Following weeks of silence, the official Ron Paul for President web site returns to action. by Jake Morphonios
(libertarian)
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ron Paul supporters are addicted to the internet. They flock to the web to get their daily fix of Ron Paul related news and information. A favorite site is http://www.ronpaul2008.com For weeks, however, the official web site of the Ron Paul campaign has been silent - leading many to wonder if he has wrapped up not only his campaign for President, but his involvement in the Revolution.
Today, after an uneasy hiatus, the web site has returned to life. The campaign HQ blog, the Daily Dose, has posted two updates, including news of Dr. Paul's upcoming appearance on the Tucker Carlson show.
The main page of the web site has added an article by Rand Paul, MD and a link to his recent radio interview on WBKO. In response to the confusion over whether Ron Paul has withdrawn his bid for the Presidency, Rand wrote:
"Is Ron Paul still campaigning for president? Yes. Ron Paul has tentative plans to campaign in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Ron Paul will also likely appear in other states that have remaining primaries."
"The press is reporting that Ron Paul has quit the race. This is not true. Ron Paul's video simply acknowledges that the campaign will continue but will also transform into additional activities such as education and supporting other candidates."
A curious change, however, is the removal of the previously prominent campaign donation chart from the main page. Also absent from the web site are scheduled Ron Paul events in upcoming primary states.
For more, visit the the official web site at: Ron Paul 2008
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jake Morphonios only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jake Morphonios is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
(PressMediaWire) March 9, 2008 Congressman Ron Paul states - Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.
Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption. Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds. If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run. For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change. Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.
The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions?
In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were. They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.
Africans should decide what is best for Africa . American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money. Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.
The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems. It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress. It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.
These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided. The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent. The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom. The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets. Perhaps then Africa's leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.
Ron Paul campaign website has not been out of order for weeks as you say. A journalist should be precise and not careless with easy to verify facts of info.
Until the money's location is shown in near line item form and a 5 year plan established for success I'll still be raking his soft spoken libertarian ass over the proverbial coals.
Jessie, don't you have something better to do? If you want to nitpick politicians, there are plenty of bigger and better targets.
Personal vendettas aren't very becoming, especially when you can't seem to frame arguments without resorting to profanity.
A question or two: Shouldn't all candidates' campaigns be "winding down", since there are only a few more states to play in the primary? Why is it news that Ron Paul's campaign is doing something sensible?
Subject: Answers to a question about Ron Paul's health care bill
A DC Downsizer, using the pseudonym "Taxpayer," has posted an excellent question on our blog about Ron Paul's health care bill. We're answering it here for the benefit of all. "Taxpayer" writes . . .
"I agree that government-funded or government-mandated medical care is a bad idea, but I do not understand why Ron Paul's proposal is much better. If I am refunded taxes equal to the amount I spend on medical care or insurance, I still have no incentive to control costs unless they exceed my taxes."
Here's our answer . . .
Congressman Paul's bill would incentivize cost reductions by expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Ron Paul's bill would . . .
Enable your employer to deposit up to $8,000 per year into your HSA tax free
The interest you will earn from this account will also be tax free, but . . .
The more you spend out of your HSA the less you will earn in interest, while . . .
The less you spend, the MORE you will earn
The tax credit refund doesn't change the economizing incentives created by HSAs because the tax refund will only come at the end of the year -- every dime you spend today out of your HSA is a dime that won't earn interest during that year
The tax credit would also incentivize a major switch from "Cadillac" insurance plans that pay for "health care oil changes," to major medical policies that would only cover expensive procedures. After all, why should you pay a premium price to an insurance company to cover things you could pay for yourself, cheaper? The resulting lower insurance premiums would mean that . . .
The cost of employing people would plummet, creating new jobs
You would save money on your health insurance premiums, allowing you to maintain a larger balance in your HSA
Your doctor would save on administrative costs, by not having to fill out insurance forms for every little procedure
In addition, insurance premiums would also be eligible for the tax credit so that . . .
Everyone would be able to afford insurance
There would no longer be any tax advantage to carrying health insurance through an employer
People would do better by having their employer pay the money that formerly went to company owned insurance policies directly into each employee's Health Savings Account (tax free) so workers could purchase their own insurance
Changing jobs would no longer cause people to lose coverage
A nationwide switch to major medical policies would bring a nationwide reduction in health insurance costs, as well as the costs of administrative overhead, part of which could be passed on to consumers as health care providers compete for customers.
The more you make health care providers compete by charging lower prices (as with Lasik eye surgery) the larger your HSA will grow through compounding interest
The larger your HSA grows, the larger the deductible on your major medical policy can be
The larger the deductible on your major medical policy is, the less your premiums will be
The less you spend on insurance the more you can save in your HSA, at compounding interest
Imagine having a big pile of cash to cover your health care expenses as you age, independent of insurance companies or Medicare rules. Imagine having health care that becomes better and less expensive because of competition. These benefits can be yours if you demand that Congress give them to you.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
