Henry George, whose writings and advocacy form the basis for Georgism.

Georgism (also called Geoism or Geonomics) is an economic philosophy and ideology that holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all.^[1] The Georgist philosophy is based on the writings of the economist Henry George (1839–1897), and is usually associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land. Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce income inequality.^[2]

Economics
Economies by region  Africa · North America South America · Asia Europe · Oceania
General categories
Microeconomics · Macroeconomics History of economic thought Methodology · Heterodox approaches
Technical methods
Mathematical · Econometrics Experimental · National accounting
Fields and subfields
Behavioral · Cultural · Evolutionary Growth · Development · History International · Economic systems Monetary and Financial economics Public and Welfare economics Health · Education · Welfare Population · Labour · Personnel Managerial · Computational Business · Information · Game theory Industrial organization · Law Agricultural · Natural resource Environmental · Ecological Urban · Rural · Regional · Geography
Lists
Journals · Publications Categories · Topics · Economists
The economy: concept and history
Business and Economics Portal
This box: view talk edit

Main tenets[link]

Henry George is best known for his argument that the economic rent of land should be shared equally by the people of a society rather than being owned privately. George held that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all.^[1] George believed that although scientific experiments could not be carried out in political economy, theories could be tested by comparing different societies with different conditions and through thought experiments about the effects of various factors.^[3] Applying this method, George concluded that many of the problems that beset society, such as poverty, inequality, and economic booms and busts, could be attributed to the private ownership of the necessary resource, land.

In his publication Progress and Poverty George argued that: "We must make land common property."^[4] Although this could be done by nationalizing land and then leasing it to private parties, George preferred taxing unimproved land value. A land value tax would not penalize those who had already bought and improved land, and would also be less disruptive and controversial in a country where land titles have already been granted.

Standard economic theory suggests that a land value tax would be extremely efficient – unlike other taxes, it does not reduce economic productivity.^[2] Nobel laureate Milton Friedman agreed that Henry George's land value tax is potentially beneficial for society since, unlike other taxes, it would not impose an excess burden on economic activity (leading to "deadweight loss"). A replacement of other more distortionary taxes with a land value tax would thus improve economic welfare.^[5]

It was Adam Smith who first noted the properties of a land value tax in his book, The Wealth of Nations:^[6]

Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

Georgists suggest two uses for the revenue from a land value tax. The revenue can be used to fund the state (allowing the reduction or elimination of other taxes), or it can be redistributed to citizens as a pension or basic income (or it can be divided between these two options). If the first option were to be chosen, the state could avoid having to tax any other type of income or economic activity. In practice, the elimination of all other taxes implies a very high land value tax, higher than any currently existing land tax. Introducing a high land value tax would cause the price of land titles to decrease correspondingly, but George did not believe landowners should be compensated, and described the issue as being analogous to compensation for former slave owners. Additionally, a land value tax would be a tax of wealth, not a tax on income or production, and so would be a form of progressive taxation tending to reduce income inequality. As such, a defining argument for Georgism is that it taxes wealth in a progressive manner, reducing inequality, and yet it also reduces the strain on businesses and productivity.

Georgists also argue that all economic rent (i.e., unearned income) collected from natural resources (land, mineral extraction, the broadcast spectrum, tradable emission permits, fishing quotas, airway corridor use, space orbits, etc.) and extraordinary returns from natural monopolies should accrue to the community rather than a private owner, and that no other taxes or burdensome economic regulations should be levied. Modern environmentalists find the idea of the earth as the common property of humanity appealing, and some have endorsed the idea of ecological tax reform as a replacement for command and control regulation. This would entail substantial taxes or fees for pollution, waste disposal and resource exploitation, or equivalently a "cap and trade" system where permits are auctioned to the highest bidder, and also include taxes for the use of land and other natural resources.^{[citation needed]}

