News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[mheslep]

How many people here have actually attended caucuses?

I have, a couple times.

They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.

Upfront we see the involvement of highly informed people, either on politics or on the issues or both. So we have a trade off between the small but informed group and the necessarily less informed electorate at large. It is the upfront period where the smaller informed group is the better choice, IMO. Keep in mind the smaller group is always placed in check by the knowledge that, to enable success, they must choose someone that has a chance to win their own general election. The process needs these groups to weed out the non-serious. For instance, it's not commonly known but there some 40 people running for US President.

 

[PatrickPowers]

I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years

That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"

 

[turbo]

That reminds me of a post about W. "I thought, 'It's only four years. How much damage can he do?'"

That's a thought that many entertained. What happened? So much damage in so little time... He wanted to be a "war president", and what did that get us apart from a horrendous of loss human lives and a wrecked economy.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.

You know, I commonly hear the argument against Paul that people agree with the spirit of his ideas but feel they're not pragmatic.
It seems to me that recently we've has too much short term pragmatism; in other words ignoring long term systemic problems because in the short term the shift would be difficult or impractical. But the country is in a position where the military is over-extended and the deficit and growth of government is out of control.
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.

 

[mheslep]

...
The label of Paul as in isolationist is not accurate; sure, he doesn't believe in the US maintaining a worldwide military presence, but he supports trade and diplomacy.

Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.

 

[Galteeth]

Trade/economics is one aspect of isolationism. Another is the military, sanctions, and the like, and Paul completely deserves the term in that context. It is a fair reading of his statements to say that Paul would take no military or sanctions action for any reason except a direct physical attack on the US. The mid east could entirely explode, a dozen rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons and he would undertake no direct action. I defy anyone to present argument that a President Paul in 1941 would have declared war on Nazi Germany, much less supplied Britain with lend-lease material prior the fact.

Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.

But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative." I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy, but it should try to manage the world political situation?

 

[mheslep]

Supplied lend-lease material? Probably not.
Declared war on Nazi Germany? Well, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on us.

But yes, I think your statements otherwise are fair, I would just disagree that this is "isolationism." It means using the military for the purpose of the defense of the united states, not for realpolitik purposes.

Refusing to do a lend lease equivalent is textbook isolationism: no action taken until another country attacks the US inside its borders, even at the consequence of condeming a close ally to certain destruction. Though one can certainly argue the US military is overused and overextended, that does not excuse a pretense that the defense of the US is not relevant until the Red Coats burn the White House, as I contend Paul does.

Mheslep: From your posts here you seem to lean "conservative."

Yes, more libertarian than conservative.

I am curious. Why do you think the US government should not manage the economy,

Not sure what you mean by 'manage' the economy. I don't think the federal government can, or should, manage the private economy as its not granted those powers in the Constitution. It does have the power to print money and thus manage interest rates.

but it should try to manage the world political situation?

False dilemma. I don't want the US to police the world with its military (nor can it), but this does not always force the option of doing nothing. Example: support Iranian dissidents. Give speeches actively supporting them when they are in the streets. Send them communications gear. Iran tests a nuclear weapon, US cuts off their gasoline supply.

 

[ThomasT]

Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.

Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.

So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.

 

[Gokul43201]

Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11344135/1/ron-paul-leapfrogs-romney-in-iowa-polls.html

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/g...ost-likely-to-beat-obama-in-latest-iowa-poll/

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/romney-and-gingrich-lose-paul-gains-in.html

This may just be the fad of the month, but it's still a whole lot more than just a handful of determined activists swaying straw poll numbers.

 

[skippy1729]

Ron Paul could be a big problem for the Republicans. He will win some delegates along the way. The nightmare scenario would be Romney 40% of the delegates, Newt 40% and Paul 10%. I don't think either Romney or Newt could toss him a bone bigger than say, agreeing to an audit of the Federal Reserve without poisoning their own campaign. His ego will demand more. A truly deadlocked convention could bring about a ticket of Republicans smart enough to have stayed out of the primaries; maybe some combination of Chris Christie, Condy Rice, Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal. The democrats would be back to square one in dirt digging. On the other hand, Paul might run as a third party and give the election back to the president. It is going to be a very interesting year.

