Giving Ron Paul the Media Attention He Deserves

There's been a lot of press recently about how Rep. Ron Paul's (R.-Tx) been unfairly treated by the media and deserves more attention.

As anyone who's been following me knows, I'm no fan of Ron Paul. Rep. Paul's recent endorsement by the John Birch Society (JBS) is only the latest event in what I've demonstrated has been a long, close relationship between the Congressman and the JBS. As my readers also know, to my mind the JBS has been the seed bank of many of the right wing's most extreme ideas, not to mention a major force behind the Tea Party.

But if you ask me, Rep. Paul's earned the treatment by the press he's been complaining about, just on the merits; because his positions on many of his favorite issues just don't stand scrutiny.

Take, for instance, one of his favorite hobby horses -- that anybody should be allowed to mint money. It's the main idea behind his Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011.HR 1098.

There's a big problem with this proposed law. It's: unconstitutional, and there's nothing obscure about the Constitutional language.

Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 5 and 6 says that only Congress has the power: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (and) To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States."

Only Congress: Not just anybody. No wiggle room. If you want people to be able to coin their own money, you need to amend the Constitution -- not pass some law.

Since one of the cornerstones of Rep. Paul's entire career has been that he's a strict Constitutionalist, and that the United States must return to a strictly Constitutional government, this raises an awkward issue: Either Ron Paul knows his law is unconstitutional, or he doesn't.

If he does: What kind of Constitutionalist is he?

And if he doesn't, why even listen to him? After all, if he didn't understand the plain language of the Constitution, what else doesn't he understand? Falsum in uno, falsum in toto, as right wingers like to say.

Then there's another of his favorite causes: The United States should return to the gold standard.

We can assume that when he says we should return to the gold standard--abandoned in 1971 by Richard Nixon--he means every US Dollar would be redeemable for $1 in gold; otherwise, only part of every dollar would be backed by gold, and the whole idea of a gold standard becomes mere symbolism.

The problem is, we don't -- and won't -- have enough gold to do that. All the gold mined since the beginning of history totals about 166,600 metric tonnes, There are 32,150.722 troy ounces in every tonne, and gold closed on Friday, August 26th, at $1,813.80 per troy ounce. So all the gold ever mined was worth, at Friday's close, about $9.7 trillion. And there's about $9.3 trillion in Dollars in circulation.

But the US has only 8,133 metric tonnes of gold in its vaults, something like 4.8 percent of all the gold ever mined.

So anybody willing to do the math can see that an honest return to the gold standard -- one in which you could exchange a Dollar bill for $1 in gold -- would mean deflating the Dollar -- along with the value of every asset in America -- by more than 95 percent..

Rep. Paul, an intelligent man, seems to have forgotten to tell us this.

Rep. Paul's problem with these two matters: He seems to have a substantial conflict of interest, because much of his personal fortune is gold-related--according to his 2011 Congressional financial disclosure form, by as much as about $3 million out of a maximum total of about $5.4 million.

Needless to say, returning to the gold standard, or allowing people to print their own money -- gold-backed money included -- would do nothing to harm Rep. Paul's finances.

So maybe I've been wrong. Maybe Rep. Paul has earned closer media scrutiny.

This post has been updated from a previous version.

 

Comments

[Klein bottle]

09:59 AM on 09/14/2011

Hold the phones. Article 1 section 8 grants congress the power to coin money, but in no way makes it a sole power, it does not forbid this act by some other entity, it just specifically allows it for congress. You are misinterpreting the article. It uses the very same language to permit the raising of taxes, an activity that is also permitted to the states, counties, cities, towns and villages, and also home owners associations. Over the years, many private groups have coined there own money. Think back to S&H green stamps, gold bond stamps, company script at mining camps, and even today, companies print coupons, which are really just private money. Think about it.

[Smooth Obturator]

10:25 PM on 09/01/2011

Mr. Reinbach,

Unfortunately, professionalism/civility/general respect is often missing on the internet. However, several of your statements within your responses to "Paulies" who disagree with you are condescending and completely unnecessary; unfortunately, they make you look like a hypocrite. Statements such as:

"A little advice for you Paulies" (ironically followed up with "...comments that tend to be strident, abrasive, lecturing..."

"...you Paulies are following a script."

"You have managed to make yourself look like a fool."

"Am I getting through to you?

..just to name a few. Although I may disagree with you at times, I respect you opinion and enjoy your articles, but I refuse to respect this attitude you are displaying. My best advice to you is to stop feeding the trolls.