Some Georgists have observed two points concerning taxation in modern states, that privately created wealth is socialized via the tax system (through income tax, sales tax, etc), but socially created wealth from community created land values are privatized and owned by private individuals and corporations. They argue that the opposite would be the case when a single tax on land value is implemented; that socially created wealth is taxed and used by the community, while privately created wealth remains private as no other taxes are levied.^[7]

Synonyms and variants[link]

Most early advocacy groups described themselves as Single Taxers, and George endorsed this as being an accurate description of the philosophy's main political goal – the replacement of all taxes with a land value tax. During the modern era, some groups inspired by Henry George emphasize environmentalism more than other aspects, while others emphasize his ideas concerning economics.

Some devotees are not entirely satisfied with the name Georgist. While Henry George was well-known throughout his life, he has been largely forgotten by the public and the idea of a single tax of land predates him. Some people now use the term "Geoism", with the meaning of "Geo" deliberately ambiguous. "Earth Sharing",^[8] "Geoism",^[9] "Geonomics",^[10] and "Geolibertarianism"^[11] (see libertarianism) are also preferred by some Georgists; "Geoanarchism" is another one.^[12] These terms represent a difference of emphasis, and sometimes real differences about how land rent should be spent (citizen's dividend or just replacing other taxes); but all agree that land rent should be recovered from its private recipients.

Influence[link]

Georgist ideas heavily influenced the politics of the early 20th century, during its heyday. Political parties that were formed based on Georgist ideas include the Commonwealth Land Party, the Justice Party of Denmark, the Henry George Justice Party, and the Single Tax League.

In the UK during 1909, the Liberal Government included a land tax as part of several taxes in the People's Budget aimed at redistributing wealth (including a progressively-graded income tax and an increase of inheritance tax). This caused a crisis which resulted indirectly in reform of the House of Lords. The budget was passed eventually—but without the land tax. In 1931, the minority Labour Government passed a land value tax as part III of the 1931 Finance act. However, this was repealed in 1934 by the National Government before it could be implemented. In Denmark, the Georgist Justice Party has previously been represented in Folketinget. It formed part of a centre-left government 1957-60 and was also represented in the European Parliament 1978-79. The influence of Henry George has waned over time, but Georgist ideas still occasionally emerge in politics. In the 2004 Presidential campaign, Ralph Nader mentioned Henry George in his policy statements.^[13]

Communities[link]

Several communities were also initiated with Georgist principles during the height of the philosophy's popularity. Two such communities that still exist are Arden, Delaware, which was founded during 1900 by Frank Stephens and Will Price, and Fairhope, Alabama, which was founded during 1894 by the auspices of the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation.

The German protectorate of Jiaozhou Bay (also known as Kiaochow) in China fully implemented Georgist policy. Its sole source of government revenue was the land value tax of six percent which it levied on its territory. The German government had previously had economic problems with its African colonies caused by land speculation. One of the main aims in using the land value tax in Jiaozhou Bay was to eliminate such speculation, an aim which was entirely achieved.^[14] The colony existed as a German protectorate from 1898 until 1914 when it was seized by Japan. In 1922 it was returned to China.

Georgist ideas were also adopted to some degree in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. In these countries, governments still levy some type of land value tax, albeit with exemptions.^[15] Many municipal governments of the USA depend on real property tax as their main source of revenue, although such taxes are not "Georgist" as they generally include the value of buildings and other improvements, one exception being the town of Altoona, Pennsylvania, which only taxes land value.

Institutes and organizations[link]

Various organizations still exist that continue to promote the ideas of Henry George. According to the The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, the periodical Land&Liberty, established in 1894, is "the longest-lived Georgist project in history".^[16] Also in the U.S., the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy was established in 1974 founded based on the writings of Henry George, and "seeks to improve the dialogue about urban development, the built environment, and tax policy in the United States and abroad".^[17] The Henry George Foundation continues to promote the ideas of Henry George in the UK.^[18] The IU, is an international umbrella organisation that brings together organizations worldwide that seek land value tax reform.^[19]

Criticisms[link]

Although both advocated workers' rights, Henry George and Karl Marx were antagonists. Marx saw the Single Tax platform as a step backwards from the transition to communism. He argued that, "The whole thing is... simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one."^[20] Marx also criticized the way land value tax theory emphasizes the value of land, arguing that, "His fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state."^[20]

Fred Harrison provides a full treatment of Marxist objections to land value taxation and Henry George in "Gronlund and other Marxists - Part III: nineteenth-century Americas critics", American Journal of Economics and Sociology, (November 2003).^[21]

George has also been accused of exaggerating the importance of his "all-devouring rent thesis" in claiming that it is the primary cause of poverty and injustice in society.^[22] More recent critics have claimed that increasing government spending has rendered a land tax insufficient to fund government. Georgists have responded by citing a multitude of sources showing that the total land value of nations like the US is enormous, and more than sufficient to fund government.^[23]

Notable people influenced by Georgism[link]

See also[link]

• Economic democracy
• Excess burden of taxation
• Freiwirtschaft
• Geolibertarianism
• Mutualism
• Progress and Poverty
• Protection or Free Trade
• Tragedy of the anticommons

Notes[link]

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (March 2012)

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (March 2012)

• Center for the Study of Economics
• Henry George Biography
• Henry George Foundation of America
• The Henry George Institute
• Henry George Papers, New York Public Library
• The Henry George School, founded 1932
• Prosper Australia (formerly the Henry George League)
• Robert Schalkenbach Foundation
• Understanding Economics
• Georgist Education Association
• Henry George Foundation, founded 1929
• Some mildly critical private comment

Rand Paul
United States Senator from Kentucky
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011 Serving with Mitch McConnell
Preceded by	Jim Bunning
Personal details
Born	Randal Howard Paul (1963-01-07) January 7, 1963 (age 49) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Kelley Ashby Paul (m. 1990)
Relations	Ron Paul Carol Wells Paul (parents)
Children	William, Robert, and Duncan
Residence	Bowling Green, Kentucky
Alma mater	Baylor University (1981–1984) Duke University (M.D., 1988)
Occupation	Ophthalmologist (Physician), Politician
Religion	Presbyterian[1] (baptized Episcopalian)
Website	paul.senate.gov Rand Paul 2010

Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party. A member of the Tea Party movement, he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative"^[2] and a libertarian.^[3] He is the son of Republican Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and had never previously held political office. Paul first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father. Rand Paul is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul has been a practicing ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Kentucky, since 1993, and established his own clinic in December 2007. In 1994, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, of which he is still the chairman.^[4]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky and defeated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Early life and education[link]

Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, on October 2, 2010, along with his father, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and his son, William Paul.

Randal Howard Paul^[6] was born on January 7, 1963, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.^[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church^[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.^[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,^[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.^[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".^[9][12][13]

The Paul family moved to Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1968,^[11][14] where Rand was raised^[15][16] and his father began his medical practice and for an extent of time was the only obstetrician in Brazoria County.^[11][14] When Paul was 13, his father was elected to the United States House of Representatives.^[17] In his teenage years, Paul studied the Austrian economists that his father respected, as well as Ayn Rand.^[11] Paul went to Brazoswood High School and was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.^[9][15] Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984. Paul was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test.^[18] During Paul's time at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team and Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a secret organization known as the NoZe Brotherhood.^[19] Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.^[18]

Personal life[link]

Paul arriving at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport on November 1, 2010, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, along with his wife Kelley, sons Duncan and Robert, and a campaign staffer.

