than that is oppressive and wasteful, and ultimately destructive to its original purpose. Government is not reason. It is not force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Just government also sticks within the specific powers of its charter or constitution, as enumerated by the people.

And, like fire, or any tool, you don't use it to fix everything. For example, I don't fix my computer with a hammer. Government is only there to protect liberty, contracts and private property.

FF: Agreed. Of course, government has abandoned those principles. Is that why you are running?

REALE: I am running for office for several reasons.

The first of those reasons is $58 trillion in unfunded liabilities and obligations. Congress has raided Social Security and Medicare, in their entirety, every session without fail. We owe four times our GDP, today. The miracle of compounding interest is not working in our favor. This is our greatest national security threat. The two party system is only making it worse. It is taxing our great grandchildren beyond starvation.

Secondly, the value of the dollar is being eroded fast. 20 years ago, someone making $200,000 was considered wealthy. Today, that's upper middle class. It used to be possible to support a family, two cars, two children and a mortgage on one job and a high school education. The reason for this is the Federal Reserve, which counterfeits money and siphons purchasing power away from citizens and toward Wall Street. By the time the counterfeited money reaches us, it's lost at least 10% of its value. This will only continue as long as the two party system continues. Today, it's terminal.

As you probably know, the dollar we gave the Fed in 1913 is worth less than four cents. That's radically different from the 1700's and 1800's when Lincoln and Washington paid virtually the same for a loaf of bread. I think Ben Bernanke is lying when he calls that "price stability".

Tying into the second reason, the Fed has essentially created an economy of debt. Today, 2/3 of our economy is based on retail and the credit necessary to buy useless things we don't need. It has sent our jobs overseas, eroded our manufacturing base and created a society of debtors.

By all reasonable estimates, the Fed has gone too far. It has now enabled what will become $6/gallon gas in the next two years in a best case scenario depression in the worst. Credit was too easily available, and a panacea of junk bonds in the form of subprime mortgages, credit instruments, ect., are coming due. The Fed does not have the power or the resources to stop this tidal wave of debt instruments which have gone bad, and we're talking about instruments with a notional value above $400 trillion, that is the amount of expected payments on those instruments. If you think Congress is dumb now, wait and see what the same people will do when things get really bad. I prefer not to wait.

Government, in its infinite wisdom, tries to bridge every financial gap by stealing more money from one class of people and handing it to another. Today, government at all levels is half the economy. Taking any more would physically require government to, well, take it.

Of course, I object when my friends are sent off to get shot at for wars that were never declared by Congress. That includes wars without a clear and consistent justification or clearly defined scope. I think that after 50 years of these stupid, pointless wars against countries that present no credible threat is enough. That's especially true with every administration that gets more drunk with power than its predecessors and closer to flirting with World War Three. I can't tell you how a third world war will be fought, however, I can guarantee that a fourth will be fought with sticks and rocks by the time the neocons get done with it.

Of course, not an objection from democratic or republican leadership. We the people and our property are just chattel to be managed in their eyes. Never have our liberties been under such a vicious assault in the entire history of our republic.

Personally, I'm disgusted. Enough is enough. I see no other candidates in my district willing to step up to the plate AND confront the source of the problem.

FF: Speaking of the Fed's effect on gas prices, reason magazine has an article (http://www.reason.com/news/show/125414.html) out right now that shows that supply is up from last year, and relative demand is down, but prices are still higher. They attribute a lot of this to inflation, which, as they say, "The dollar has fallen in value by more than 30 percent (http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H10/Summary/indexn_m.txt)against a Federal Reserve index of major currencies since 2002. This means that the price of imports, including oil, have gone up." How do you plan to fix this?

REALE: We're only going to fix this through a sound fiscal policy, that is, the Congress needs to stop spending money it does not have. The Congress needs to step in, freeze the Fed, and start issuing interest free legal tender during the transition period outlined here (http://www.realedealforcongress.com/social_security.html). If we do not take the steps I've described, or something similar, expect gas prices to worsen - fast.

FF: So, you think we should ditch the Federal Reserve altogether?

REALE: Phase it out. I think Ron Paul is headed in the right direction. However, it was a gold standard that was used to hijack the economy and cause enough damage to force the financial system the "money trust" of the day wanted. The trick of making gold artificially scarce or plenty is not new. Of course, the banks end up controlling the gold and lending out paper gold reciepts, not actual gold. This leads to bank runs.

FF: So, how else do you differ from Ron Paul?

REALE: Our platforms are nearly identical. However, I am for restoring the power of coining money and regulating the value thereof to the Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8. I am also for a fiat currency printed by the government only in proportion to population and the amount of goods and services available. I can respect a gold standard for its intent; however, I know it was the gold standard that was used to corner the market and get us a central bank of issue in the first place.

