So, it’s probably no big secret that I’m a pretty big Ron Paul supporter. He’s the one guy that I find to be consistent, honest, and most in line with my personal values. I suppose any bubble deserves a little poking now and again and that’s exactly what happened when I was sent this article. I was told the article was very “telling” and from the title alone I could tell that I was about to find out that he was a “hypocrite” too. *sigh* I really didn’t want this to happen, but I read on. The following is my response. I was pretty happy with what I found and all the research I did, so I really wanted to put this here even though it was originally on Facebook.
Not only is this article really weak, I’m not even going to respond to the first 3 paragraphs. I don’t see the picture the writer is trying to paint with that. I don’t have a problem with any of it.
Promising to take an objective look, here is my response to the article by paragraph (quotes from various other places, are in italics)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
“Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.
It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ price schedule.”
Of course, when it described the reasons people vote “no” it contradicted the answer above and did indeed mention “price controls”. If we were to understand why Ron Paul voted “no” we would have to completely read the bill to understand it myself, which I have not done.
Drug reimportation benefits seem to be widely a matter of opinion. And again it seems to be an interpretation of the bill.
He stated this, “Drug reimportation is critical to lowering prices,” Paul stated. “Reimportation allows American consumers, particularly seniors, to benefit from worldwide price competition. It’s outrageous that the FDA does not permit U.S. citizens to reimport drugs that sell for 30 to 300 percent less outside our borders. The pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to profit by this government-enforced price fixing. How much longer should American consumers be expected to pay much higher prices for identical drugs available in Europe, Canada, and Mexico for a fraction of the cost?”
I would guess that Paul’s interpretation of this bill is vastly different than those who oppose it.
Ahhh…. The pork. Which sucks. Not really what I wanted to be reading. What I found were a few quotes about how for a time he took a “can’t beat em join em” attitude. While I disagree with this “pork”, it doesn’t confuse me. I still think his spending and voting record is a far cry from any other candidate. If you take a look at his earmarks (pork) you will see:
If you take a look at his earmarks (pork) you will see: there are no bridges to nowhere, no land improvements in an area that backs up to his home to improve his property value, no paybacks for contributions. There are infrastructure appropriations, concern about health issues, concern about the economy in his district. (an opinion I am borrowing from the Daily Paul that I %100 agree with). For a bit he seemed to take on the opinion of well, if their going to hand out the money we might as well get back what we paid in. Or something like that.
It’s also been stated that every single bill he had earmarked was probably so full of pork that he probably also voted “no” against it. Yeah, I know… not terribly honorable since he had his own pork in their anyway… but it’s worth mentioning. It’s also worth mentioning that “Ron Paul is 100% for transparency in bills, including earmarks; 100% against self-serving earmarks; 100% for Congress “reading” bills in their entirety.” (Daily Paul)
I don’t know why blips in people’s records make them hypocrites. Am *I* a hypocrite because I once thought public school was the best thing for my child and NOW I champion unschooling? No, I don’t think so. We live…. we learn. But you can formulate your own opinions regarding the inconsistencies in his career.
I don’t care if he doesn’t always line-up perfectly with libertarians. I don’t care if a well known libertarian walks away from supporting him. What I have always noticed about Ron Paul is that he stays true to his own principles. He has stood both with AND against Reagan. That is not a secret. He talks about it at national televised debates. The ads aren’t deceptive they are stretched at best and made by his campaign to capture people’s attention. Not a huge deal for me.
I can’t look at his record and call him a hypocrite. That’s ridiculous. I CAN however look at his record and see that it stands pretty strong to MY values, and is the most consistent record of ANY of the candidates that are in the running today. So while I learned something new that I hadn’t known before… my vote still goes to the man with the plan, Ron Paul.