I apologize for the rant. Let us get back on track.

[Andrew Reinbach]

08:49 PM on 08/31/2011

A little advice for you Paulies: the behavior you’ve displayed in these comments, and on another comments page I recently posted on, is why you get so little coverage, and why the coverage that isn’t so glowing that the average reader dismisses it as publicity is so negative.

I’m not claiming by any stretch that my piece was complementary; it wasn’t and wasn’t meant to be. I didn’t expect you to welcome it.

But I’ve cruised the comments pages of non-adulatory Paul pieces, and your typical response to them hasn’t been far from what something like mine elicits--a flood of comments that tend to be strident, abrasive, lecturing, and insistent, all apparently geared to making the writer take back what they said , confess their error, and announce their conversion to your cause. At least, that’s how it appears. And in this venue, appearance is everything

This of course will never happen; if nothing else, your average journalist is not the sort to do that. So given their druthers, they’re going to avoid dealing with you altogether.

The result: What you’re complaining about.

This behavior serves your cause poorly and tends to make you look bad. You may feel prompted to defend your candidate; but all you’re doing is alienating the average reader, who takes one look at the flood of comments and wants nothing more to do with it or you. You’d do the same. So to get what you want, I’d suggest a change of tactics.

[arnprince]

02:03 PM on 08/31/2011

Dear Sir, you seem not to know your history at all. Before Andrew Jackson, every bank in the country was issuing its own currency, and choosing to accept or not accept the currency from other banks. Then Biddle came along with the Bank of the United States, and practically cornered the market on currency, backed by gold, until Jackson successfully broke it up. Too, for many years under the gold standard, it was illegal for individuals to own gold outright, except in the form of jewelry, etc.. If only the populace would realize that, with the exceptions of tangible commodities like gems or precious metals IN THEIR POSSESSION, every bit of "wealth" or "money" attributed to any individual is merely a relative number on paper, or more appropriately, in cyber space. To go back to a tangible standard is the only hope we have of beating the banks at their own trickery and manipulations. Just as in morality, religion or ethics, unless there is an absolute standard against which the related issue can be measured, everything comes down to relativism, which can be rationalized and manipulated to accommodate any chosen perspective. That is what the banks have done with currency and the economy, using their fancy math (derivatives, etc.). Making them "put up or shut up" with a tangible absolute like gold is the only way to seize back the economy and our way of life.

[ernie1241]

01:54 PM on 08/31/2011

I don't mind Paul's eccentricities. If he was appointed our Secretary of State, our country would be in much better shape than it currently is in.

[Nelson Montana]

10:40 AM on 08/31/2011

Paul seems to be a mass of contradictions, but at least he's consistent. I like many of his libertarian/progressive idea. He's far left of most Dems. But then he has some extreme outdated conservative notions as well -- not that I'm opposed to all conservative ideal, but he goes WAY out.

In some ways I like the change PAul speak of. We need it. It's time to REALLY shake things up. I just wish it came from someone younger, more practical and less right wing.

[Audi]

12:35 AM on 08/31/2011

Andrew - on your issue with the gold standard, the amount of gold currently mined doesn't mean it cannot accommodate the transactions in our modern economy. This notion was debunked nearly 200 years ago by economist David Ricardo:

"If the quantity of gold and silver in the world employed as money were exceedingly small, or abundantly great... the variation in their quantity would have produced no other effect than to make the commodities for which they were exchanged comparatively dear or cheap. The smaller quantity of money would perform the functions of a circulating medium, as well as the larger."

You correctly point out the deflationary dangers of returning to a gold standard, but what I have read from Paul is that he is certainly not oblivious to these dangers. Paul states: "...for if we improperly institute a gold standard, then we might in fact have a depression. Following World War I, the government of Great Britain returned to a gold standard, but in a deflationary fashion. Britain re-established the link the existed between the pound and gold prior to World War I, not taking into account the increase in the number of pounds that had occurred during the war when Great Britain was off the gold standard....Were we to establish a gold standard, we would have to pursue a course that would not result in deflation and would not cause a depression."

[harring4]

08:23 PM on 08/30/2011

Andrew –

I believe you have misrepresented Dr. Paul’s positions in this article.
----------------------------------------------------------------
“Only Congress: Not just anybody. No wiggle room. If you want people to be able to coin their own money, you need to amend the Constitution -- not pass some law.”

No where in article I section 8 is the word “only”

----------------------------------------------------------
“We can assume that when he says we should return to the gold standard--abandoned in 1971 by Richard Nixon--he means every US Dollar would be redeemable for $1 in gold; otherwise, only part of every dollar would be backed by gold, and the whole idea of a gold standard becomes mere symbolism.”

You’re missing key points in this transition. Dr. Paul has explicitly stated that an overnight switch would be absolutely impossible. Furthermore, when the country was on a gold standard, it was neglected (fractional reserve banking). Dr. Paul’s actual opinion, as his bill represents, is that people should have the freedom to transact by through other means (gold, silver, etc).

--------------------------------------------------------------
“Rep. Paul's problem with these two matters: He seems to have a substantial conflict of interest, because much of his personal fortune is gold-related"

This is just ridiculous. You forgot to mention that Dr. Paul has voted against every unbalanced budget, all the wars, bailouts, etc. These expenditures are funded through either taxation or inflation, which, as we all know from ECON 101, high inflation leads to higher commodity prices.

[Andrew Reinbach]

09:55 PM on 08/30/2011

Harring

It's obvious from the many repetitions of these very same talking points in the comments below that as usual, you Paulies are following a script. I've seen you folks do this before on THE DAILY PAUL.

However, I don't mind repeating myself.

#1. This objection is strictly a straw man. There's no need for the Constitution to use the word "only", as your fellows repeat ad infinitum. The power is enumerated to Congress and to no other entity--twice.

#2. Another straw man. I never say anything about any transition--only that a gold standard that's not a one-to-one gold/dollar exchange is merely symbolic and thus meaningless.

That aside, there is, based on your example, no need for this law, since there's nothing in law stopping me from accepting payment from you in firewood, as long as we both agree to it

The real purpose of the bill, in any event, is to attack the Fed. Consider this, from The Daily Paul: "The Free Competition in Currency Act [is]....I must say, a direct slap at the Federal Reserve's monopolization of their illegal enterprise." [http://www.dailypaul.com/159686/how-to-solve-state-debt-with-hr-1098]

#3 Your objections have nothing to do with anything. If it was legal to coin gold, Rep. Paul's portfolio would skyrocket in value. You realize that, don't you?

[Josh Wheaton]

10:21 PM on 08/30/2011

What's funny is, I made similar arguments without reading a single comment before I got to work. You see, the script we are following is the wording of the Constitution, and that is available for ALL to see.

[kamakiri001]

11:37 PM on 08/30/2011

"There's no need for the Constituti­on to use the word "only", as your fellows repeat ad infinitum. The power is enumerated to Congress and to no other entity--tw­ice."
-----------------------------------------------------------

That's false.

If that were the case, then the Constitution would specify that Congress has the power to designate any tangible object that it so chooses as legal tender. However, this enumerated power is nowhere to be found within the United States Constitution.

[thrashertm]

01:13 AM on 08/30/2011

Progressives should support Ron Paul if they care about ending the wars, stopping the continued bailouts for the rich bankers, stopping the civil liberties abuses (Patriot Act) and ending the federal drug war (hurts minorities). Ron Paul as president could have a unilateral impact on these issues, while he would not be able to enact his domestic economic/fiscal agenda without a super majority in the Senate (not likely any time soon). He's also on the record in saying that the money being spent overseas should be used to tide over those dependent on our entitlement programs; he's the only one talking to us like adults.

[Andrew Reinbach]

12:40 PM on 08/30/2011

Progressives have every reason to oppose Ron Paul. Thrasher, since Rep. Paul represents a frontal attack on the idea of progressiveism and of progressive government itself--not only in all its governmental manifestations, but in the progressive philosophy itself. Rep. Paul's power base in fact, considers the Progressive Movement as a whole to be a disease that must be uprooted,from the body politic, root and branch. Why would Progressives support someone who wants to do that?

[JackOfAllTech]

10:23 PM on 08/30/2011

Unless of course you believe in the Civil Rights Act or that Lawrence v. Texas was correct and that Roe v. Wade was decided correctly. It also doesn't matter if it would take a super majority to enable his fiscal agenda. It's what it tells us about his love of conspiracy theories and other questionable attitudes.

[gaysexabortionoverpeace]

05:23 PM on 09/02/2011

Why did you ignore the comment to which you were replying? Why avoid the issue?

It simply boils down to this. If you are more worried about gay sex, which people will have and greatly enjoy whether or not it is legal, over dropping bombs on women and children (which no one enjoys except maybe for the psychopaths dropping the bombs and ordering them dropped), then there is no point in debating anything with you as far as I (and many others) are concerned. War is the issue of our lifetimes. Its not gay sex, not abortion, not protecting the stupid labels people put on themselves like "progressive."

I mean how can you be progressive and still support colonial massacres around the world? You might argue, "well, advocating the domestic progressive agenda is not the same as advocating slaughter." But if the person who you support to further that agenda has no interest in stopping the rape of entire cultures and nations such as happened, most notably, in Iraq and is happening in Libya now, then you are basically complicit in the rape.

To put it another way (since you seem to want to willfully ignore what our government is doing abroad on a daily basis), if you could only choose one law to keep on the books in this country, one fundamental unbreakable law, would it be the right of homosexuals to openly have sex, or would it be the prohibition on murder?

[Andrew Reinbach]

12:33 AM on 08/30/2011

Marin, Blackraisin, Kamakiri, Time:

Your purpose is to confuse, muddy, misdirect, and otherwise try to threadjack this comments page. This is what trolls do. You have no interest in shedding any light on any issues herein--merely to leave the impression that you've somehow taken control of these comments, in hopes of shouting down friendly voices. But you've been unsuccessful; what you have done instead is show people what you're made of and how low you're willing to stoop. People both notice and remember this; so you've created a failure for yourselves. Anything you try to pull hereafter will only prove my point.

Have a nice day.

[marinfan]

03:56 AM on 08/30/2011

You're right, I've been unsuccessful in trying to have a gentlemanly discussion with you, I have only myself to blame.

You have a nice night too Andrew.

[kamakiri001]

03:44 PM on 08/30/2011

You're just mad 'cause you know we're correct...

[Josh Wheaton]

12:24 AM on 08/30/2011

(contd)And perhaps you could argue that there is no limitation on the federal government to make any thing other than gold and silver a legal tender for payment of debts, BUT the Constitution in itself is the document which vests all power in the federal government. And any power not specifically vested by the document is, by default, not authorized.

So, just to be able to sum things up, I'll add that in the list of limitations on the states in art 1 sec 10, it also says that the states are not allowed to coin their own money; that is the state governments are not allowed.

So, where does this leave us? Well, it is clear that only gold and silver can be made into lawful, usable money... And it clearly does NOT say that "only" Congress has this power... But it does say that the states are prohibited from doing so. So this leaves only two options if we'd like to remain constitutional: 1) The Congress retakes its responsibility to coin metal money, or 2) The free market through independent banks/mints take on this responsibility and coins metal money. Hmm... that number two thingy sure does sound a lot like what Ron Paul is trying to do with his Free Competition in Currency Act. Oh no... Did I just blow the concept for your entire rant against Ron Paul?

[Andrew Reinbach]

01:05 AM on 08/30/2011

No, Josh; you've done no such thing. You have managed to make yourself look like a fool, though.
The arguments you and your ilk have made here remind of the arguments so-called "sea-lawyers" used to push during mutiny trials in the Age of Sail.
Try to stay with me here, Josh.
It was very common in those days for men to enlist in the Navy under aliases. If they were later brought up on said charges, said sea lawyers would tell the mutineer that since they'd enlisted as Mr. X, only Mr. X could be tried and convicted for anything, while the court would have to set free Mr. Y, said offender's real name. Mr. X/Y would then make said plea, get a good laugh alll around--and hang.
Am I getting through to you?

[Josh Wheaton]

11:15 AM on 08/30/2011

Lol, No... In fact, personal attacks (fool, ilk) have no bearing whatsoever on my argument, which is 100% sound. I read the Constitution about once a month, and everything I said, and every argument I've used is completely factual. Your little history lesson on Mr. X and Mr. Y does nothing to address a single point I made. I will take this as a sign that you've conceded the argument. You've managed to make yourself look like an angry old man who does not deserve a job at huffpost. Next time, try refuting points or providing facts rather than telling stories that have nothing to do with anything and making personal attacks.

[Josh Wheaton]

12:22 AM on 08/30/2011

Did you know that "coin," when used as a verb, especially during the time of our founders, means "to make (pieces of money) from metal; mint or strike: coined silver dollars/To make pieces of money from (metal): coin gold"?

That means our paper money is unconstitutional. How would you suggest we go about fixing this, Andrew Reinbach? Also, your proposition that it clearly says that "only" Congress can do this is false. The word "only" does not appear in art 1 sec 8. That is very clear - if you read it. The fact that there is no "only" in art 1 sec 8 is the only basis and justification for the federal reserve act, where congress forfeited its responsibility to coin money. Then the perversion of the term "coin" is the basis for issuing the worthless paper monopoly money we use today.

Other than the fact that "to coin money" never meant "to print money," the other thing that makes everything but gold and silver illegal as money, as explained by the Constitution, is art 1 sec 10, which states: "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." And there's that word "coin" again, and this time it's capitalized, which our founders did for emphasis on many important words. Sure, this is technically a limitation on the states, but what good is paper money if no state is allowed to authorize its use as currency?...

[kamakiri001]

04:20 PM on 08/30/2011

"Sure, this is technicall­y a limitation on the states, but what good is paper money if no state is allowed to authorize its use as currency?.­.. "
--------------------------------------------------

That's an excellent point and one that sails right past Mr. Reinbach...

The Founding Fathers specified in Article I, Section 10 that states couldn't use anything other than gold and silver coin as legal tender for payment of debts.....but they could have inserted any tangible object (banana peels, wood chips, arrowheads, etc.) here that the states were limited to using as legal tender...

As a matter of fact, they really didn't have to put anything here at all (if indeed the argument that the Constitution allows the federal government to substitute the tangible object of its choice as legal tender is legitimate) except to specify that the individual states themselves are prohibited from coining money...

Article I, Section 10 could have simply been stated as: "No State shall make ANYTHING a tender as payment of debts".....

For some reason though, the Founding Fathers were very specific here ("anything but gold and silver Coin"......but they really didn't have to be (if indeed you believe that Mr. Reinbach's argument is legitimate) and could have simply discarded the "gold and silver Coin" part.

There's just really no reason to be specific if indeed the Constitution actually gives Congress the power to substitute any tangible object as legal tender throughout the United States.

[blackraisin]

08:56 PM on 08/29/2011

Do you read what you write, because I'm starting to doubt it.

First, under the Constitution, it is not illegal to trade in private currency, its just illegal to COUNTERFEIT government money, as in, if I were to tell someone that a piece of paper I print is a government-issued unit of exchange. Paul's bill would have repealed meddlesome regulations on commodities, but would not have changed the Constitution. By your logic, if I were to trade a dozen eggs from my farm for a gallon of my neighbors milk, I'd be counterfeiting government money by engaging in private commerce without their preferred unit of exchange.

Secondly, your take on the gold standard is wrong. Did Paul state that he wanted a return to $20 an Oz gold? Pegging the value of a commodity to a unit of currency allows the currency to adjust with changes in the market.

[Andrew Reinbach]

09:51 PM on 08/29/2011

The Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The power to create money [please don't bother trying to argue that "coin"and "print" mean different things--it gives me a headache and makes you look ridiculous] is delegated to the United States--Congress. Congress later delegated it to the Fed, operating under Congress' aegis.. It is an enumrated power. States have never ben allowed to make their own money because they have no such power. As such, and according to the plain meaning of the text, neither states nor the people have said power, and REp. Paul's proposed law is unconstitutional. You don't have to like it..
As for specifying any particular dollar/gold exchange value: this is a straw man with no substance, since I nevre said anything like that. Please try to stay on point.

[Nick Lahanas]

10:06 PM on 08/29/2011

"Please try to stay on point."

Good luck with that. If I've noticed something, it's that Ron Paul's supporters are just as fanatical as the Tea Party.

They're also just as willing blatantly disregard the facts.

[kamakiri001]

10:59 PM on 08/29/2011

"Congress later delegated it to the Fed,"
----------------------------------

They are not allowed to do that:

"Congress shall have the power...." does not equal "The Federal Reserve shall have the power...."

If you're gonna' make that argument, then there wouldn't be anything to prevent Congress from delegating its authority to coin money over to Al Qaeda...

Do you think it would be constitutional if Congress delegated to Al Qaeda the power to issue money in the United States?...yes or no?

[PerotVentuSheehCarte]

07:45 PM on 08/29/2011

we can all see how the controlled media operates

[Gestas]

07:01 PM on 08/29/2011

If Ron Paul wants more Media time, he has to out CRAZY, Bachmann and Perry..and thats not going to be easy.