Ron Paul’s Latter Years

Paul ran for Congress again in 2010, winning his 12th term by a strong 80% of the vote.

Paul is considered by many of his colleagues as a genuine statesman, close to the mould of the ultimate citizen-statesman that the Founding Fathers had in mind. He has strong convictions.  Having served as a congressman for a full 12 terms, he has worked for various committees, supporting policies he strongly believed in.  He was an active member of the House Banking Committee, where he pushed for sound monetary policy, openly speaking out against the inflationary measures of the Federal Reserve. He also worked with the House Committee on Financial Services, as well as with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He was often misunderstood.  He was a staunch, assertive, and outspoken supporter of the issues he believed in, often passionate in the philosophies he espoused. These ranged from conservative to liberal, depending on the issue. He has been portrayed as conservative and libertarian.

Of all the congressmen serving between 1937 and 2002, Paul is said to have the most conservative voting record. He held very traditional views particularly on the role of government vis-a-vis the management of economy.  On social issues and foreign policy concerns, however, he is said to have a more moderate stand.

Paul was against budget deficits. Repeatedly voting against schemes for fresh government spending/initiatives/taxes, he earned the nickname Dr. No. Between 1995 and 1997, he holds the record for having cast two-thirds of the lone negative votes in Congress.

He did not vote to increase congressional pay; neither did he want the expansion of the power of the executive branch of government. He was consistent in his fight to bring down, regulate, or eliminate federal taxes. He utilized his position to aggressively   push government to the constitutional levels he thought appropriate – to limit the powers of government. He has been known to endorse plans to get rid of the majority of federal agencies, calling them pointless bureaucracies.

Paul opined that we could eliminate the individual income-tax if the government were to curtail federal-spending to the levels it maintained during the fiscal year 2000; he said that the government can function principally on excise revenues and non-protectionist tariffs.

His records demonstrate that he has not joined any government-sponsored junket.  He refused participation in the profitable pension-program for congressmen. He is said to have returned part of his yearly congressional office-budget to the U.S. Treasury.

He did not support farm-subsidies, in line with his belief that the government should cut back in its spending. He was opposed to the government’s battle against drugs.  His contentious attitudes on these matters often caused conflicts with the other members of the Republican Party.

Leave a Reply

Bookmarks
Archive