Skippy

 

[Galteeth]

Paul has stated many times, including in the most recent GOP 'debate', that the problems specific to various regions of the world should be left to the inhabitants of those regions to solve. This would be ok in a world where the US wasn't tied to oil. But it is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of the regions with great oil reserves.
Also, Paul's doctrine would be ok in a world where there wasn't a clear and present danger from Islamic countries. But there is. So, the US has to be involved in the affairs of Muslim-dominated regions. Specifically, whether one agrees with the moral correctness of establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and the furtherence of 'colonizing' settlements, or not, the survival (and dominance, of a sort) of Israel in the ME seems to me to be vital to US interests.

So, imo, in the most recent GOP debate, Paul's position seems weak compared to Gingrich's.

On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.

Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.

 

[mheslep]

Those that have been saying that Paul has no hope of winning anything more than a straw poll might want to look at the latest numbers coming out of Iowa (and NH):
...

I don't know who would say that or why, given Paul earned multiple 2nd and 3rd place primary finishes in 2008. What I do hear is that Paul has no hope of winning the nomination, and I agree, especially given his fickleness on questions of running as an independent while still under the GOP flag.

 

[turbo]

Just my opinion, but Ron Paul is too liberal for a GOP that has been driven far-right by the Tea Party. He is in the wrong party, and can't hope for enough primary support. If he runs as a third-party candidate, he will peel away votes from both Obama and the eventual GOP nominee, IMO. Democrats who have had enough of "foreign adventures" might pull the lever for him, as will Republicans who are actually conservative and hate the way that their party has been bought by corporate interests.

The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy, and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy and blocking reasonable regulation on the big banks. We are in interesting times. Old Chinese curse, BTW.

 

[mheslep]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

 

[skippy1729]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

Yes, this is precisely why if the Republicans were insane enough to nominate him I would vote for any rational third party candidate; lacking that alternative, I would vote for IMO the worst president in the history of the republic.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, this is precisely why ...

You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?

 

[skippy1729]

You've not given a 'why' here, precise or otherwise. Why?

This scenario presents the president with a difficult decision. While it is impossible to predict someones reaction, based on the whole of his foreign policy statements, I think Ron Paul would wash his hands and let the nuclear devastation proceed. I believe Newt would have tried stronger measures against Iran but would cooperate in a preemptive non-nuclear strike as a last resort.

Skippy

 

[ThomasT]

The other night Gingrich claimed he had some first hand, if dated, knowledge of the minds of Israeli leaders that leads to the following scenario in which an American President may find himself in the next decade:

Israeli leadership determines that Iran a) has some bombs or one is imminent, and believes that b) current Iranian leadership intends to use the weapons, believing that with 2-3 weapons an attack can essentially destroy the state of Israel. Israel refuses to incur what it considers a high risk of another holocaust, and approaches US leadership with the following proposal: Israel will attack Iran with conventional weapons IF the US aids in the attack. If the US refuses to aid/intervene conventionally, Israel intends to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Now, for a US President in such a situation to respond with a platitude like we don't get involved the affairs of other nations, though we would like to discuss free trade, is crackpottery. The world does not much see these kinds of dire consequences in the last 50 years exactly because the US does stay involved in the world.

I don't think it's crackpottery, precisely because it follows logically from his stated ideals (which ideals are not, per se, crackpotty).

On the other hand, I very much agree with you that Gingrich's take on things is much more sophisticated than Paul's.

Obviously, Iran does represent a (potential) threat. And the US does, imo, need to be involved in dealing with that threat. Besides, they've got lots of oil, and, imo, it would be a great thing if the US could control a significant portion of it.

I see both Israeli and US (conventional) bombing of Iran in the future. Extensive bombing. And extensive economic sanctions. And anything else that can be done short of nuking them to get them to abandon their pursuit of nuclear military capability.

