PoliticalAction.com Blog

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week I introduced a very important piece of legislation that I hope will gain as much or more support as my Audit the Fed bill. HR 4995, the End the Mandate Act will repeal provisions of the newly passed health insurance reform bill that gives the government the power to force Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance.

The whole bill is rotten, but this provision especially is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives it the power to do this. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Not only is it unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.

The new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.

Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes it more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasing subsidies for more and more Americans, adding astronomically to our debt burden. An insurance mandate undermines the entire principle of what insurance is supposed to measure – risk.

Another likely response to rising costs is the imposition of price controls on medical treatments, and limits on what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will have to reimburse. This is happening in other countries where government is intrinsically involved in these decisions and people suffer and die because of it.

This will only increase the bottom line of the very insurers the legislation was supposed to control. Meanwhile, alternate methods of healthcare delivery and financing, such as concierge doctors, alternative medicine, or physician owned hospitals will be greatly harmed, if not put out of business altogether, when the entire country is forced into the insurance model. It will be difficult for families to come up with extra money to pay for alternate healthcare of their choice when their budget has been squeezed by this mandate to buy insurance. This will in turn reduce competition for healthcare dollars. Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.

Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. It is time for legislation that fights back for the freedom of the people on this issue. It is time to End the Mandate.

Ron Paul on CNBC’s Squwak Box Part 1 – Feb 22

Run, Ron, Run!

Part 1

Part 2

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week, the House approved another increase in the national debt ceiling. This means the government can borrow $1.9 trillion more to stay afloat and avoid default. It has been little more than a year since the last debt limit increase, and graphs showing the debt limit over time show a steep, almost vertical trend. It is not likely to be very long before this new ceiling is met and the government is back on the brink between default and borrowing us further into oblivion. Congressional leaders and the administration acknowledge that the debt limit will need to be increased again next year. They are crossing their fingers that the forecasts are correct and they will not need another increase sooner, even before the 2010 midterm elections.

Continually increasing the debt is one of the logical outcomes of Keynesianism, since more government spending is always their answer. It is claimed that government must not stop spending when the economy is so fragile. Government must act. Yet, when times are good, government also increases in size and scope, because we can afford it, it is claimed. There is never a good time to rein in government spending according to Keynesian economists and the proponents of big government.

Free market Austrian economists on the other hand know that times are bad because of the size and scope of government. The economy is fragile because of the overwhelming stranglehold of bureaucracy and taxation of Washington. Any jobs Washington might create through these endless spending programs are paid for through more taxation and debt put on the productive sectors of the economy. Just as insidious is the hidden tax of inflation caused by the Fed and its ever-expanding credit bubble. When the Fed steps in with its solutions, it only devalues the dollars in everyone’s pocket while encouraging more reckless waste on Wall Street. All of this leads to a worsening economy, not an improved one.

And so the downward spiral continues. The worse things get, the more politicians want to spend. The more they spend, the heavier the debt load becomes and the more we have to spend just to maintain our interest payments. As our debt load becomes unsustainable, the alarm of our creditors increases. It is becoming so serious that our credit rating, as a nation, could be downgraded. If this happens, interest on the national debt will increase even more, leading to even higher taxes on Americans and inevitably, price inflation.

Still, Washington is full of talk of more regulation, more taxation and more spending. The Senate is still struggling to pass a massive regulatory increase on the financial sector, even as the stock market suffers more shockwaves. Pay-as-you-go rules give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, but in truth these rules are only used as a justification to raise taxes. Spending programs like healthcare reform, increased military spending, and a recent doubling of destructive foreign aid are viewed by Washington as necessary and reasonable, instead of foolishness we absolutely cannot afford.

The people understand this, which is why there is so much anger directed at politicians. Washington needs to change its thinking and adopt some common sense priorities. The Constitution gives some excellent limitations that would get us back on the right path if we would simply abide by them. The framers of the Constitution understood that only the ingenuity of the American people, free from government interference, could get us through hard times, yet Washington seems bent only on prolonging the agony.

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhm7UELPsSA

Part 3 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpyJbWlPGfs

This man looks very presidential, in fact sounds more presidential than
ever too.

By DAVE MONTGOMERY

dmontgomery@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — After months of being largely dismissed in a race dominated by the state’s two Republican heavyweights, Debra Medina is making her presence felt with an anti-establishment message that has evidently struck a chord among a segment of Republican voters.

Buoyed by her performance against Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in last week’s televised debate, the conservative activist has climbed to 12 percent in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, up from 4 percent in November, a showing that prompted organizers to include her in a second debate Jan. 29.

“Her performance in the debate made her the legitimate and credible ‘none-of-the-above,’ ” said Harvey Kronberg of the Austin-based Quorum Report, an online political newsletter.

More…

by Nelda Carrizales Skevington on Jan 06, 2010

WHARTON, TX, Wednesday, January 6, 2010 – Debra Medina is a true contender in the Texas Gubernatorial election and KERA has realized the validity of her campaign. On January 5th, KERA extended an invitation to Debra Medina, asking that she join Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Governor Rick Perry on the stage for the Republican Primary Gubernatorial debate. The Medina campaign has accepted the invitation that the supporters and staff fought so hard to earn.

“KERA has made the right decision. Every Texan deserves the right to hear Medina’s message of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and freedom. Now, many more Texans will have the opportunity to make a well informed decision when they vote on March 2nd,” said Penny Langford Freeman, Medina Campaign Manager.

There was a storm of publicity surrounding the debate invitation. When news arrived that Medina may not be invited to the live debate that will air statewide on January 14th, there was a public outcry. The invitations to Perry and Hutchison were publicized on November 20, 2009 and the delay of the invitation to Medina caused a firestorm of attention from not just supporters of Medina, but average citizens across the state. KERA vowed to review the criteria and send an invitation if the Medina campaign met all the guidelines. Now, with the debate only 8 days away, Debra Medina can finally announce that she’ll be taking part.

“We’ve had an amazing amount of support from all over Texas. My campaign has fought tirelessly to secure this invitation, but it wouldn’t have been possible without the strength and support of so many volunteers and true Texans. This campaign is rooted in equal justice under the law and based on the ideals set forth in our Constitution. This win proves that Texans will still fight for freedom. Now, we intend to not only win this debate, but to win this election,” said Medina.

The KERA Gubernatorial debate will air live on January 14th statewide from the University of North Texas campus in Denton. It can be viewed on KERA-TV, TXA-21 (KTXA-TV), and heard on KERA-FM. KERA news director, Shelly Kofler will be the debate moderator. With so many Texans making noise over Medina’s inclusion, it’s safe to say all eyes will be on Medina as she aims to go head to head with not just one, but two opponents, Gov. Perry and Senator Hutchison. (END)

—
Nelda Carrizales Skevington
Press Secretary
Debra Medina for Governor of Texas Campaign
210-416-0418
www.MedinaforTexas.com

by Nelda Carrizales Skevington on Dec 07, 2009

There have been many invitations to participate in debates and forums coming through our office (Deborah Medina – Candidate for Governor of Texas 2010). The public certainly deserves to hear from each of the candidates. Unfortunately, we’re receiving multiple reports that each time we confirm, the governor cancels. It seems that Rick Perry has learned, over the years, that in order to protect his incumbent status he must be in total control of who he is on stage with and holds the media hostage to his demands.

University of Houston students planned a huge Texas gubernatorial forum. Sixteen Republican and non partisan conservative organizations came together to host the event. They rented the theatre and called the media. Production took months. They called Rick Perry’s office to make sure they scheduled it on a day when he could attend. In the end, after months of planning and selling tickets to cover the cost, Perry would not show. The students and other groups had to return ticket money in disappointment.

In early November, the Texas Press Association scheduled a gubernatorial debate in Galveston. “We thought it would be great for the city of Galveston to have the publicity surrounding such an event,” stated Ed Sterling of the Association. The city would have benefited economically and since the devastation of Hurricane Ike they have undergone a tremendous amount of hardship. The invitations were sent and Rick Perry and Kay Bailey were confirmed. Debra Medina was confirmed and two days later we were told the event was canceled as the demands of Rick Perry were not being met. The sponsor had invited all the candidates.

KERA, a public broadcasting station in Dallas, is publicizing that Rick Perry and Kay Bailey will be debating on January 14th. During an interview earlier in the year, they had assured us that Debra would be included as she had already met the criteria of the station. “When I called on November 19th, Shelley Kofler, News Director for KERA let me know that Debra is not invited to debate at this time, even though we meet their criteria,” said Penny Langford Freeman, Medina’s campaign manager. “There are demands by the other candidates, even to where the mic and the seating is placed. So much cost goes into the production that we can’t risk having the two front runner candidates canceling.” Kofler stated.

This is how fat cat incumbents perpetuate their political career: holding the media hostage to their demands thus preventing open and transparent debate by all the candidates.

“I have been a grass roots activist for a long time. I have seen this type of thing go on and voters deserve to know about it. Governor Perry has taken on the attitude of arrogant aristocracy. This sort of behavior is why the public trust in our elected officials is at an all time low and the word “politician” has become synonymous with “cheat and liar,” said challenger Debra Medina.

“We know that it is not against the law for Rick Perry to cancel but the arrogant demands that he be allowed to dictate who else is on stage is a tragic abuse of power that ultimately harms the very public he is sworn to serve,” Medina added.

Why does Rick Perry have so little respect for the voters and the rule of law? Why doesn’t he want to have healthy debate with all of the candidates? “I will tell you why” said Langford Freeman, “Not only is he arrogant. He does not want you to hear what is really going on in this state and he knows that Debra Medina is dedicated to telling the truth.”

The Debra Medina campaign will press on all fronts to insure that the people are given the opportunity to hear from all the candidates. “If Rick Perry wants what is best for Texas, he will stop these aristocratic power plays and show up to debate ALL candidates. Texans deserve to hear that debate,” said Medina.

“We are demanding that he come down off of his royal high horse and talk to the people who pay his salary,” Langford Freeman said.