Ron Paul: Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jun 26, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element
    in Stem Cell Debate

    by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

    June 25, 2007

    The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.

    On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.

    In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.

    Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards. Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer.

    Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

    If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.

    Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.

    - www.house.gov:80/paul/tst/tst2007/tst062507.htm
     
    #1 KenH, Jun 26, 2007
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2007
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly respect Rep. Paul's concern for the taxpayer here. However, it's not always just about dollars and cents. We must have a moral compass, not just a financial one.

    I believe he is being overly simplistic about neither side considering the federal taxpayer, among other statements. As for the Feds "neding" armed agencies when something is banned, wouldn't a state need the same? Is it okay for the states to waste taxpayer dollars but not the Federal government? :)

    I would be interested to hear him flesh out how he thinks the market role would take shape in this issue, for that is a tremendously interesting point.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the federal government simply obeys the federal constitution then the moral issue of embryonic stem cell research need not be a federal issue. That is the point that Ron Paul is making.

    His point about the states is that the state and local governments are closer and more responsive to the people than the federal government is. It also allows for more choices as to the type of governmental policies one chooses to live with. For instance, if the state you live in has a state government that funds embryonic stem cell research and you fail to persuade the government to change, then you can move to a state that doesn't fund such research. If the federal government funds such research, then you would have to move to another country altogether to avoid it.

    It is like having autonomous local Southern Baptist churches. If they don't approve of what is being taught or done at the one you are attending, then you can move your membership to one that you like better. :)
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    We need to remeber that the ban only effects federal funding not private corporations.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.
    This is a very specious argument, and one that usually eventually finds no favor with some "states rights folks." For instance, when Tennessee had TennCare, most states rights people objected to people moving to TN to get free healthcare. Others in states where gay unions are legal object to gays flooding to their states.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't find your argument(or that of whomever you referring to) to be persuasive in the least. Our governmental system was orginally set up where the state governments would have way more influence on the day to day lives of the citizens than the federal government.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It also does not affect state and local governments where this issue belongs.
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, no one is arguing that. (At least, I wouldn't). However, where these folks (and I can sympathize while not totally endorsing their argument) have a point is that creating 50 little countries can supercede the constitutional establishment of united states (little u and s). Those who say "Just move to a state more your liking" seem to miss the point when it's actually applied. I'm not questioning the theory so much as the practice of the theory.

    It's also worth noting that states are no longer insulated as during the era of the writing of the Constitution. For instance, our economies are intertwined across state lines, as the transactions involved are done through interstate commerce. (Would to God that the Economics/Business/Money forum would get back up and running like we;ve been asking for the past 6 months).

    Sorry..out of time for the moment.
     
  9. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    If old ronnie was such a states rights man I wonder if as President he would work to stop sending much of the federal funding to the states for schools. roads. etc. If not he is just barking to make a sound with no real agenda.
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, roads have a constitutional base (Art I.8), as they were necessary for the Postal service (talk about eliminating a wateful, inefficient bureacracy), but you'll be hard pressed to find a GOP guy that doesn't want to eliminate the Dept. of Education (I know both Senators from TN want to do it, and one (Lamar Alexander) actually served as Sec of Ed and tried to eliminate much of it under Bush 41). Knoxville's Rep (John Duncan) also wants it gone.
     
    #10 TomVols, Jun 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2007
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Timmy, everything in Congressman Paul's legislative history indicates that yes, he would work to end the vast majority of federal spending. He would become known as "President Veto". :thumbs: And all he would need is one-third of one house of Congress to go along with him to make his vetoes stick.
     
  12. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well if that were actually the case I would have to support it even if it was old ronnie.
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tommy Thompson thinks he would be President Veto. In his stump speech, he constantly refers to his number of vetos as Gov of Wisconsin.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Timmy, since it is actually what the case would be with a President Paul does that mean you are now a supporter of Congressman Paul for president in 2008?
     
  15. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    No of course not. Liberals get it right every once in a while. But I do not run to their side of the camp when they do.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Timmy,

    Ron Paul is not a liberal. He is a libertarian as I am. We libertarians are the ones that believe in the personal freedom that liberals used to believe in and the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in.
     
  17. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry but ronnies views are liberal. Regardless of his political affiliation.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Timmy, they are not. Tell me even one of his views that is not libertarian. Even being in favor of securing our borders, as Congressman Paul does, fits within libertarianism. Even being in favor of a pro-America foreign policy and a strong national defense, as Congressman Paul does, fits within libertarianism.

    So, tell me. What position does Congressman Paul advocate that is not libertarian? Come on, Timmy, play the man(to borrow a phrase from Charles Haddon Spurgeon).
     
    #18 KenH, Jun 29, 2007
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2007
  19. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Libertarian does not mean different than liberal. Libertarian is political party liberalism is a philosophy.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Here ia a website to help you:

    www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm

    "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan
     

Share This Page

Loading...