 

[ThomasT]

On the first point, isn't the real problem here America's oil dependence? Oil is not an infinite resource, and it is a major contributor to climate change. Also, America spends far too much to keep oil flowing. Perhaps if we didn't invest so much in keeping the oil supply stable, there would be more incentive to develop alternative energy sources, which would be better for America long term in so many ways.

Yes, I agree with you that the primary problem is America's oil dependence. But that dependence might well, unfortunately (and pardon the pun), be a fact for at least the next century. So, today Iraq and Iran. Tomorrow Venezuela and Canada, and wherever else there are proven oil reserves greater than America's.

Secondly, clear and present danger? With the possible exception of Pakistan, no islamic country has the capacity to launch a serious attack on American. As Paul points out, America was able to effectively deter war with the Soviet Union, which definitely constituted a clear and present danger. America has the capacity to annihilate any islamic country. The threats these countries pose is to the established order in the region. As Paul also points out, American intervention in the region to secure what was perceived as America's interest has lead to blowback and unintended consequences that have created some of the threats. Without America's intervention, the ability of Islamic radicals to paint America as the boogeyman worth fighting against would be severely diminished.

These are good points, except for the fact that an Iran with military nuclear capability is an imminent threat to Israel, and that represents an imminent threat to America's interests in the region.

In effect, America is at war with the Islamic (theocratic) dominance of the Arabic ME.

I expect that conventional bombing of Iran will begin sometime within the next year or so.

 

[CAC1001]

The GOP is being torn, IMO. On one hand, the party in DC seems hell-bent to shift money to the wealthy,

How is not raising taxes "shifting money" to anyone?

and yet are driven to hard-right positions to appease the TP folks. It's hard to argue for austerity (TP-appeasers) while championing tax cuts for the wealthy

I don't think anyone is championing cutting taxes for wealthy folks, just that raising taxes on them isn't going to generate the revenue needed to fix the problems, especially considering that too many times in recent years, the government has only increased spending further after raising tax revenues.

 

[Char. Limit]

What about a mix of raising taxes (on everyone, just to be fair) and cutting spending? There's got to be some level of both that we can work with.

 

[CAC1001]

What about a mix of raising taxes (on everyone, just to be fair) and cutting spending? There's got to be some level of both that we can work with.

IMO that would be fine, the problem is that when that is usually agreed to, it's in a "Raise-taxes-and-then-we'll-cut-spending" manner, which results in the taxes going up and spending continuing unabated. It needs to be done in the inverse, with spending being cut, then taxes increased (provided such increases won't hurt the economy right now).

 

[Char. Limit]

IMO that would be fine, the problem is that when that is usually agreed to, it's in a "Raise-taxes-and-then-we'll-cut-spending" manner, which results in the taxes going up and spending continuing unabated. It needs to be done in the inverse, with spending being cut, then taxes increased (provided such increases won't hurt the economy right now).

Why don't we just do them concurrently? That seems like what would make the most sense to me.

 

[feathermoon]

I just really want to know how this guy thinks that removing the EPA as a federal regulatory body is a 'good' idea. Does he really believe that each state will be responsible enough to even match the current protections afforded by the federal agency?

Ways I see it turning to disaster: some states (guess which) decide that the clean air and water acts, endangered species act are too restrictive. No explanation necessary here. They don't allow their state EPA to regulate based on these laws, and people suffer (but businesses get to save a few bucks) (contingent on the fact that under the federal laws states have full power to regulate to begin with or the federal laws are amended to allow this).

Some states decide they actually like healthy citizens and a clean environment. They keep old protections. Businesses realize they can save money in another state, jobs leave the state. I'd say Texas is already benefitting from such disparities with its jobs market and no corporate/income tax.

Doesn't Paul realize protections are only as strong as their weakest link? Or, is U.S. having a recession for 5 more years more important than possible habitat destruction or species extinction (which lasts for longer than 5 years, btw)? Gotta ask yourself.

 

[mheslep]

Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?

 

[Evo]

Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?

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?

 

[turbo]

I just really want to know how this guy thinks that removing the EPA as a federal regulatory body is a 'good' idea. Does he really believe that each state will be responsible enough to even match the current protections afforded by the federal agency?

That is a critical question. I live in Maine (if you didn't know) and we have rolling ozone alerts all summer, thanks to the big midwest coal plants. Children and women of child-bearing age are strongly advised not to eat wild-caught salmon and trout from our rivers and streams because of very high levels of mercury in their flesh. Everybody is under advisories recommending limited (or no) consumption of liver from deer and moose due to excessive cadmium levels, and we are watching some critical wild fisheries collapse due to acidification of our ponds and streams.

We all pay for this environmental damage, despite the fact that the biggest offenders are coal-fired plants in other states, who get to pollute freely with no cost to them. I don't think anybody around here thinks that this abuse of our environment would let up if the EPA was eliminated.

 

[Proton Soup]

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?

i don't trust federal oversight.

FDA isn't doing its job, and Alabama is doing its own seafood testing.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40198...t/could-your-seafood-contain-toxic-chemicals/

 

[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.

 

[feathermoon]

Exactly, and yet Paul's model of Libertarianism would have us moving the powers of the FDA to individual states. That would clearly be a disaster as well.

How about states that don't have equal environmental controls letting interstate business be conducted. Suddenly company A couldn't sell its product in state B, because state A in which it was located didn't have such strong protections that it needed to meet.

If anything, environmental protections clearly need strengthened, yet you see Republicans attacking the very protections they helped set up years ago (Reagen, Nixon). Why this weird, abrupt turn about in the past 10-20 years? Many states would think nothing of abandoning environmental protections under their current governorships. My own state could use regulation to increase the amount of jobs coal mining provides while reducing its impact on the environment, but you don't see that happening (sorry Maine!).

Just on Pauls anti EPA plan alone I can say I'd never support him. Maybe its because the environment happens to be #1 issue for me, but if his plan is so clearly flawed I wouldn't have much hope for unseen repercussions from his other ideas.

 

[turbo]

Another factor to consider: people come here to fish and hunt. If the fresh-water fisheries collapse, we lose a lot of jobs. Hunting, maybe not so much because a lot of out-of-state hunters are trophy-hunters, but still there is an impact. Fresh-water fishing (especially fly-fishing in traditionally fly-fishing waters) is still a big draw, though pollution is threatening that.

Before my brother-in-law died, he routinely guided one of the biggest names in cosmetics and her husband on western Maine waters where he was employed by a sporting lodge. He might not have made a ton of money in salary, but he was doing what he loved and sometimes got some killer tips. I think he'd much rather send home the tips than a pink caddy.

 

[mheslep]

Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states?

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 11th and 25th by population among the US states. Is environmental oversight overrun by greed in those countries, simply because they are small? Not that I know of.

Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?

Sure small ripoffs are usually easier to hide than larger ones. To my mind, the best way to avoid them regardless of scale is to have those paying the bill as close as possible to those spending it.

Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department

In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes. ...
“A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo. ...
“frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

You and I both could no doubt fill pages on federal scandals like the above, all of which would be comical in comparison to the really big ripoffs like Medicare's ~$60B/year in fraud.

I can think of a factor that does seem to correlate well with environmental protection: economic success. Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, doesn't manage its environment very well.

 

[turbo]

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?

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.

 

[ThomasT]

Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?

I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.

 

[feathermoon]

I can think of factor that does seem to correlate well with environmental protection: economic success. Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, doesn't manage its environment very well.

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Does this mean you favor an EPA armed agent* led invasion of Canada due west and upwind of Maine that would righteously regulate coal plants in Montreal and Quebec?

I can see a case for state to state standards, but the EPA went far beyond that years ago.

*Yes the FBI's not good enough apparently, the EPA has a couple hundred of their own.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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%.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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?

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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).

 

[mheslep]

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).

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

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.

Yes I see you think this. Why?

Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.

 

[feathermoon]

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.

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[Dotini]

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/Political_positions_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