bobbyw24
06-23-2011, 06:38 PM
Ron Paul has been more consistent about his views. When asked about the role of the EPA in an interview with Slate in 2007, Paul said, "You wouldn't need it," though he later added that eliminating the agency was "not high" on his agenda. From the interview:
Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections
More than three years later, his position is almost unchanged.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/2012-republicans-take-aim-at-epa_n_883182.html
Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections
More than three years later, his position is almost unchanged.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/2012-republicans-take-aim-at-epa_n_883182.html