I do agree with Dr. Paul that we should legalize competing currencies. After all, it is your right to make and execute contracts with gold, silver, cantaloupes or whatever you decide. After all, you own yourself. That's your decision to make.

Where I differ from Paul is that he's in the wrong party. The reason he will lose the nomination is because the sane people have left that party. As a libertarian, he can win the presidency. It's not too late for him to make that call.

I understand that Paul has to run for both Congress and president in the same party. However, I still say he could win his seat as a libertarian. If you see him, tell him I said to come home.

FF: So, I guess you're running as a Libertarian, then?

REALE: Absolutely. The two party system is obviously corrupt, and even if I were to pursue a nomination through either one, the process would select the person most willing to go along to get along.

Libertarians are the most principled party out there. We're also the third largest party in the US. The party is driven by always trying to keep government within its constitutional box and as small as possible. If I were vehemently pro-life and anti gay marriage, I'd be with the Constitution party. While I have profound respect for what they do and almost unanimous agreement with them on every issue, I don't want to open Pandora's box by getting government involved with social issues.

FF: Agreed. So, how would you say you are most different from your competitors?

REALE: My republican opponent, Sean Sullivan, just endorsed John McCain for president. He also wants to fix our economy with submarines. He has also complained about how democrats are only fighting with Bush - and the exception I have with that is that they're really not fighting with Bush. He's going to lose without question. Not only is it not cool to be a republican these days, it's also not cool to be a republican who expects support from gun owners by default. Of course, the gun owners have made the last republican incumbent, and my position (http://www.realedealforcongress.com/gun_control.html) is far more assertive. Once I get a score from the NRA, he's more or less finished.

All of my other positions are far more comprehensive, and address the causes of problems as opposed to the symptoms. Sullivan hasn't said a word about that $58 trillion we owe in Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. Deshefy, the Green Party candidate, has a lot of good ideas. I agree with him on impeachment. Unfortunately, once we start talking about socialized healthcare and regional living wages, we have to start asking where the money will come from. He is right on assessing the situation, but wrong on where the solution will come from. Unfortunately, he'll only make that $58 trillion gap worse. Besides, much of what he says is not authorized by the Constitution. That kind of thinking got us into the mess we're in in the first place.

Joe Courtney, the democratic incumbent, has indicated that impeachment would be a waste of time, as if following the Constititution is optional. He has also failed to sponsor any legislation to end the war in Iraq immediately, a decision which is solely reserved to Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8. If you look up his record (http://www.thomas.loc.gov), you'll find that 11 out of 20 bills he did cosponsor were related to textiles, noils of camel hair, ect. Nothing is in record about that $58 trillion, which he voted to make worse by again voting to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Of course, he also voted for inflation.

The economy and the war are the most pressing issues. First, I will cosponsor a bill on day one ordering the troops home immediately.

To help the economy, I will cosponsor a bill restoring the power to regulate trade to the Congress. Today, trade is regulated by the WTO, which mandates anything but free and equal trade. I will also cosponsor a bill to restore the power to issue money to Congress. Ben Bernanke is only using it to bail out Wall Street at our expense when it makes bad decisions. Of course, this is nothing new. Our real wages today are a third of what they were in the 1950s.

FF: When you said, "Today, trade is regulated by the WTO, which mandates anything but free and equal trade," what exactly do you mean by that? Are you a "free trader" or a "fair trader?"

REALE: I am for fair and equal trade. I am not for WTO trade, which exports our textile jobs and our high prescription drug prices to the third world. The same applies to NAFTA and CAFTA. If you can make a better mouse trap, you don't need help. A lot of people call this help "free trade", when it's nothing more than a systematic quagmire of cartels.

I agree with Ron Paul on this one. No free trade treaty needs to be 300 pages long. Just write "free trade", sign it, and vote on it. I personally think our tarrifs and trade policies should be uniform for every country. That's free and fair trade.

FF: So, you don't believe in any environmental, workplace safety, or wage requirements for countries wanting to trade with American companies? Just get out of the way?

REALE: Pretty much. It's not our place to spread ideas and common sense through force or coercion. If a good idea works, people end up doing it anyway. The more we interfere, the longer this takes. However, if another country causes damage to America through environmental damage, it should be made to clean it up or pay for it.

Of course, without the WTO, Americans would have the option to simply not buy slave goods. What amazes me the most about these questions is that they're usually presented by, and you're not one of them, people who want the government to address a problem by taking someone else's time and money. They'll demand worker's rights and continue to shop at Wal Mart anyway. This is not the way change occurs.

Any company that doesn't take care of its workers and sell a product that captures all the costs will go out of business - unless that company is propped up by a trade cartel. While American products were always expensive, they used to be known for their quality because workers were taken care of. Any successful small businessman knows that workers who can't afford food, healthcare, ect. do bad work. Businessmen who fail attempt to go on the cheap, externalize their costs, and are only amazed when their product is terrible.

My wife recently picked up a box of 100 trashbags for something like two dollars, but every other one falls apart - last time we buy those at Wal Mart. I don't buy clothing from Wal-Mart not only because I personally object to the way workers are treated, but because the product falls apart, defeating the entire purpose of clothing to begin with. However, I'm not about to use government to make that same choice for someone else. It's neither fair nor effective.

FF: That's an interesting take, and one that libertarians ought to embrace. While I disagree with you on "slave labor," (I believe that "sweat shops" are an undeniable mark of progress as the developing world moves from agararian to industrial economies), our end policy prescription would be the same - let each individual make that choice.

So, why don't we hit up some specific policies? What's your top three most important issues, to the local constituency and federal?

REALE: My number one issue is the Fed and the income tax. These have created a situation where we have $58 trillion in unfunded liabilities and obligations. These have also created the need for Medicare and Social Security in the first place. I have the only plan to pay down the real national debt, repeal the income tax and return to a Constitutional government. Not doing this will destroy the United States.

Secondly, I am against being the world's police. It's foolish and costly. We could save a trillion dollars per year or more by letting the world manage its own affairs.

My third issue is restoring the Constitution. Doing this will allow the first two issues to fall in line. It will achieve a maximum of liberty and a minimum of oppression, waste and fraud.

FF: Gay marriage. For or against? State or federal issue?

REALE: I am for people doing whatever they would like with other consenting adults. It's also a state issue.

FF: Drug War. Fight it or surrender?

REALE: It's a war on civil liberties that's only created a black market and a funding mechanism for organized crime. It's also made us number one, in the world, in terms of prisoners per capita and money laundering.

There are too many people who have smoked pot for years. They never lost a house, a job, a relationship or a car. They never committed a single violent act as a result. I'm asking why they don't get a commercial.

Besides, I don't see "drug war" in Article 1, Section 8. The tenth amendment also tells us that any power not given to the federal government is left to the states and the people, respectively. At least Congress had enough respect for the Constitution to amend it so they could prohibit alcohol. Now they're afraid of what would happen if they tried to do the same thing today. So, they just subvert it.

FF: Love it. What is your position on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror? What is your overall philosophy on foreign policy?

REALE: On the first two, get out. Come home now. These are not wars. They're occupations.

Secondly, terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. The only way to deal with that is to put a reward out for terrorists, similar to the one Ron Paul proposed in the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. You do not reduce the number of terrorists by attacking entire countries and bombing innocent people indiscriminately. The only reason we have an insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we're doing just that. Just like Vietnam, we're doing everything in our power to make enemies, not friends.

And finally, when a nation like Afghanistan or Sudan offers to hand people like Bin Laden over, we need to take them up on the offer.

FF: Economically, are you an Austrian (Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises), or more Chicago School (Milton Friedman, The Cato Institute)?

REALE: A combination of the two.

FF: Me, too. Thanks for your time, Mr Reale. Before we go, what is your plan for getting elected? Where can people go to help you? Is there anything people can do to help you?

REALE: We're obviously not outclassing the two party system on money. My democratic opponent already has a million dollars, and the republican candidate isn't that serious of a challenge. If anything, the republican is running because the party knows they won't win during this cycle.

First, we're focused on getting on the ballot. It's only going to take 2,424 signatures. We're on track to qualify by late May. Unfortunately, we could always use more signatures in case some are rejected. The more petitioners we have, the better. The sooner we qualify, the more credible we'll look.

We're relying heavily on the power of the internet. The local papers have also been helpful in terms to letters to the editor. As such, I encourage people to write a letter to the editor. They can also make their own signs, or go to the website (http://www.realedealforcongress.com/get_involved.html) in order to download and print flyers to hand out.

Word of mouth is also important. We're going to start running small ads very soon in order to stretch out our money. If people can spare the money, we could use it. We can make every dollar go a long way.

On policies, our website is meant to inform people as much as it is to gain support. Voters can access a wealth of documentaries and classes on the Constitution. We have made a wealth of information available to people, so much so that it will blow the two party system out of the water. No other campaign in our district offers such comprehensive information.

FF: Thanks again for your time.

REALE: Thank you.

You can check out his website here (http://realedealforcongress.com/index.html), and find other rEVOLution candidates here (http://www.paulcongress.com), where they are also archiving copies of these interviews.

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg