Category Archives: Ron Paul

Just over a week into the Trump administration, the president issued an executive order giving Defense Secretary James Mattis 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS.

According to the order, the plan should make recommendations on military actions, diplomatic actions, partners, strategies and how to pay for the operation.

As we approach the presidents deadline, it looks like the military is going to present Trump with a plan to do a whole lot more of what weve been doing and somehow expect different results.

Proving the old saying that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, we are hearing increasing reports that the military will recommend sending thousands of U.S. troops into Syria and Iraq.

This would be a significant escalation in both countries, as currently there are about 5,000 U.S. troops still fighting our 13-year war in Iraq, and some 500 special forces soldiers operating in Syria.

The current Syria ceasefire, brokered without U.S. involvement at the end of 2016, is producing positive results and the opposing groups are talking with each other under Russian and Iranian sponsorship. Does anyone think sending thousands of U.S. troops into a situation that is already being resolved without us is a good idea?

In language reminiscent of his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, the president told a political rally in Florida over the weekend that he was going to set up safe zones in Syria and would make the Gulf States pay for them. There are several problems with this plan.

First, any safe zone set up inside Syria, especially if protected by U.S. troops, would amount to a massive U.S. invasion of the country unless the Assad government approves them.

Does President Trump want to begin his presidency with an illegal invasion of a sovereign country?

Second, there is the little problem of the Russians, who are partners with the Assad government in its efforts to rid the country of ISIS and al-Qaida. ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is President Trump willing to risk a military escalation with Russia to protect armed regime-change forces in Syria?

Third, the Gulf States are the major backers of al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria as the presidents own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview.

Unless these safe zones are being set up to keep al-Qaida and ISIS safe, it doesnt make any sense to involve the Gulf States.

Many will say we should not be surprised at these latest moves. As a candidate, Trump vowed to defeat ISIS once and for all. However, does anyone really believe that continuing the same strategy we have followed for the past 16 years will produce different results this time? If what you are hammering is not a nail, will hammering it harder get it nailed in?

Washington cannot handle the truth: solving the ISIS problem must involve a whole lot less U.S. activity in the Middle East, not a whole lot more. Until that is understood, we will continue to waste trillions of dollars and untold lives in a losing endeavor.

Read the original post:
Ron Paul: Trump's ISIS plan: Another US invasion? - Winston-Salem Journal

AMERICA CANT AFFORD ANOTHER INVASION

Just over a week into the Trump administration, the President issued an executive order giving Defense Secretary James Mattisthird days to come up with a plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). According to the order, the plan should make recommendations on military actions, diplomatic actions, partners, strategies, and how to pay for the operation.

As we approach the presidents deadline it looks like the military is going to present Trump with a plan to do a whole lot more of what weve been doing and somehow expect different results. Proving the old saying that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, we are hearing increasing reports that the military will recommend sending thousands of U.S. troops into Syria and Iraq.

This would be a significant escalation in both countries, as currently there are about 5,000 U.S. troops still fighting our 13-year war in Iraq, and some 500 special forces soldiers operating in Syria.

The current Syria ceasefire, brokered without U.S. involvement at the end of 2016, is producing positive results and the opposing groups are talking with each other under Russian and Iranian sponsorship. Does anyone think sending thousands of U.S. troops into a situation that is already being resolved without us is a good idea?

In language reminiscent of his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, the president told a political rally in Florida over the weekend that he was going to set up safe zones in Syria and would make the Gulf States pay for them.

There are several problems with this plan. First, any safe zone set up inside Syria, especially if protected by U.S. troops, would amount to a massive U.S. invasion of the country unless the Assad government approves them. Does President Trump want to begin his presidency with an illegal invasion of a sovereign country?

Second, there is the little problem of the Russians, who are partners with the Assad government in its efforts to rid the country of ISIS and al-Qaeda. ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is President Trump willing to risk a military escalation with Russia to protect armed regime-change forces in Syria?

Third, the Gulf States are the major backers of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria as the presidents own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview. Unless these safe zones are being set up to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS safe, it doesnt make any sense to involve the Gulf States.

Many will say we should not be surprised at these latest moves. As a candidate, Trump vowed to defeat ISIS once and for all. However, does anyone really believe that continuing the same strategy we have followed for the past 16 years will produce different results this time? If what you are hammering is not a nail, will hammering it harder get it nailed in?

Washington cannot handle the truth: solving the ISIS problem must involve a whole lot less U.S. activity in the Middle East, not a whole lot more. Until that is understood, we will continue to waste trillions of dollars and untold lives in a losing endeavor.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Banner via iStock

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul: Donald Trump Needs A New ISIS Plan - FITSNews

Last month marked 44 years since the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

Roe remains one of the courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the nonaggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism.

Unfortunately, many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americans should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical.

That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully, the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing anti-war taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course, I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating the Mexico City policy implemented by President Ronald Reagan. The policy forbids U.S. taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions.

Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life causes path to victory will not come through politics.

Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician.

Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

Ron Paul is a retired congressman, former presidential candidate, and founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @RonPaul, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Read more here:
Ron Paul: Will Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to ... - Noozhawk

Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical. That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagans Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government.

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

Advertisement

See more here:
Ron Paul: Will Congress stop forcing Americans to subsidize abortion? - Red Bluff Daily News

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will announce a tax plan soon, one that will likely consist of tax cuts, though not for the rich.

A tax cut is always welcomed, but what about spending cuts? That is what former Texas Republican Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul is asking.

It is great when the government gives you back more of what it stole. However, if the government doesnt offset that with cuts then the budget deficit will balloon and the national debt will go up even more. Essentially, every piece of spending is a tax on the American people, now or in the future.

Since Trump has never really gone into detail about spending cuts, it is rather probable that you wont see any of them over the next four years.

Here is Dr. Pauls interview in the video embedded below (he makes an interesting point about P/E ratio):

Read more:
Ron Paul warns Donald Trump's tax plan won't work without spending cuts - Economic Collapse News

WILL CONGRESS STOP FORCING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS?

Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical. That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Donald Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagans Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, President Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life causes path to victory will not come through politics. Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician. Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Banner via iStock

Originally posted here:
Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare's Abortion Mandates | FITSNews - FITSNews

In a new interview with host Michael Tracey at The Young Turks, libertarian communicator and former presidential candidate Ron Paul expressed much concern about President Donald Trump potentially appointing Elliott Abrams to be deputy secretary of state. Paul says Abrams has a lousy record. Continuing, Paul calls Abrams the neocons neocon, noting that there has never been an intervention overseas that he didnt seem to enjoy.

Paul says in the interview that all of these interventions that Abrams supports did not work. Victory may be claimed in a sense from these interventions, Paul suggests, if they remade the Middle East so we had thriving democracies there where civil liberties are being protected and [each country] had a constitution somewhat leaning toward ours. But, in fact, Paul says that isnt the case as the wars have caused more harm than good.

Indeed, Trump has discussed this failure of US intervention in regard to the Iraq War. Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump brought up his opposition to the United States starting the Iraq War in 2003. In a February of 2016 debate, Trump called the Iraq War a big, fat mistake, a mistake that, Trump continued, cost two trillion dollars and thousands of lives. In addition, Trump asserted that Iran is taking over Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Concluding, Trump said:

George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

Therefore, it surprises many people that reports suggest Trump is considering Abrams for a State Department appointment. Abrams continues to support President George W. Bushs decision to wage war on Iraq.

Watch Pauls complete interview here:

Paul, along with co-host Daniel McAdams, discussed in detail the potentiality of Abrams as deputy secretary of state in the Tuesday episode of the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

In the Ron Paul Liberty Report discussion, Paul argues that Abrams could be one of the most important Trump appointments, and McAdams offers a possible big reason why Trump would want to consider appointing Abrams to the State Department position. McAdams explains that, while people will say that Abrams is so different from Trump, regarding Iran they are in lockstep: Elliott Abrams agrees with Trump and with [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and with [National Security Advisor Michael Flynn] that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism, which is absolutely not true.

For an in-depth discussion by Paul of his views regarding neoconservatism, read here Pauls July 10, 2003 US House of Representatives speech Neo-Conned.

. Bookmark the

.

Read more here:
Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is 'the neocon's neocon' - Personal Liberty Digest

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American people's tax burden.

Congressional leadership's one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is "revenue neutrality." So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congress's obsession with protecting the government's coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congress's insistence on "offsetting" tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This "border adjustment" tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyone's taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that "capitalism breathes through loopholes."

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, "private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do." Instead of making the tax system more "efficient" by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be "offset" with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserve's monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

Continue reading here:
Ron Paul: Don't just reform taxes, cut them - Herald & Review

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American peoples tax burden.

Congressional leaderships one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is revenue neutrality. So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congresss obsession with protecting the governments coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congresss insistence on offsetting tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This border adjustment tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyones taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that capitalism breathes through loopholes.

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do. Instead of making the tax system more efficient by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be offset with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserves monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Ron Paul is a former congressman and presidential candidate.

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul: Don't just reform taxes, cut them - Winston-Salem Journal

Many Americans who have wrestled with a 1040 form, or who have paid someone to prepare their taxes, no doubt cheered the news that Congress will soon resume working on tax reform. However, taxpayers should temper their enthusiasm because, even in the unlikely event tax collection is simplified, tax reform will not reduce the American peoples tax burden.

Congressional leaderships one nonnegotiable requirement of any tax reform is revenue neutrality. So any tax reform plan that has any chance of even being considered, much less passed, by Congress must ensure that the federal government does not lose a nickel in tax revenue. Congresss obsession with protecting the governments coffers causes reformers to mix tax cuts with tax increases. Congresss insistence on offsetting tax cuts with tax increases creates a political food fight where politicians face off over who should have their taxes raised, who should have their taxes cut, and who should have their taxes stay the same.

One offset currently being discussed is an increased tax on imports. This border adjustment tax would benefit export-driven industries at the expense of businesses that rely on imported products. A border adjustment tax would harm consumers who use, and retailers who sell, imported goods. The border adjustment tax is another example of politicians using tax reform to pick winners and losers instead of simply reducing everyones taxes.

When I was in Congress, I was often told that offsets do not raise taxes, they simply close loopholes. This is merely a game of semantics: by removing a way for some Americans to lower their taxes, closing a loophole is clearly a tax increase. While some claim loopholes are another way government distorts the market, I agree with the great economist Ludwig von Mises that capitalism breathes through loopholes.

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do. Instead of making the tax system more efficient by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be offset with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserves monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

Unfortunately, while Congress may make some small cuts in domestic spending, those cuts will be dwarfed by spending increases on infrastructure Keynesianism at home and military Keynesianism abroad. As long as Congress refuses to make serious reductions in spending, the American people will be subject to the tyranny of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

The suffering will only get worse when concerns over government debt cause the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. This will lead to a dollar crisis and a major economic meltdown. The only way to avoid this fate is for the people to demand a return to limited government in all areas, sound money, and an end to the income tax.

Advertisement

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

See original here:
Ron Paul: Don't reform taxes, cut them - Red Bluff Daily News - Red Bluff Daily News