This article may contain too much repetition or redundant language. Please help improve it by merging similar text or removing repeated statements. (September 2009)

Part of a series on Government
Public finance
Policies Economic policy Fiscal policy · Monetary policy Trade policy · Investment policy Agricultural policy · Industrial policy Energy policy · Social policy Policy mix
Fiscal policy Tax policy · Budgetary policy Revenue · Spending · Budget Deficit or Surplus · Deficit spending Debt (External · Internal) Finance ministry · Fiscal union
Monetary policy Money supply · Interest rate Monetary base · Discount window Reserve requirements Bank reserves · Gold reserves Monetary authority (central bank · currency board) · Monetary union
Trade policy Tariff · Non-tariff barrier Balance of trade · Gains from trade Trade creation · Trade diversion Protectionism · Free trade Commerce ministry · Trade bloc
Revenue and Spending Tax revenue · Non-tax revenue Mandatory spending Discretionary spending
Optimum Balanced budget (fiscal) Price stability (monetary) Growth (trade and investment)
Reform Fiscal adjustment · Monetary reform
v t e

Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability.^[1][2] The official goals usually include relatively stable prices and low unemployment. Monetary theory provides insight into how to craft optimal monetary policy. It is referred to as either being expansionary or contractionary, where an expansionary policy increases the total supply of money in the economy more rapidly than usual, and contractionary policy expands the money supply more slowly than usual or even shrinks it. Expansionary policy is traditionally used to try to combat unemployment in a recession by lowering interest rates in the hope that easy credit will entice businesses into expanding. Contractionary policy is intended to slow inflation in hopes of avoiding the resulting distortions and deterioration of asset values.

Monetary policy differs from fiscal policy, which refers to taxation, government spending, and associated borrowing.^[3]

Overview[link]

Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is, the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. Monetary policy uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment. Where currency is under a monopoly of issuance, or where there is a regulated system of issuing currency through banks which are tied to a central bank, the monetary authority has the ability to alter the money supply and thus influence the interest rate (to achieve policy goals). The beginning of monetary policy as such comes from the late 19th century, where it was used to maintain the gold standard.

A policy is referred to as contractionary if it reduces the size of the money supply or increases it only slowly, or if it raises the interest rate. An expansionary policy increases the size of the money supply more rapidly, or decreases the interest rate. Furthermore, monetary policies are described as follows: accommodative, if the interest rate set by the central monetary authority is intended to create economic growth; neutral, if it is intended neither to create growth nor combat inflation; or tight if intended to reduce inflation.

There are several monetary policy tools available to achieve these ends: increasing interest rates by fiat; reducing the monetary base; and increasing reserve requirements. All have the effect of contracting the money supply; and, if reversed, expand the money supply. Since the 1970s, monetary policy has generally been formed separately from fiscal policy. Even prior to the 1970s, the Bretton Woods system still ensured that most nations would form the two policies separately.

Within almost all modern nations, special institutions (such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the People's Bank of China, and the Bank of Japan) exist which have the task of executing the monetary policy and often independently of the executive. In general, these institutions are called central banks and often have other responsibilities such as supervising the smooth operation of the financial system.

The primary tool of monetary policy is open market operations. This entails managing the quantity of money in circulation through the buying and selling of various financial instruments, such as treasury bills, company bonds, or foreign currencies. All of these purchases or sales result in more or less base currency entering or leaving market circulation.

Usually, the short term goal of open market operations is to achieve a specific short term interest rate target. In other instances, monetary policy might instead entail the targeting of a specific exchange rate relative to some foreign currency or else relative to gold. For example, in the case of the USA the Federal Reserve targets the federal funds rate, the rate at which member banks lend to one another overnight; however, the monetary policy of China is to target the exchange rate between the Chinese renminbi and a basket of foreign currencies.

The other primary means of conducting monetary policy include: (i) Discount window lending (lender of last resort); (ii) Fractional deposit lending (changes in the reserve requirement); (iii) Moral suasion (cajoling certain market players to achieve specified outcomes); (iv) "Open mouth operations" (talking monetary policy with the market).

Theory[link]

Monetary policy is the process by which the government, central bank, or monetary authority of a country controls (i) the supply of money, (ii) availability of money, and (iii) cost of money or rate of interest to attain a set of objectives oriented towards the growth and stability of the economy.[1] Monetary theory provides insight into how to craft optimal monetary policy.

Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. Monetary policy uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment. Where currency is under a monopoly of issuance, or where there is a regulated system of issuing currency through banks which are tied to a central bank, the monetary authority has the ability to alter the money supply and thus influence the interest rate (to achieve policy goals).

It is important for policymakers to make credible announcements. If private agents (consumers and firms) believe that policymakers are committed to lowering inflation, they will anticipate future prices to be lower than otherwise (how those expectations are formed is an entirely different matter; compare for instance rational expectations with adaptive expectations). If an employee expects prices to be high in the future, he or she will draw up a wage contract with a high wage to match these prices.^{[citation needed]} Hence, the expectation of lower wages is reflected in wage-setting behavior between employees and employers (lower wages since prices are expected to be lower) and since wages are in fact lower there is no demand pull inflation because employees are receiving a smaller wage and there is no cost push inflation because employers are paying out less in wages.

To achieve this low level of inflation, policymakers must have credible announcements; that is, private agents must believe that these announcements will reflect actual future policy. If an announcement about low-level inflation targets is made but not believed by private agents, wage-setting will anticipate high-level inflation and so wages will be higher and inflation will rise. A high wage will increase a consumer's demand (demand pull inflation) and a firm's costs (cost push inflation), so inflation rises. Hence, if a policymaker's announcements regarding monetary policy are not credible, policy will not have the desired effect.

If policymakers believe that private agents anticipate low inflation, they have an incentive to adopt an expansionist monetary policy (where the marginal benefit of increasing economic output outweighs the marginal cost of inflation); however, assuming private agents have rational expectations, they know that policymakers have this incentive. Hence, private agents know that if they anticipate low inflation, an expansionist policy will be adopted that causes a rise in inflation. Consequently, (unless policymakers can make their announcement of low inflation credible), private agents expect high inflation. This anticipation is fulfilled through adaptive expectation (wage-setting behavior);so, there is higher inflation (without the benefit of increased output). Hence, unless credible announcements can be made, expansionary monetary policy will fail.

Announcements can be made credible in various ways. One is to establish an independent central bank with low inflation targets (but no output targets). Hence, private agents know that inflation will be low because it is set by an independent body. Central banks can be given incentives to meet targets (for example, larger budgets, a wage bonus for the head of the bank) to increase their reputation and signal a strong commitment to a policy goal. Reputation is an important element in monetary policy implementation. But the idea of reputation should not be confused with commitment.

While a central bank might have a favorable reputation due to good performance in conducting monetary policy, the same central bank might not have chosen any particular form of commitment (such as targeting a certain range for inflation). Reputation plays a crucial role in determining how much markets would believe the announcement of a particular commitment to a policy goal but both concepts should not be assimilated. Also, note that under rational expectations, it is not necessary for the policymaker to have established its reputation through past policy actions; as an example, the reputation of the head of the central bank might be derived entirely from his or her ideology, professional background, public statements, etc.

In fact it has been argued^[4] that to prevent some pathologies related to the time inconsistency of monetary policy implementation (in particular excessive inflation), the head of a central bank should have a larger distaste for inflation than the rest of the economy on average. Hence the reputation of a particular central bank is not necessarily tied to past performance, but rather to particular institutional arrangements that the markets can use to form inflation expectations.

Despite the frequent discussion of credibility as it relates to monetary policy, the exact meaning of credibility is rarely defined. Such lack of clarity can serve to lead policy away from what is believed to be the most beneficial. For example, capability to serve the public interest is one definition of credibility often associated with central banks. The reliability with which a central bank keeps its promises is also a common definition. While everyone most likely agrees a central bank should not lie to the public, wide disagreement exists on how a central bank can best serve the public interest. Therefore, lack of definition can lead people to believe they are supporting one particular policy of credibility when they are really supporting another.^[5]

History of monetary policy[link]

Monetary policy is associated with interest rates and availabilility of credit. Instruments of monetary policy have included short-term interest rates and bank reserves through the monetary base.^[6] For many centuries there were only two forms of monetary policy: (i) Decisions about coinage; (ii) Decisions to print paper money to create credit. Interest rates, while now thought of as part of monetary authority, were not generally coordinated with the other forms of monetary policy during this time. Monetary policy was seen as an executive decision, and was generally in the hands of the authority with seigniorage, or the power to coin. With the advent of larger trading networks came the ability to set the price between gold and silver, and the price of the local currency to foreign currencies. This official price could be enforced by law, even if it varied from the market price.

Paper money called "jiaozi" originated from promissory notes in 7th century China. Jiaozi did not replace metallic currency, and were used alongside the copper coins. The successive Yuan Dynasty was the first government to use paper currency as the predominant circulating medium. In the later course of the dynasty, facing massive shortages of specie to fund war and their rule in China, they began printing paper money without restrictions, resulting in hyperinflation.

With the creation of the Bank of England in 1694, which acquired the responsibility to print notes and back them with gold, the idea of monetary policy as independent of executive action began to be established.^[7] The goal of monetary policy was to maintain the value of the coinage, print notes which would trade at par to specie, and prevent coins from leaving circulation. The establishment of central banks by industrializing nations was associated then with the desire to maintain the nation's peg to the gold standard, and to trade in a narrow band with other gold-backed currencies. To accomplish this end, central banks as part of the gold standard began setting the interest rates that they charged, both their own borrowers, and other banks who required liquidity. The maintenance of a gold standard required almost monthly adjustments of interest rates.

During the 1870-1920 period, the industrialized nations set up central banking systems, with one of the last being the Federal Reserve in 1913.^[8] By this point the role of the central bank as the "lender of last resort" was understood. It was also increasingly understood that interest rates had an effect on the entire economy, in no small part because of the marginal revolution in economics, which demonstrated how people would change a decision based on a change in the economic trade-offs.

Monetarist economists long contended that the money-supply growth could affect the macroeconomy. These included Milton Friedman who early in his career advocated that government budget deficits during recessions be financed in equal amount by money creation to help to stimulate aggregate demand for output.^[9] Later he advocated simply increasing the monetary supply at a low, constant rate, as the best way of maintaining low inflation and stable output growth.^[10] However, when U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried this policy, starting in October 1979, it was found to be impractical, because of the highly unstable relationship between monetary aggregates and other macroeconomic variables.^[11] Even Milton Friedman acknowledged that money supply targeting was less successful than he had hoped, in an interview with the Financial Times on June 7, 2003.^[12][13][14] Therefore, monetary decisions today take into account a wider range of factors, such as:

• short term interest rates;
• long term interest rates;
• velocity of money through the economy;
• exchange rates;
• credit quality;
• bonds and equities (corporate ownership and debt);
• government versus private sector spending/savings;
• international capital flows of money on large scales;
• financial derivatives such as options, swaps, futures contracts, etc.

A small but vocal group of people, primarily libertarians and Constitutionalists,^[15] advocate for a return to the gold standard (the elimination of the dollar's fiat currency status and even of the Federal Reserve Bank). Their argument is basically that monetary policy is fraught with risk and these risks will result in drastic harm to the populace should monetary policy fail. Others^[who?] see another problem with our current monetary policy. The problem for them is not that our money has nothing physical to define its value, but that fractional reserve lending of that money as a debt to the recipient, rather than a credit, causes all but a small proportion of society (including all governments) to be perpetually in debt.

In fact, many economists^[who?] disagree with returning to a gold standard. They argue that doing so would drastically limit the money supply, and throw away 100 years of advancement in monetary policy. The sometimes complex financial transactions that make big business (especially international business) easier and safer would be much more difficult if not impossible. Moreover, shifting risk to different people/companies that specialize in monitoring and using risk can turn any financial risk into a known dollar amount and therefore make business predictable and more profitable for everyone involved. Some have claimed that these arguments lost credibility in the global financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Trends in central banking[link]

The central bank influences interest rates by expanding or contracting the monetary base, which consists of currency in circulation and banks' reserves on deposit at the central bank. The primary way that the central bank can affect the monetary base is by open market operations or sales and purchases of second hand government debt, or by changing the reserve requirements. If the central bank wishes to lower interest rates, it purchases government debt, thereby increasing the amount of cash in circulation or crediting banks' reserve accounts. Alternatively, it can lower the interest rate on discounts or overdrafts (loans to banks secured by suitable collateral, specified by the central bank). If the interest rate on such transactions is sufficiently low, commercial banks can borrow from the central bank to meet reserve requirements and use the additional liquidity to expand their balance sheets, increasing the credit available to the economy. Lowering reserve requirements has a similar effect, freeing up funds for banks to increase loans or buy other profitable assets.

A central bank can only operate a truly independent monetary policy when the exchange rate is floating.^[16] If the exchange rate is pegged or managed in any way, the central bank will have to purchase or sell foreign exchange. These transactions in foreign exchange will have an effect on the monetary base analogous to open market purchases and sales of government debt; if the central bank buys foreign exchange, the monetary base expands, and vice versa. But even in the case of a pure floating exchange rate, central banks and monetary authorities can at best "lean against the wind" in a world where capital is mobile.

Accordingly, the management of the exchange rate will influence domestic monetary conditions. To maintain its monetary policy target, the central bank will have to sterilize or offset its foreign exchange operations. For example, if a central bank buys foreign exchange (to counteract appreciation of the exchange rate), base money will increase. Therefore, to sterilize that increase, the central bank must also sell government debt to contract the monetary base by an equal amount. It follows that turbulent activity in foreign exchange markets can cause a central bank to lose control of domestic monetary policy when it is also managing the exchange rate.

In the 1980s, many economists^[who?] began to believe that making a nation's central bank independent of the rest of executive government is the best way to ensure an optimal monetary policy, and those central banks which did not have independence began to gain it. This is to avoid overt manipulation of the tools of monetary policies to effect political goals, such as re-electing the current government. Independence typically means that the members of the committee which conducts monetary policy have long, fixed terms. Obviously, this is a somewhat limited independence.

In the 1990s, central banks began adopting formal, public inflation targets with the goal of making the outcomes, if not the process, of monetary policy more transparent. In other words, a central bank may have an inflation target of 2% for a given year, and if inflation turns out to be 5%, then the central bank will typically have to submit an explanation.

The Bank of England exemplifies both these trends. It became independent of government through the Bank of England Act 1998 and adopted an inflation target of 2.5% RPI (now 2% of CPI).

The debate rages on about whether monetary policy can smooth business cycles or not. A central conjecture of Keynesian economics is that the central bank can stimulate aggregate demand in the short run, because a significant number of prices in the economy are fixed in the short run and firms will produce as many goods and services as are demanded (in the long run, however, money is neutral, as in the neoclassical model). There is also the Austrian school of economics, which includes Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises's arguments,^[17] which argues that central bank monetary policy aggravates the business cycle, creating malinvestment and maladjustments in the economy which then cause downcycle corrections, but most economists fall into either the Keynesian or neoclassical camps on this issue.

Developing countries[link]

Developing countries may have problems establishing an effective operating monetary policy. The primary difficulty is that few developing countries have deep markets in government debt. The matter is further complicated by the difficulties in forecasting money demand and fiscal pressure to levy the inflation tax by expanding the monetary base rapidly. In general, the central banks in many developing countries have poor records in managing monetary policy. This is often because the monetary authority in a developing country is not independent of government, so good monetary policy takes a backseat to the political desires of the government or are used to pursue other non-monetary goals. For this and other reasons, developing countries that want to establish credible monetary policy may institute a currency board or adopt dollarization. Such forms of monetary institutions thus essentially tie the hands of the government from interference and, it is hoped, that such policies will import the monetary policy of the anchor nation.

Recent attempts at liberalizing and reforming financial markets (particularly the recapitalization of banks and other financial institutions in Nigeria and elsewhere) are gradually providing the latitude required to implement monetary policy frameworks by the relevant central banks.

Types of monetary policy[link]

In practice, to implement any type of monetary policy the main tool used is modifying the amount of base money in circulation. The monetary authority does this by buying or selling financial assets (usually government obligations). These open market operations change either the amount of money or its liquidity (if less liquid forms of money are bought or sold). The multiplier effect of fractional reserve banking amplifies the effects of these actions.

Constant market transactions by the monetary authority modify the supply of currency and this impacts other market variables such as short term interest rates and the exchange rate.

The distinction between the various types of monetary policy lies primarily with the set of instruments and target variables that are used by the monetary authority to achieve their goals.

The different types of policy are also called monetary regimes, in parallel to exchange rate regimes. A fixed exchange rate is also an exchange rate regime; The Gold standard results in a relatively fixed regime towards the currency of other countries on the gold standard and a floating regime towards those that are not. Targeting inflation, the price level or other monetary aggregates implies floating exchange rate unless the management of the relevant foreign currencies is tracking exactly the same variables (such as a harmonized consumer price index).

Inflation targeting[link]

Under this policy approach the target is to keep inflation, under a particular definition such as Consumer Price Index, within a desired range.

The inflation target is achieved through periodic adjustments to the Central Bank interest rate target. The interest rate used is generally the interbank rate at which banks lend to each other overnight for cash flow purposes. Depending on the country this particular interest rate might be called the cash rate or something similar.

The interest rate target is maintained for a specific duration using open market operations. Typically the duration that the interest rate target is kept constant will vary between months and years. This interest rate target is usually reviewed on a monthly or quarterly basis by a policy committee.

Changes to the interest rate target are made in response to various market indicators in an attempt to forecast economic trends and in so doing keep the market on track towards achieving the defined inflation target. For example, one simple method of inflation targeting called the Taylor rule adjusts the interest rate in response to changes in the inflation rate and the output gap. The rule was proposed by John B. Taylor of Stanford University.^[18]

The inflation targeting approach to monetary policy approach was pioneered in New Zealand. It is currently used in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, India, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

Price level targeting[link]

Price level targeting is similar to inflation targeting except that CPI growth in one year over or under the long term price level target is offset in subsequent years such that a targeted price-level is reached over time, e.g. five years, giving more certainty about future price increases to consumers. Under inflation targeting what happened in the immediate past years is not taken into account or adjusted for in the current and future years.

Monetary aggregates[link]

In the 1980s, several countries used an approach based on a constant growth in the money supply. This approach was refined to include different classes of money and credit (M0, M1 etc.). In the USA this approach to monetary policy was discontinued with the selection of Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman.

This approach is also sometimes called monetarism.

While most monetary policy focuses on a price signal of one form or another, this approach is focused on monetary quantities.

Fixed exchange rate[link]

This policy is based on maintaining a fixed exchange rate with a foreign currency. There are varying degrees of fixed exchange rates, which can be ranked in relation to how rigid the fixed exchange rate is with the anchor nation.

Under a system of fiat fixed rates, the local government or monetary authority declares a fixed exchange rate but does not actively buy or sell currency to maintain the rate. Instead, the rate is enforced by non-convertibility measures (e.g. capital controls, import/export licenses, etc.). In this case there is a black market exchange rate where the currency trades at its market/unofficial rate.

Under a system of fixed-convertibility, currency is bought and sold by the central bank or monetary authority on a daily basis to achieve the target exchange rate. This target rate may be a fixed level or a fixed band within which the exchange rate may fluctuate until the monetary authority intervenes to buy or sell as necessary to maintain the exchange rate within the band. (In this case, the fixed exchange rate with a fixed level can be seen as a special case of the fixed exchange rate with bands where the bands are set to zero.)

Under a system of fixed exchange rates maintained by a currency board every unit of local currency must be backed by a unit of foreign currency (correcting for the exchange rate). This ensures that the local monetary base does not inflate without being backed by hard currency and eliminates any worries about a run on the local currency by those wishing to convert the local currency to the hard (anchor) currency.

Under dollarization, foreign currency (usually the US dollar, hence the term "dollarization") is used freely as the medium of exchange either exclusively or in parallel with local currency. This outcome can come about because the local population has lost all faith in the local currency, or it may also be a policy of the government (usually to rein in inflation and import credible monetary policy).

These policies often abdicate monetary policy to the foreign monetary authority or government as monetary policy in the pegging nation must align with monetary policy in the anchor nation to maintain the exchange rate. The degree to which local monetary policy becomes dependent on the anchor nation depends on factors such as capital mobility, openness, credit channels and other economic factors.

Gold standard[link]

The gold standard is a system under which the price of the national currency is measured in units of gold bars and is kept constant by the government's promise to buy or sell gold at a fixed price in terms of the base currency. The gold standard might be regarded as a special case of "fixed exchange rate" policy, or as a special type of commodity price level targeting.

The minimal gold standard would be a long-term commitment to tighten monetary policy enough to prevent the price of gold from permanently rising above parity. A full gold standard would be a commitment to sell unlimited amounts of gold at parity and maintain a reserve of gold sufficient to redeem the entire monetary base.

Today this type of monetary policy is no longer used by any country, although the gold standard was widely used across the world between the mid-19th century through 1971.^[19] Its major advantages were simplicity and transparency. The gold standard was abandoned during the Great Depression, as countries sought to reinvigorate their economies by increasing their money supply.^[20] The Bretton Woods system, which was a modified gold standard, replaced it in the aftermath of World War II. However, this system too broke down during the Nixon shock of 1971.

The gold standard induces deflation, as the economy usually grows faster than the supply of gold. When an economy grows faster than its money supply, the same amount of money is used to execute a larger number of transactions. The only way to make this possible is to lower the nominal cost of each transaction, which means that prices of goods and services fall, and each unit of money increases in value. Absent precautionary measures, deflation would tend to increase the ratio of the real value of nominal debts to physical assets over time. For example, during deflation, nominal debt and the monthly nominal cost of a fixed-rate home mortgage stays the same, even while the dollar value of the house falls, and the value of the dollars required to pay the mortgage goes up. Mainstream economics considers such deflation to be a major disadvantage of the gold standard. Unsustainable (i.e. excessive) deflation can cause problems during recessions and financial crisis lengthening the amount of time an economy spends in recession. William Jennings Bryan rose to national prominence when he built his historic (though unsuccessful) 1896 presidential campaign around the argument that deflation caused by the gold standard made it harder for everyday citizens to start new businesses, expand their farms, or build new homes.

Policy of various nations[link]

• Australia - Inflation targeting
• Brazil - Inflation targeting
• Canada - Inflation targeting
• Chile - Inflation targeting
• China - Monetary targeting and targets a currency basket
• Czech Republic - Inflation targeting
• Colombia - Inflation targeting
• Hong Kong - Currency board (fixed to US dollar)
• India - Multiple indicator approach
• New Zealand - Inflation targeting
• Norway - Inflation targeting
• Singapore - Exchange rate targeting
• South Africa - Inflation targeting
• Sri Lanka - Monetary targeting
• Switzerland - Inflation targeting ^[21]
• Turkey - Inflation targeting
• United Kingdom^[22] - Inflation targeting, alongside secondary targets on 'output and employment'.
• United States^[23] - Mixed policy dedicated to maximum employment and stable prices (and since the 1980s it is well described by the "Taylor rule," which maintains that the Fed funds rate responds to shocks in inflation and output)
  Further information: Monetary policy of the USA

Monetary policy tools[link]

Monetary base[link]

Monetary policy can be implemented by changing the size of the monetary base. Central banks use open market operations to change the monetary base. The central bank buys or sells reserve assets (usually financial instruments such as bonds) in exchange for money on deposit at the central bank. Those deposits are convertible to currency. Together such currency and deposits constitute the monetary base which is the general liabilities of the central bank in its own monetary unit. Usually other banks can use base money as a fractional reserve and expand the circulating money supply by a larger amount.

Reserve requirements[link]

The monetary authority exerts regulatory control over banks. Monetary policy can be implemented by changing the proportion of total assets that banks must hold in reserve with the central bank. Banks only maintain a small portion of their assets as cash available for immediate withdrawal; the rest is invested in illiquid assets like mortgages and loans. By changing the proportion of total assets to be held as liquid cash, the Federal Reserve changes the availability of loanable funds. This acts as a change in the money supply. Central banks typically do not change the reserve requirements often because it creates very volatile changes in the money supply due to the lending multiplier.

Discount window lending[link]

Discount window lending is where the commercial banks, and other depository institutions, are able to borrow reserves from the Central Bank at a discount rate. This rate is usually set below short term market rates (T-bills). This enables the institutions to vary credit conditions (i.e., the amount of money they have to loan out), thereby affecting the money supply. It is of note that the Discount Window is the only instrument which the Central Banks do not have total control over.

By affecting the money supply, it is theorized, that monetary policy can establish ranges for inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and economic growth. A stable financial environment is created in which savings and investment can occur, allowing for the growth of the economy as a whole.

Interest rates[link]

The contraction of the monetary supply can be achieved indirectly by increasing the nominal interest rates. Monetary authorities in different nations have differing levels of control of economy-wide interest rates. In the United States, the Federal Reserve can set the discount rate, as well as achieve the desired Federal funds rate by open market operations. This rate has significant effect on other market interest rates, but there is no perfect relationship. In the United States open market operations are a relatively small part of the total volume in the bond market. One cannot set independent targets for both the monetary base and the interest rate because they are both modified by a single tool — open market operations; one must choose which one to control.

In other nations, the monetary authority may be able to mandate specific interest rates on loans, savings accounts or other financial assets. By raising the interest rate(s) under its control, a monetary authority can contract the money supply, because higher interest rates encourage savings and discourage borrowing. Both of these effects reduce the size of the money supply.

Currency board[link]

A currency board is a monetary arrangement that pegs the monetary base of one country to another, the anchor nation. As such, it essentially operates as a hard fixed exchange rate, whereby local currency in circulation is backed by foreign currency from the anchor nation at a fixed rate. Thus, to grow the local monetary base an equivalent amount of foreign currency must be held in reserves with the currency board. This limits the possibility for the local monetary authority to inflate or pursue other objectives. The principal rationales behind a currency board are threefold:

1. To import monetary credibility of the anchor nation;
2. To maintain a fixed exchange rate with the anchor nation;
3. To establish credibility with the exchange rate (the currency board arrangement is the hardest form of fixed exchange rates outside of dollarization).

In theory, it is possible that a country may peg the local currency to more than one foreign currency; although, in practice this has never happened (and it would be a more complicated to run than a simple single-currency currency board). A gold standard is a special case of a currency board where the value of the national currency is linked to the value of gold instead of a foreign currency.

The currency board in question will no longer issue fiat money but instead will only issue a set number of units of local currency for each unit of foreign currency it has in its vault. The surplus on the balance of payments of that country is reflected by higher deposits local banks hold at the central bank as well as (initially) higher deposits of the (net) exporting firms at their local banks. The growth of the domestic money supply can now be coupled to the additional deposits of the banks at the central bank that equals additional hard foreign exchange reserves in the hands of the central bank. The virtue of this system is that questions of currency stability no longer apply. The drawbacks are that the country no longer has the ability to set monetary policy according to other domestic considerations, and that the fixed exchange rate will, to a large extent, also fix a country's terms of trade, irrespective of economic differences between it and its trading partners.

Hong Kong operates a currency board, as does Bulgaria. Estonia established a currency board pegged to the Deutschmark in 1992 after gaining independence, and this policy is seen as a mainstay of that country's subsequent economic success (see Economy of Estonia for a detailed description of the Estonian currency board). Argentina abandoned its currency board in January 2002 after a severe recession. This emphasized the fact that currency boards are not irrevocable, and hence may be abandoned in the face of speculation by foreign exchange traders. Following the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina established a currency board pegged to the Deutschmark (since 2002 replaced by the Euro).

Currency boards have advantages for small, open economies that would find independent monetary policy difficult to sustain. They can also form a credible commitment to low inflation.

Unconventional monetary policy at the zero bound[link]

This section requires expansion.

Other forms of monetary policy, particularly used when interest rates are at or near 0% and there are concerns about deflation or deflation is occurring, are referred to as unconventional monetary policy. These include credit easing, quantitative easing, and signaling. In credit easing, a central bank purchases private sector assets, in order to improve liquidity and improve access to credit. Signaling can be used to lower market expectations for future interest rates. For example, during the credit crisis of 2008, the US Federal Reserve indicated rates would be low for an “extended period”, and the Bank of Canada made a “conditional commitment” to keep rates at the lower bound of 25 basis points (0.25%) until the end of the second quarter of 2010.

See also[link]

• Fiscal policy
• Macroeconomic model
• Monetary conditions index
• Monetary economics
• Quantitative easing
• Interaction between monetary and fiscal policies

US specific:

• Greenspan put

Notes and references[link]

External links[link]

• Bank for International Settlements
• US Federal Reserve
• CentralBankNews.info
• European Central Bank
• Central Bank Rates: worldwide rates, monetary meetings, central banks

Kevin Brady
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 8th district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1997
Preceded by	Jack Fields
Member of the Texas House of Representatives from the 15th district
In office January 3, 1991 – January 3, 1997
Preceded by	Mike McKinney
Succeeded by	Tommy Williams
Personal details
Born	(1955-04-11) April 11, 1955 (age 57) Vermillion, South Dakota
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Cathy Brady
Residence	The Woodlands, Texas
Alma mater	University of South Dakota
Occupation	public affairs director
Religion	Roman Catholic

Kevin Patrick Brady (born April 11, 1955) is the U.S. Representative for Texas's 8th congressional district, serving since 1997. He is a member of the Republican Party. The district includes a large swath of suburban and rural territory around Houston and Beaumont.

Early life, education, and early political career[link]

Brady was born in Vermillion, South Dakota, one of five children of William and Nancy Brady. His father, a lawyer, was killed in 1967 in a courtroom shooting in Rapid City when Brady was 12 years old. Brady graduated from Rapid City Central High School, and the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, where he also became a member of Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity.

A chamber of commerce executive who also served on the Rapid City Common Council, Brady moved to Texas to work for the Beaumont Chamber of Commerce and later the South Montgomery County Woodlands Chamber of Commerce.

Texas House of Representatives[link]

Brady began his political career in 1990 when he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives, representing The Woodlands, parts of Montgomery County and five other counties west and north of Houston.

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

Elections[link]

1996

Incumbent Republican U.S. Congressman Jack Fields of Texas' 8th congressional district decided to retire. Brady decided to run and ranked second in the Republican primary with 22% of the vote in a six candidate field. But candidate who ranked first, Gene Fontenot, received just 36% of the vote which is short of the 40% threshold necessary to win outright.^[1] In the run-off election, Brady defeated him 53%-47%.^[2] However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bush v. Vera that three congressional districts were unconstitutional.^[3] After holding hearings, the court concluded that there was no longer time to hold primaries and instead forced all candidates (Democrats and Republicans) be listed together on the November general election ballot in a jungle primary. If no candidate reached 50%, a special runoff would be held on December 10 between the two highest ranking candidates regardless of political party. In the November election, Brady ranked first with 41% of the vote.^[4] In the December run-off election, he defeated Fontenot again 59%-41%.^[5]

1998–2008

During this time period, he never won re-election with less than 67% of the vote.^[6]

2010

For the first time since 1996, Brady was challenged in the Republican primary. Three candidates filed against him. He defeated all of them in the March primary with 79% of the vote.^[7] He won re-election with 80% of the vote.^[8]

Tenure[link]

Brady has been a reliable conservative and serves as a Deputy Whip for the House majority. He has advocated lower taxes, deficit reduction and free trade, and called for replacing the income tax with a federal sales tax. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in 2004 he restored the sales tax deduction, which had been eliminated in 1986. Brady has been a leader on free trade within Congress, serving as President George W. Bush's point man on the successful passage of the Central America Free Trade Agreement and the recent agreements with S.Korea, Colombia and Panama. However, he is best known as the author of a federal "sunset law" that would require every federal program not specifically written into the Constitution to justify its existence to taxpayers within 12 years or face elimination.^[9] He has introduced this bill at the beginning of every Congress. It was approved overwhelmingly by the House as an amendment in 2004 but did not progress further. In 2006 it passed the Government Reform Committee but did not reach a floor vote.

As the vice chairman and top Republican in Congress on the Joint Economic Committee, Brady and his staff developed the "Organizational Chart of the House Democrats Health Plan", the complex chart that showed the creation of at least 31 new federal agencies, commissions and mandates included in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. He has also called on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to step down, citing rising unemployment, exaggerated stimulus job claims, unsustainable debt and "failed economic policies" of the Obama administration. Recently he has introduced two major pieces of legislation: The MAP Act which shrinks the size of the federal government, abolishes obsolete agencies, establishes a line item-veto for each President and permanently ends the threat of a future government shutdown; and the Sound Dollar Act which reforms the Federal Reserve(see below).

In March, 2012, he proposed the Sound Dollar Act, which would require the Federal Reserve to monitor gold and the foreign-exchange value of the U.S. Dollar. The bill would also replace the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate with one mandate for U.S. Dollar price stability.^[10]

Brady's district was hit hard by Hurricane Rita and again by Hurricane Ike, and he has helped lead the Texas recovery effort in the House for both disasters. Recently, in the interim redistricting map approved by a San Antonio federal court the 8th District loses seven counties in east and southeast Texas and gains all or part of six counties going north toward Dallas.

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Ways and Means
  • Subcommittee on Trade (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Social Security
• Joint Economic Committee (Vice Chairman)

Caucus memberships[link]

• Army Caucus
• Congressional Missing and Exploited Children Caucus
• Congressional Rural Caucus
• International Conservation Caucus
• Sportsmen's Caucus

Personal life[link]

Brady lives in The Woodlands, a suburb of Houston. He and his family did not move to Washington, D.C. and he continues to commute from Texas to work in Congress each week.

On October 7, 2005 Brady was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol while in South Dakota to accept a distinguished alumni award. He was returning from a reception with his mother, wife, sister and brother-in-law in the car when it was pulled over for a non-working tail light. He faced a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in jail. He pleaded no contest. Upon his misdemeanor conviction on November 8, he was fined $350, and his right to drive in South Dakota was suspended for 30 days. Before his sentencing, Brady had stated that "no one is above the law" and he would accept "every consequence" of his actions, even if that meant a jail sentence. "To me, regardless of how this turns out, what it says is that you don't get behind the wheel." Conroe (Texas) Courier.

References[link]

External links[link]

• U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady official U.S. House site
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Profile at SourceWatch

Ron Paul
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 14th district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1997
Preceded by	Greg Laughlin
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd district
In office January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985
Preceded by	Robert Gammage
Succeeded by	Tom DeLay
In office April 3, 1976 – January 3, 1977
Preceded by	Robert Casey
Succeeded by	Robert Gammage
Personal details
Born	Ronald Ernest Paul (1935-08-20) August 20, 1935 (age 76) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Republican Party (1976–1988, 1988–present)
Other political affiliations	Libertarian Party (1988 election)
Spouse(s)	Carol Wells
Children	Ronnie Lori Rand Robert Joy
Alma mater	Gettysburg College (B.S.) Duke University (M.D.)
Religion	Southern Baptist
Signature
Website	Congressional website Campaign website
Military service
Service/branch	United States Air Force Texas Air National Guard
Years of service	1963–1965 1965–1968
Rank	Captain[1]
This article is part of a series about Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign 2008 presidential campaign 1988 presidential campaign Political positions · Electoral history List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul Ron Paul newsletters Ron Paul bibliography

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997, and a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and currently 2012. He is an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policies, including the Military–industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, and is known for his libertarian-leaning views, often differing from his own party on certain issues.

A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a medical officer in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies. He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child in the Senate when his son Rand Paul was elected to the United States Senate for Kentucky in 2010.^[2]

Ron Paul has been an active writer and publisher since the late 1970s, when he created the first of several newsletters bearing his name. He has published many books, beginning with The Case for Gold (1982) and including Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011), End The Fed (2009), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Pillars of Prosperity (2008), and A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007). Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.^[3][4]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would forego seeking another term in Congress in order to focus on his presidential bid.^[5] On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would not be competing in any other Presidential primaries, though he is still competing for delegates in states where the primary election have already been held.^[6]

Early life, education, and medical career[link]

Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh,^[7] the son of Howard Caspar Paul, who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Germany, and his mother was of German and Irish ancestry.^[8][9]

As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 220-yard dash state champion.^[10] He graduated from Gettysburg College with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957.^[10]

Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.^[11] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.^[12]

Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.^[13] He refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments, but routinely lowered fees for patients who could not afford to pay.^[14][15]

Early congressional career (1976–1985)[link]

While still a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read many publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.^[16]

When President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending U.S. dollar's loose association with gold^[16] on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics^[17] and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.^[18]

Elections[link]

In 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district. President Gerald Ford later appointed Casey to direct the Federal Maritime Commission, and Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office.^[19] Paul lost the next regular election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected in 1980 and 1982.^[20] Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."^[21]

Tenure[link]

Paul has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985, and finally since 1997.

In his early years, Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation and spoke against the banking mismanagement that resulted in the savings and loan crisis.^[22][8] Paul argued for a return to the gold standard maintained by the US from 1873-1933, and with Senator Jesse Helms convinced the Congress to study the issue.^[16] He spoke against the reinstatement of registration for the military draft in 1980, in opposition to President Jimmy Carter and the majority of his fellow Republican members of Congress.^[23]

During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit "think tank" dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics.^[24]

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, while himself serving four terms in the House of Representatives.^[23] In 1984, he decided to retire from the House in order to run for the U.S. Senate, complaining in his House farewell address that "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare.... It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."^[25][26] (On Paul's departure from the House, his congressional seat was assumed by former state representative Tom DeLay, who would eventually become Speaker of the House.)^[27]

Committee assignments[link]

• House Banking Committee

1984 U.S. Senate election[link]

In 1984, Paul campaigned for the U.S. Senate, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, who had switched parties the previous year from Democrat to Republican.^[28] Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to the Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr.

Inter-congressional years[link]

1985–1997[link]

Following the loss of the 1984 senate race, Paul returned to his obstetrics practice and took part in a number of other business ventures.^[8][29] Along with his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul founded a for-profit enterprise, Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. (RP&A) in 1984, with Paul serving as president, Rockwell as vice president, Paul's wife Carol as secretary, and daughter Lori Pyeatt as treasurer.^[30] The company published a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters including Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Survival Report, and by 1993 was generating revenues in excess of $900,000.^[31][32]

Paul also co-owned a mail-order coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate the dealership after Paul resumed office in 1996.^[33][34] Paul spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention.^[33] He worked with his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and CNBC,^[24] and continuing publication of newsletters.

1988 presidential campaign[link]

Paul resigned from the Republican Party in 1987 and launched a bid for the presidency running on the Libertarian Party ticket. At the 1987 Libertarian National Convention, the party was split between a Conservative and Liberal wing. Paul represented the conservative wing, which was successful in fundraising, while the liberal wing claimed to have received ten times more (and more favorable) press coverage.^{[citation needed]} Paul argued, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."^[35][36]

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 States,^[37] scoring third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%).^[38] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality".^[39]

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."^[37]

Paul considered campaigning for President during 1992,^[40] but instead chose to endorse Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to Buchanan's Republican presidential primary campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.^[41]

Later congressional career (1997–present)[link]

An earlier congressional portrait of Paul

Elections[link]

1996 campaign

During 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a difficult campaign. The Republican National Committee endorsed incumbent Greg Laughlin in the primary; Paul won with assistance from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan, tax activist and publisher Steve Forbes^[8] and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (both of whom had had presidential campaigns that year). Paul narrowly defeated Democratic attorney Charles "Lefty" Morris in the fall election, despite Morris' criticism over controversial statements in several newsletters that Ron Paul published.

1998–present

In 1998 and 2000, Paul defeated Loy Sneary, a Democratic Bay City, Texas, rice farmer and former Matagorda County judge.^[17] In the 2008 Republican primary,^[42] he defeated Friendswood city councilman Chris Peden,^[43] with over 70 percent of the vote^[44] and ran unopposed in the general election.^[45] In the 2010 Republican primary, Paul defeated three opponents with 80 percent of the vote.^[46]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election.^[47][48]

Tenure[link]

Legislation

Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law – a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.^[49] The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).^[49]

By amending other legislation, he has helped prohibit funding for national identification numbers, funding for federal teacher certification,^[17] International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military, American participation with any U.N. global tax, and surveillance of peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens.^[50]

Affiliations

Paul was honorary chairman of, and is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a political action committee that describes its goal as electing "liberty-minded, limited-government individuals".^[51] He is an initiating member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, which deals with agricultural and rural issues, and the 140-member Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus.^[52]

Committee assignments[link]

Rep. Paul serves on the following committee and subcommittees.^[53]

• Committee on Financial Services
  • Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
• Committee on Foreign Affairs
  • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

With the election of the 112th Congress, and a resulting GOP majority in the House, Paul became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology starting in January 2011.^[54]

2008 presidential campaign[link]

Ron Paul being interviewed the day of the New Hampshire primary in Manchester

2008 Republican primary campaign[link]

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on March 12, 2007, on C-SPAN.^[55] Few major politicians endorsed him, and his campaign was largely ignored by traditional media.^[56] However, he attracted an intensely loyal grassroots following, in large part energized by "iconoclastic white men"^[57] interacting through internet social media.^[58][59][60] In May 2007, shortly after the first televised primary debates, the blogs search engine site Technorati.com listed Paul's name as the term most frequently searched for;^[58] and Paul's campaign claimed that Paul had more YouTube channel subscribers than Barack Obama or any other candidate for president.^[61] For a candidate who had had relatively low national name recognition prior to entering the race, Paul did surprisingly well in fundraising, taking in more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, as the primary season headed into the Iowa caucuses.^[62][63]

Despite benefiting from large numbers of campaign contributions from individual donors,^[64] and the efforts of tech-savvy supporters determined to keep his name a frequent topic of discussion on the internet,^[58] over the course of the campaign Paul was unable to translate the enthusiasm of his core supporters into large enough numbers of actual primary votes to unseat his rivals.

Paul came in 5th place in both the January 4 Iowa caucuses (10% of votes cast)^[65] and the January 8 New Hampshire primary (8%).^[66] With the exception of the Nevada caucuses January 19, where he came in 2nd (14%) behind Romney (51%), he did little better through the rest of January: Michigan 4th (6%), South Carolina 5th (4%), Florida 5th (3%). On SuperTuesday, February 5, he placed 4th in almost every state, generally taking in a mere 3–6% of the votes (although he did better in the mountain states of North Dakota (21%, 3rd place) and Montana (25%, 2nd place).^[67][68]

By March, front-runner John McCain had secured enough pledged delegates to guarantee that he would win the nomination, and Romney and Huckabee had both formally withdrawn from the race. Paul, who had won no state primaries, knew that it was now mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, as he had captured only 20^[69] – 40 pledged delegates compared to more than 1,191 for McCain, yet he refused to concede the race and said that it was unlikely that he would ultimately endorse McCain.^[70][71][72] Over the next few weeks, Paul's supporters clashed with establishment Republicans at several county and state party conventions over state party rules, the party platforms, and selection of delegates for the national convention.^[73][74][75] In one of the more dramatic moments, Nevada's state party leaders, outmaneuvered by Paul supporters at the state nominating convention, resorted to the highly unusual measure of prematurely and abruptly shutting down the convention before selecting national delegates, with a plan to reconvene at a later date.^[76][77]

On June 12, 2008, Paul finally withdrew his bid for the Republican nomination. He later said that one of the reasons he did not run in the general election as a third-party candidate, after losing the primary election, was that, as a concession to gain ballot access in certain states, he had signed legally-binding agreements to not run a third-party campaign if he lost the primary.^[78] Some of the $4 million remaining campaign contributions was invested into the new political action and advocacy group called Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.^[79]

Refusal to endorse the Republican candidate[link]

At a September 10, 2008, press conference, Paul announced his general support of four third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). He said that each of them had pledged to adhere to a policy of balancing budgets, bringing the troops home, defending privacy and personal liberties, and investigating the Federal Reserve. Paul also said that under no circumstances would he be endorsing either of the two dominant parties' candidates (McCain – Republican Party, or Obama – Democratic Party) because there were no real differences between them, and because neither of them, if elected, would seek to make the fundamental changes in governance that were necessary. He urged instead that, rather than contribute to the “charade” that the two-party election system had become, the voters support the third-party candidates as a protest vote, to force change in the election process.^[80][81] Later that same day, Paul gave a televised interview with Nader saying much the same again.^[82]

Two weeks later, "shocked and disappointed" that Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate) had pulled out of attending the press conference at the last minute and had admonished Paul for remaining neutral and failing to say which specific candidate Paul would vote for in the general election, Paul released a statement saying that he had decided to endorse Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, for president.^[83]

In the November 2008 general election, Paul received 41,905 votes despite not actively campaigning.^[84][85]

2012 presidential campaign[link]

Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential election campaign in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Paul is a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 election.

He won several early straw polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination ^[86] and in late April, 2011, he formed an official exploratory committee.^[87][88] He participated in the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011.^[89] and on May 13, 2011, Paul formally announced his candidacy in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America.^[90] He placed second in the 2011 Ames Straw Poll, missing first by 0.9%.^[91]

In December 2011, with Ron Paul's increased support, the controversy over allegedly racist and homophobic statements in several Ron Paul newsletters in the 1980s and early 1990s once again gained media attention.^[92] During this time Paul supporters asserted that he was continually ignored by the media despite his significant support, citing examples of where television news shows would fail to mention Paul in discussions of the Republican presidential hopefuls even when he was polling second.^{[93][94][95][96]}

Paul came in third in the Iowa Republican Caucus held on January 3, 2012. Out of a turnout of 121,503 votes, Paul took 26,036 (21%) of the certified votes. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie for first place with 25% each.^[97] In the New Hampshire Primary held on January 10, 2012, Paul received 23% of the votes and came in second after Romney's 39%.^[98]

Ron Paul's results then declined, despite the withdrawal of candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry. He had fourth place finishes in the next two primaries, on January 21st in South Carolina (with 13% of the vote^[99]) and on January 31st in Florida (where he received 7% of the vote.^{[100][101][102]})

On February 4, Paul finished third in Nevada with 18.8% of the vote.^[103] Three non-binding primaries were held on February 7th; Paul took 3rd place in Colorado^[104] and Missouri^[105] with 13% and 12% of the vote respectively. He fared better in Minnesota^[106] with 27%, finishing second to Rick Santorum.

On May 14, Paul's campaign announced that due to lack of funds he would no longer actively campaign for votes in the 11 remaining primary states, including Texas and California, that had not yet voted.^[6][107] He would, however, continue to seek to win delegates for the national party convention in the states that had already voted.

Political party identification[link]

Throughout his entire tenure in Congress, Paul has represented his district as a member of the Republican Party. However, he has frequently taken positions in direct opposition to the other members and the leadership of the party, and he has sometimes publicly questioned whether he really belonged in the party.

He had been a lifelong supporter of the Republican Party by the time he entered politics in the mid 1970s.^[108] He was one of the first elected officials in the nation to support Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign,^[109] and he actively campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980.^[110] After Reagan's election in 1980, Paul quickly became disillusioned with the Reagan administration's policies. He later recalled being the only Republican to vote against Reagan budget proposals in 1981,^[111][112] aghast that "in 1977, Jimmy Carter proposed a budget with a $38 billion deficit, and every Republican in the House voted against it. In 1981, Reagan proposed a budget with a $45 billion deficit – which turned out to be $113 billion – and Republicans were cheering his great victory. They were living in a storybook land."^[109] He expressed his disgust with the political culture of both major parties in a speech delivered in 1984 upon resigning from the House of Representatives to prepare for a (failed) run for the Senate, and he eventually apologized to his Libertarian friends for having supported Reagan.^[111]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC

By 1987, Paul was ready to sever all ties to the Republican Party, as he explained in a blistering resignation letter: "Since [1981] Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? ... There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years."^[110][108] A month later he announced he would seek the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president.

During the 1988 campaign, Paul called Reagan "a dramatic failure"^[110] and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people."^[113] Paul predicted that "the Republicans are on their way out as a major party,"^[111] and he said that, although registered as a Republican, he had always been a Libertarian at heart.^[112][111]

Paul returned to his private medical practice and managing several business ventures after losing the 1988 election; but by 1996, he was ready to return to politics, this time running on the Republican Party ticket again. He said that he had never read the entire Libertarian platform when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and that "I worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs."^[114] He added that in terms of a political label he preferred to call himself "a constitutionalist. In Congress I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the (Republican) platform."^[114]

When he lost the Republican Party presidential primary election in 2008, Paul criticized the two major political parties, saying that there was no real difference between the parties and that neither of them truly intended to challenge the status quo. He refused to endorse the Republican Party's nominee for president, John McCain, and lent his support to third-party candidates instead.^[115][116]

In 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination,^[117] Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs.^[118] He expressed doubt that he would support any of his rivals should they win the nomination, warning that, “If the policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party and they don't want to change anything on foreign policy, they don't want to cut anything, they don't want to audit the Fed and find out about monetary policy, they don't want to have actual change in government, that is a problem for me."^[119] On that same theme he said in another interview, "I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I'd say, [all] we've done is for naught. So, let's support anybody at all ... even if they disagree with everything that we do."^[120]

Political positions[link]

Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Committee Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, June 15, 2007.

Paul has been described as conservative and libertarian.^[8] According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002,^[121] and is the most conservative of the candidates seeking the 2012 Republican nomination for president,^[122] on a scale primarily measuring positions on the role of government in managing the economy – not positions on social issues or foreign policy matters.^[123] Other analyses, in which key votes on domestic social issues and foreign policy factor more heavily, have judged Paul much more moderate. The National Journal, for instance, rated Paul only the 145th most conservative member of the House of Representatives based on votes cast in 2010.^[124][125]

The foundation of Paul's political philosophy is the conviction that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."^[126] He has been nicknamed "Dr. No,"^[17] reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."^[22]

Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland)^[127] on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;^[128] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.^[17]

He has pledged never to raise taxes^[129] and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels;^[130][131] financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."^[132]

Paul has a consistent record as an inflation hawk, having warned of hyperinflation as far back as 1981.^[133] While Paul believes the longterm decrease of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing, he does not endorse a "return" to a gold standard – as the U.S. government has established during the past – but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be.^[134] Since 1999, he has introduced bills into each Congress seeking to eliminate the Federal Reserve System in a single year.^{[135][136][137]}

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention^[138] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.^[139]

He endorses free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty;^[140] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. An opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran, he has also criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs her affairs".^[141]

Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft. Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."^[142]

Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty^[143] (although he opposes capital punishment),^[144] of education,^[145] and of marriage, and endorsed revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).^[146]

Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception.^[147]

He terms himself "strongly pro-life",^[148] "an unshakable foe of abortion",^[149] and believes regulation or ban^[150] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".^[143][151] His abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."^[152]

Paul has stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.^[153] Paul also opposes the federal War on Drugs,^[154] and believes the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.^[155] He also opposes federal government influenza inoculation programs.^[156]

As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.^{[citation needed]} He called global warming a hoax in a 2009 Fox Business interview, saying, "You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."^[157] He acknowledges there is clear evidence of rising temperatures in some parts of the globe, but says that temperatures are cooling in other parts.^[158]

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society".^[159] Paul opposes affirmative action.^[160]

He is an outspoken proponent of increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates,^[161] but has sought to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter law.^[162]

Newsletters controversy[link]

Beginning in 1978, for more than two decades Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name (Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Investment Letter, and the Ron Paul Political Report).^[163] By 1993, a business through which Paul was publishing the newsletters was earning in excess of $900,000 per year.^[163]

A number of the newsletters, particularly in the period between 1988 and 1994 when Paul was no longer in Congress, contained material that later proved highly controversial, dwelling on conspiracy theories, praising anti-government militia movements, and warning of coming race wars.^[163][164] During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry.^{[165][166][167][168][169][170][171]}

The newsletters included statements such as:

• "... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."^[166]
• "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"^[163][172]
• "An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible.... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."^[163][173]
• “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”^[174][175]
• “[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”^[164][176]
• “[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;" and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients].”^[164][177]

Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr" – while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.^{[163][164][174]}

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.^{[165][167][166]} In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.^[167][178] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.^[167][178] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.^{[179][180][181]}

An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters.^[182][183] During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported^[184] that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "it was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it."^[184] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.^[185]

Personal life[link]

Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, on October 2, 2010, along with his son, senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and his grandson, William Paul.

Paul has been married to Carol Wells since 1957.^[186] They met in 1952 when Wells asked Paul to be her escort to her 16th birthday party.^[187] They have five children, who were baptized Episcopalian:^[8] Ronald, Lori, Randal, Robert, and Joy. Paul's son Randal is the junior United States senator from the state of Kentucky. Raised a Lutheran, Paul later became a Baptist.^[188]

Bibliography[link]