## Ron Paul's candidacy

 Quote by mheslep What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs? Do you think the US federal government does a much better job of environmental protection than, say, Switzerland (7.6 million), or Norway (4.8 million), or New Zealand (4.4 million)? Those countries would rank between the 11th and the 25th largest US states. Is environmental oversight overrun by greed in those countries, simply because they are small? Not that I know of.
The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments. Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.

Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ThomasT I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.
That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.

 Quote by Evo I think the feds are doing a better job than if we made everything *optional*. Those states are doing testing in one area of major competition to discredit competitors to their fishing industry. I doubt they are as diligent in other areas that are less impacting to them. Common sense. Don't think that because they are trying to protect one of their largest industries that they're doing anything else. What that article shows me is that we need to give more support to the FDA.
I generally agree with your statements in this and previous posts, but imho the FDA is pretty much a functionary of 'big pharma' etc.

 Quote by mheslep That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.
It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.

 Quote by turbo Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it. If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
This makes sense to me, unless and until mheslep or someone else has a compelling argument to the contrary.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ThomasT The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments.
Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.

 Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.
Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.

 Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials.
Yes I see you think this. Why?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by ThomasT It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.
That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.

 Quote by Evo Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
This is an interesting point, imho. Wrt, "less educated states" I don't think that that necessarily applies to the people running the states. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me that the "abuses pushed by greed" would be "easier to commit on a smaller level" (or at least more prevalent, as evidenced by the greater incidence of detection and prosecution of abuses on the state and local levels).

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by feathermoon In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).

 Quote by mheslep That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.
It's not a circular argument, it's the argument that might makes right. Is there really any doubt about this?

I'm considering your other statements/replies and will respond shortly.

 Quote by mheslep Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.
Good point. But we're talking about the enforcement of environmental protection laws.

 Quote by mheslep Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.
Another good point. But here's the thing. What the President of the US does in terms of advocacy of particular courses of action wrt things that will affect great numbers of people is immediately, more or less, evident to the mass populace.

 Quote by mheslep Yes I see you think this. Why?
Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.

 Quote by turbo Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it. If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Very true. Consider that if every state had to set its own environmental controls, some would be below current standard, some would maintain it, some would go beyond it (well maybe not this last one). Yet even if the split was even, the whole environmental quality would degrade faster because pollution isn't zero sum.

 The reason the EPA should be a federal agency rather than only a state based agency is that what it regulates crosses state borders (i.e., water and air), and therefore disputes about these issues would overrun SCOTUS.
 Recognitions: Gold Member I don't think Ron Paul would abolish the activities of the EPA, only the agency itself. Because such environmental concerns involve interstate commerce, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and the responsibility for administering them would fall to the Commerce Department. From Wikipedia comes this list of RP's stance on various environmental issues: Environmental-related legislative activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul Paul is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition.[233] * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238] The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a lifetime voting-record score of 30%,[239] while Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him a score of 17.[240] Respectfully submitted, Steve

 Quote by Dotini * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
Holy Crap! From the titles/descriptions., those are issues which I would similarly vote (based upon no knowledge whatsoever of the particular issue, of course).

Blog Entries: 1
Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Dotini * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
All of these positions are consistent with the position "The US government should stop doing things". Nothing suggests that he would maintain current regulatory powers

Recognitions: