For many people, the name Ron Paul conjures up a longing for few to no taxes. An argument invariably begins. One person will say that there once were no income taxes, and that’s the way it should be. No, another will say, the idea is totally unrealistic.

“With the tax system,” Dodd tells me, “there are so many rules that you have to have your own tax specialist to work out how much to pay.”

Does the little guy get taxed too much?

“I don’t know because I don’t really pay much income tax, so it’s working out for me. Yes, I have a job,” says Dodd, “but also own a house. And I give to a charity, so I actually don’t pay too much.”

Do Republicans favor the rich when it comes to taxes? And Paul’s a Republican, right?

“He is,” says Dodd. “But for most Republican lawmakers, it’s like you must vote Republican on every issue, and being Republican is your thing. Ron Paul has principles and wants to follow the principles and not necessarily follow the party.

“And if you’re really rich, you can do something weird with your money and you don’t pay anything. So people structure their businesses around how they can avoid paying taxes. We need to get rid of a bunch of these rules and these different concessions because they’ve all been started by lobbyists, who say, ‘Make it so my friend, or this company, doesn’t have to pay any taxes.’ And there are all these people fighting to keep it the way it is. I think you need people like Ron Paul who don’t get influenced by lobbyists.”

∗ ∗ ∗

When viewed alongside Ron Paul, says Mike Benoit (pronounced Ben-WAH), who is 60, all the other presidential candidates this year, including Obama, are the same. Benoit has run six consecutive times for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Libertarian candidate. He has run against the two Duncan Hunters, father and then son, to represent the 52nd Congressional District. He is running in the 50th Congressional District in 2012. He is a divorced father of two adult children and has two grandchildren. 

Benoit says he does not base his politics on Ron Paul’s, but the platforms of their campaigns invariably coincide. Benoit was already a Libertarian when Paul first came to his attention in 1996. He calls the independent organization he is running to increase support for Paul completely “grass roots” because it does not raise money.

“If government limited itself to its legitimate functions,” says Benoit, “taxes would be very light in comparison to what they are now.” No personal income tax would be necessary. Some excise and sales taxes might be acceptable to both Benoit and Ron Paul, depending on the particulars.

I ask Benoit about the desire by many, such as the Hunters, for a fence along the entire border of the United States and Mexico. Impractical, he says. “People can tunnel under a fence or go around and come up off the coast, as they are doing now.

“If you look back to 1960, we didn’t need a border fence. We didn’t really have an immigration problem. Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society started undermining our individual liberties in such a way that migrant workers were absolutely needed now because of new laws against high school kids going out and working in the fields in the summer. And then they cut down the flow of the migrant workers who used to come up and work and go back home afterwards.”

Why does the United States seem to be always fighting a foreign war or occupying a country in the aftermath? Even a politician like Obama, who promised to extricate us from the Middle East, can’t seem to leave.

“Sometimes,” says Benoit, “the same people who own the big military industrial complex own the media corporations. The industries control the military, not the other way around. The industries are pushing for all these wars and for candidates that will support them so they can keep up war profiteering.”

But the main thing “Ron Paul keeps talking about is liberty,” according to Benoit. “The things we have complaints about — the Patriot Act or the National Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, these things, even the Transportation Security Administration — these are reactions to something the government actually failed us in. And their reaction is to take more of our liberties away. Our government’s purpose is only to secure these rights.

“But they turn all liberties into privileges. It’s as if we wouldn’t be safe if we didn’t have a license that says we can drive or we wouldn’t be okay if the government didn’t give us a marriage license.” Control over marriage is “not a function of government. This is government involved in a social function that it should not have any involvement in whatsoever.” It’s not right to be “forced to get a marriage license to be married, to be recognized as being married. One hundred and fifty years ago, people got the Bible out and wrote their names in it, and the witnesses said so-and-so got married today on this date. There was no license from the state to do that.”

∗ ∗ ∗

Kira Mercado, 25, and her husband rent an apartment in Lakeside. They have a daughter who is almost 2. “I’m a former Democrat and voted for Obama,” she says. Now, however, she carries Ron Paul brochures in her purse and at restaurants leaves, along with her tips, a card from Paul about how “to keep your hard-earned money.”

According to Kira Mercado, “Ron Paul’s message is so different than Obama’s was. He’s been consistent for 30 years of his life and not likely to turn away from that, because he’s not just giving people promises, he’s waking them up.”

What did you like about Obama?

“He said that he was going to bring the troops home,” she says, “and he was going to change our country for the better. He tricked us.

“I don’t believe that we have any right to police the world and tell people how to live their life, just like our government doesn’t have the right to police us and tell us what to do. What if we had a foreign country come into our land and start killing innocent people here? We’d be doing the same thing. You can’t just say, ‘Oh, if we kill enough people, they’ll back down,’ because it’s not human nature to just back down.”

More from SDReader

Comments

InOmbra April 5, 2012 @ 9:32 a.m.

The simplistic views of Paul's followers are suitable (maybe) only for tiny populations. If only they lived in a country that had a population of just a few thousand! They aren't educatable, and don't care if you point out history and its lessons. Like the 1800s and early 1900s, when toxic, useless, or addictive "medicines" were advertised and sold freely, without regulation. And so what, they say, if it is well-known that raw milk can be lethal, and you won't know it until your child gets sick and dies. (Unless you have a home microscope, a culture lab, and an education in microbiology. That's the ticket! Oh wait, isn't that sort of what the FDA does for all of us?)

"But shouldn’t there be regulation of unethical companies that might put dangerous products on the market?"

" 'I think that’s a social function,” says Koehl. 'I can read in the newspaper that XYZ Corporation is swindling folks.' "

But Ms. Koehl, what if the newspaper has a financial interest and doesn't want to print the story?

Silly people.

1

emj007 April 5, 2012 @ 4:04 p.m.

I really feel sorry for misinformed SHEEP like InOmbra. You have been trained like an animal that you need the Government to survive. But it is really the average American that bankrolls this empire, and it is the Government destroying it. Actually Ron Paul supporters are the most educated political followers in America. Read your post again and you will know what I am talking about. Very sad.....

2

Kympa April 6, 2012 @ 11:18 a.m.

InOmbra, yes in 1800s small operators swindled a lot of stupid Americans. I mean electrical therapy? We have them even now. Just watch late night infomercials! However, what has changed is bringing these charltans to justice is that it is easier to sue now, especially the class action suits which cost the plaintiffs nothing.

0

bradleyed4 April 6, 2012 @ 11:39 a.m.

Governments don't make our food safer, the consumers that purchase good products, that band up to protest and sue companies that do harm to others and through technology and innovation, THAT is what has changed things from the 1800's to now.

0

thehamblogggerman April 5, 2012 @ 11:08 a.m.

Yes of course your right InOmbra...the F.D.A. has protected us so well because as we all know there are no longer any "toxic, useless, or addictive "medicines" being wrecklessly sold. Once again GOVERNMENT SAVES US FROM OURSELVES.. This must also be the reason why these REGULATED Medicines now KILL more people then car accidents...Better buckle up butter cup!!! http://news.yahoo.com/drug-overdoses-kill-more-americans-car-accidents-cdc-170409026.html

1

elysianite April 5, 2012 @ 11:47 a.m.

"But Ms. Koehl, what if the newspaper has a financial interest and doesn't want to print the story?"

You've really gotten used to the status quo, haven´t you? With the consolidation of industries, mergers, and buyouts. If we have a freer market with easier entry, we could have something they used to have way back in the day... more than ONE source of news!

0

thehamblogggerman April 5, 2012 @ 12:58 p.m.

YES RAW MILK IS DEADLY!!! Just like that damn Kambucha!! Everything must be pasturized, irradiated, genetically modified, frozen, blendend, reconstitued, consumed first by a liscened mechanically seperated cow and then remilked under labaratory condtions!! I mean this is for your OWN GOOD...you people are too stupid to make your own decisions...this video should be standard operating procedure for closing down raw milk suppliers... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5zPhh...

0

bradleyed4 April 6, 2012 @ 11:29 a.m.

who are YOU to tell me what I can or can not put in my body?

1

conanthequasilibertarian April 15, 2012 @ 8:45 a.m.

If you get sick, we all pay for it.

Although regarding raw milk, I agree that the rule disallowing interstate transport is just protectionism for the industrial dairy industry.

0

JaclynKoehl April 5, 2012 @ 2:41 p.m.

InOmbra, I'm quite aware that swindlers have existed throughout the ages. That's one reason I question everything.

Let's question the FDA a bit: Did you know that a very significant portion of the FDA's budget comes from user fees that the drug companies pay? Yes. The FDA works as much, if not more, for the drug companies as it does the consumer. Sixty-five percent of the cost of approving a new drug comes directly from the pharmaceutical company. Now get this - pharmaceutical companies actually LOBBIED to get the bill passed that instated the fees. Maybe they liked the idea of the FDA cashing their checks.

Watch Burzynski The Movie. The FDA requires people to buy and ingest toxic chemotherapy medication they don't want before they are allowed to buy a cancer treatment they do want. Do you condone this? Or how about this story where a NJ Congressmen pushed the FDA to approve a faulty medical device. (http://www.jacksonnjonline.com/2009/09/25/nj-congressmen-used-political-influence-to-pressure-fda-to-approve-faulty-medical-device/).
In addition to the death stats posted, you may want to consider all the FDA approved drugs that people suffer injuries from. Just look up "drug injury" and you will find plenty of information about FDA approved prescription drugs that have harmed people. Are you feeling safe yet?
Luckily there is still freedom of speech so that I have access to all this information. Unfortunately, we don't have any choice whether our money goes to the FDA or not. Taxes are not optional. If you could choose where you put your money would you choose an organization with a track record like the FDA?
Now let's tackle your assertion that I am not able to decide on my own whether raw milk was a good choice for my family. After being introduced to the potential health benefits, I talked to our pediatrician, other parents and families that consume raw milk, I found re-sellers of milk and talked to their dairy managers (one goes to the dairy to inspect every year and feeds the milk to his kids), I investigated the dairies and got copies of the independent inspections (If you don't know how to use a microscope there are folks for hire that can), I looked for past news stories about the dairy, and I called the dairy itself. The dairy provides tours to interested consumers. I looked into the history behind pasteurizing milk. Through my conversations I learned how to evaluate milk NOT to buy. After weighing this information, the potential health benefits, and of course the potential risks, I made a decision for us that I am willing to take full responsibility for. Prior to this I had made a mistake in giving my daughter soy milk. It made her sick, and I wish I hadn't given it to her, but I don't think others should be prohibited from drinking soy milk. I like having the freedom to make my own decisions and I respect the right of others to choose for themselves too.
Jaclyn

1

InOmbra April 5, 2012 @ 7:17 p.m.

Ms Koehl, I just wish you'd put your marvelous energy into something real.

In Michigan, Democracy is being totally and flagrantly destroyed. Check it out. Michigan needs people like you to protest.

Or learn what you can about ALEC, and how it is a model for bad government in your state and how it is destroying America. The lobby mill, you know?

Or, if you want, just pay close attention to the destruction of Democracy right here in San Diego, by paying attention to what is going on in the Council committees and in the City Attorney's office.

.The FDA is not your enemy. It isn't imperfect. But please. Stop. Instead, work to make it better.

1

bradleyed4 April 6, 2012 @ 11:35 a.m.

She is working for something better. Freedom is always better. How she chooses to strive for freedom, whether it is in her own community or abroad is HER choice. Perhaps if you stopped dictating what other people should do then we could all come together.

1

ImJustABill April 5, 2012 @ 9:29 p.m.

OK, so I personally wouldn't go as far as Paul in terms of removing regulatory agencies and social programs. We do need some things regulated and I do think a lot of people need some assistance from the government at some point.

But Paul is the only major candidate who is serious about responsible spending, respecting individual liberty, and compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

With any of the other candidates from either major party I can be sure to see a continued erosion in personal liberties (more invasive TSA, etc), unjustified and unnecessary wars, continued transfer of wealth from main street to wealthy Wall Street firms, escalation of debt and series of financial bubbles.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 6, 2012 @ 9:26 a.m.

But Paul is the only major candidate who is serious about responsible spending, respecting individual liberty, and compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

You beat me to it,RP isteh ONLY one witha PLAN to actually cut the deficit.

1

bradleyed4 April 6, 2012 @ 11:32 a.m.

those social programs directly contribute to the high prices that force people to rely on them. And secondly, Ron Paul's plan is for a TRANSITION for the states to adopt those programs if they choose, and NOT for a prohibition of them in anyway.

1

jimlundberg April 5, 2012 @ 9:51 p.m.

There are over 400 soldiers committing suicide every year because of the policies of these presidents and none of the candidates accept Ron Paul will really address this problem.

2

thehamblogggerman April 5, 2012 @ 10:53 p.m.

MIKE BENOIT 2012!!!! The r3VOLution is HERE!!!!

1

EducatedPatriot April 5, 2012 @ 11:45 p.m.

THANK YOU for such a great and honest article. It is always refreshing and provides hope to hear other well educated citizens being awake and informing others.

The revolution is strong with this one.

San Diego, California, USA, World for Ron Paul 2012

None

1

Kympa April 6, 2012 @ 11:21 a.m.

Very good writing. Dramatic. Very fair and balanced. One of the most positive pieces of coverage on Ron Paul I have seen. But then, SDReader must not be part of MSM. Go SDReader!!! We need an article like this every week to wake the masses up. Thank you.

1

OistrakhShostakovich April 8, 2012 @ 1:46 a.m.

InOmbra describes "Paul Followers" as being simplistic and not educatable, when Paul's demographic is the exact opposite with by far the most educated and logical followers of any candidate. Lets take a look at the facts about the alternatives to Paul and let's use the most important piece of congressional legislation, since the passing of the constitution, The NDAA, as our frame of reference. InOmbra please excuse my simplistic choice for an apotheosis of comparatives, but since the NDAA completely renders our constitution irrelevant, it is as important as the constitution. The NDAA authorizes the government to hold any American or person indefinitely, torture them and/or kill them, without ever bringing charges against them. If the government can hold indefinitely or kill me without charging or having due process, my rights are gone and som is the constitution that provided those rights. Analysis:

Obama: Supports indefinite holding of Americans, whether innocent or not, and supports their torture and/or murder as provided under the NDAA. Obama signed the NDAA legislation into law and his Attorney General announced at a speech two weeks ago at the Northwestern University Law School that President Obama intends to investigate U.S. citizens from the executive branch and to adjudicate them (try and sentence them) as president. Obama also put together the bank bailout and stimulus package that ended up spending some $3 Trillion to bailout $800 Billion, and then outspent all previous presidents combined taking the cost of government from $3.3 Billion per day in 2008 to $10.4 Billion per day in 2012, so that our debt is over $14.3 Trillion. Obama quadrupled Bush's last budget in his first year. Since a 100 percent tax on every American could not even pay the interest on our debt, Obama has directed the Fed to print $75 Billion in new money before July to keep things going long enough for him to get re-elected and then huge inflation will occur. The dollar lost over 33 percent of its value under Obama. Another 4 years of similar fiscal policies will yield similar results, which would mean a total and complete collapse of the dollar.

Santorum: Supports indefinite holding of Americans, whether innocent or not, and supports their torture and/or murder as provided under the NDAA. Ironically Santorum claims to be a Christian Candidate that holds the sanctity of human life above all other values, including the rights of unborn children, but he apparently believes in the torture and murder of grown-ups as provided in the NDAA, which he enthusiastically supports.

O. Shostakovich PhD MS MA

1

OistrakhShostakovich April 8, 2012 @ 1:48 a.m.

To InOmbra

Romney: Romney enthusiastically supports the NDAA and believes that the torture, indefinite holding of American citizens without any charges or due process, and/or the use of torture and murder are justified and that the constitutional rights of Americans are not important. Romney states that he is for a small government and wants to reduce spending, but Romney supports the expansion of the Domestic Drone Program to be used in America to monitor the daily habits of all Americans at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollar a year, with this huge Gestapo-esque bureaucracy.

Gingrich: Gingrich is the most confused of all. When asked during the debates if he supported the NDAA, Newt replied, "We should use and support the NDAA to do everything possible to defend our Freedom and Constitution." Wait if the NDAA strikes down the constitutional rights of all Americans and takes away their FREEDOM, by allowing them to be held without charges, tortured and killed, exactly what is NEWT defending!

Ron Paul: The press has been painting Paul as crazy, but he is the only candidate running for president that believes that innocent people should not be held indefinitely, tortured and killed. He is the only candidate recognizing that having $100 Trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare, $14.3 Trillion in Debt and a $1.3 Trillion deficit, is ridiculous and calls for immediate action, whereas the other candidates call for action over the next 30 years, or in Obama's case, doesn't want to lower spending at all ever.

InOmbra, currently we have a "Socialistic Government For The Rich," that taxes the middle class and working poor, so that the rich corporations can funnel the money through large governmental bureaucracies to themselves. In is a simple bait and switch, where taxes are routinely levied to benefit education, healthcare and police/fire services, but the money is then used by and paid to large corporate special interests.

InOmbra perhaps you have a more advanced, complicated and sophisticated way to make $100 Trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare go away, which dovetails with spending at the highest spending rates and percentage increase rates in history. Since you think Paul supporters are all not educatable, you can dummy down your answer to my level. I have doctorates in both Statistics and Finance, and masters in Music and Chemistry. I support Ron Paul, because he believes and votes for freedom and opposes torture, murder and the gutting of human rights for Americans. What is subtle escapes you, but what is profound and determinative has gone completely over your arrogant head.

O. Shostakovich PhD MS MA

2

thehamblogggerman April 9, 2012 @ 10:55 a.m.

Shostakovich pretty much came through on that last comment!!!! Not sure if there will be any rebuttals....but I will stay tuned.

0

conanthequasilibertarian April 15, 2012 @ 8:46 a.m.

The problem with Libertarianism is "Whose is the Libertarianism is the best?" Opposition to intellectual property laws, legalizing prostitution and illegal drugs, getting rid of corporate welfare, for example, are Libertarian positions I can get behind.

Many Libertarians demonstrate an incredible naivete regarding the so-called "free market," however. No market, literal or figurative, can exist without the government, yet many Libertarians and other "free marketeers" seem to think that the free market is some universal force which exists outside of society, like gravity or the speed of light.

And as for "sheep," in my experience, the person who calls another a sheep is most likely the sheep him- or herself, because projection is a wonderful thing.

"But shouldn’t there be regulation of unethical companies that might put dangerous products on the market? 'I think that’s a social function,' says Koehl."

Here's that naivete in action. Is she really saying it's better to wait until something bad happens and then we shame the company?

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close