In Atlanta, Paul met Kelley Ashby, a Rhodes College English major. Paul and Ashby were married on October 20, 1990, and moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, less than 30 miles (48 km) from her hometown of Russellville, Kentucky, in 1993.^[20]

Kelley Paul is a freelance writer, and she manages payroll and marketing communications for Paul's surgical practice.^[21] The couple have three sons: William, Duncan and Robert.^[22]

Medical career[link]

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.^[23] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office.^[24] After his election to the U.S. Senate, Paul merged his practice with Downing's medical practice.^[25] Paul has had two malpractice lawsuits filed against him since 1993. Paul was cleared in one case and the other was settled for $50,000.^[24] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and Paul has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.^[23][24] Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.^[12]

As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.^[26] He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.^[27] In 1999 Paul founded the Non-profit organization National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[28]

Board certification[link]

In 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO).^[23] In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards earning his certification under the ABO for a term of one decade. In 1997, after a dispute with the American Board of Ophthalmology over recertification requirements,^[29] Paul, along with 200 ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[30] A spokesperson for the American Board of Medical Specialties stated: "He [Paul] is not board-certified."^[23]

Paul's ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005, and Paul has since been certified by the NBO.^[23] ABO administrator Beth Ann Slembarski says that over 95 percent of the nation’s practicing ophthalmologists have American Board of Ophthalmology certification.^[31] Regardless of his additional certifications, Paul has been licensed by the state to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993, and his license is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action. The Courier-Journal reported: "There is no indication that Paul isn't qualified to practice ophthalmology."^[23]

Political activism[link]

Rand Paul in 2011 speaking at the Night of the Rising Stars.

As founder and chairman of the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) since 1994, Paul regularly presents "taxpayers' friend" awards to state legislators. KTU, which regards itself as nonpartisan, but is criticized for being ideologically conservative,^[32][33] examines legislator records on taxation and spending to inform voters where their own lawmakers stand on the issues.^[34] Paul's editorial commentary on behalf of KTU has been published and recognized in the Kentucky Post.^[35]

KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, encouraging politicians to pledge publicly to vote uniformly against tax raises.^[35] Nine of fifteen Northern Kentucky legislators signed the pledge,^[36] such as Senator Dick Roeding^[35] and Representative Royce Adams in 1996.^[37] In 2000, these legislators considered a hotel room tax hike (favored by Governor Paul Patton for helping expand the Dr. Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in nearby Cincinnati), even though the increase might "incur the wrath of Paul's group," as two newspapers put it.^[36][38]

Paul stated that Patton's argument for "revenue recovery" was merely a euphemism for taxes^[39] and said that KTU would fight reelection of any pledge-breakers; Adams requested in writing that Paul's group release him from his pledge, stating that it only applied to his first term.^[37] By the close of session in April, the tax increase had failed, although Patton had achieved most of his intended budget; Paul stated legislators were pressured to finalize the budget by deadline rather than to "face accusations of shutting down government."^[40]

Paul often speaks on his father's behalf,^[22][41] and he and his son William attended the third Republican presidential debate of 2007 in New Hampshire, as well as campaigned door-to-door in the state for his father.^[42] At a New Hampshire rally with 250 in attendance (plus 30 members of his own family), Paul repeated a campaign meme by pretending to take a call from Rudy Giuliani during his remarks, and joking that Giuliani needed campaigners and wanted to borrow the Paul family.^[43]

On December 16, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul spoke at Faneuil Hall in favor of small government principles,^[44] calling for what CNN termed a "modern day revolution."^[45] He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008,^[21] traveling as far as Montana.^[26]

Paul has co-authored a book entitled The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Jack Hunter, released on February 22, 2011.^[46] It defends the Tea Party movement.^[47]

Electoral history[link]

Paul in Louisville, November 2009

Primary campaign[link]

In the beginning of 2009, Paul was the focus of an online grassroots movement to draft him in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of his potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the Los Angeles Times^[48] and locally in the Kentucky press.^[49] Commenting on Paul's possible candidacy, Congressman Ron Paul noted that "Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator."^[50]

On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 has matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,^[51] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly run in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,^[52] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning had ultimately decided to run for re-election. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, though the news was first broken by a local Kentucky news site.^[53]

On July 28, 2009, Bunning announced that he would not run for re-election, after facing insufficient fundraising. This announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the Republican nomination,^[54] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as through newspapers in Kentucky.^[55][56][57]

Early fundraising success[link]

On August 20, 2009, Paul's grassroots planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign for United States Senate. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours.^[58] According to Paul,^[59] This set a new record in Kentucky's political fundraising history in a 24-hour period.

A second "moneybomb" was held on September 23, 2009, to counter a D.C. fundraiser being held for primary opponent Trey Grayson, by 23 Republican United States Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bank bailout.^[60] The theme was a UFC "fight" between Paul and "We the People" vs. Trey Grayson and the "D.C. Insiders."^[61] The money bomb ended up raising $186,276 for Paul in 24 hours on September 23;^[62] bringing Paul's Senate campaign's total raised to over one million. Later in the campaign, Paul claimed his pledge to not take money from lobbyist and Senators who voted for the bailout was only a "primary pledge"^[63] and Paul later held a DC fundraiser with the same Senators who were the target of the September 23, 2009 "moneybomb." Paul ended up raising some $3 million during the primary period.

Primary victory[link]

Rand Paul with then-Senator Jim Bunning.

Although Grayson was considered the frontrunner in July 2009,^[64] Paul found success characterizing Grayson as a "career politician" and challenging Grayson's conservatism. Paul ran an ad in February that made an issue out of Grayson's September 2008 admission that he voted for Bill Clinton when he was 20 years old.^[65] Although the Paul campaign later removed the video from YouTube, Paul's Democratic general election competitor put it back up on October 20 after Paul had taken exception to the Democrat making an issue out of Paul's own college-age actions.^[66] James Dobson, a Christian evangelical figure, endorsed Grayson on April 26 based on the advice of what Dobson described as "senior members of the GOP", but on May 3 the Paul campaign announced that Dobson had changed his endorsement to Paul^[67] after Paul and some Paul supporters had lobbied Dobson insisting on Paul's social conservative bona fides.^[68]

On May 18 Paul won the Republican Senatorial primary by a 23.4% margin,^[69] meaning he would face the Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, in the November 2 general election.^[70]

General campaign[link]

On June 28, 2010, Rand Paul supporters held their first post-primary online fundraising drive, this time promoted as a "money blast."^[71][72]

BP oil spill comments[link]

On May 21, 2010, Paul generated some controversy by characterizing statements made by Obama administration officials regarding the BP oil spill cleanup as sounding "un-American". Paul said:

Paul may have been referring to a statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who said "our job is basically to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities that they have, both under the law and contractually to move forward and to stop this spill."^[74] Salazar's remark was later slightly misquoted as "boot on the throat" by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs clarified at the same press conference, when asked if this metaphor did not imply hostility to BP, "I think the President accurately conveyed in his remarks yesterday that we are going to do everything humanly possible, and ensure that BP is doing everything humanly possible, to deal with this as comprehensively and as quickly as they can."^[75]

Private property and civil rights[link]

Paul criticized the Bowling Green Daily News on May 30, 2002 for supporting the Fair Housing Act. He explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."^[76] On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but had he been a senator during 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon constitutional freedoms. Paul stated on National Public Radio, "I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism".^[77] Paul favors community and neighborhood pressure to persuade private businesses, rather than federal laws that he argued might violate the constitution.^[78] Paul said he abhors racism, and he would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. to repeal Jim Crow Laws. Paul's comments on Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 stirred controversy^[79][80][81] and brought concern among Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election.^[80][81] Paul later released a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964".^[82][83] Paul stating that while he "abhors racism," he doesn't like the idea of the federal government determining who a business may serve.^[84] Amid a flurry of controversy, Paul became the first American politician to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press in their 64-year history.^[85] Additionally, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, publicly denounced him, saying that Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a "misplaced" philosophy for the 21st Century.^[86]

Paul addressed his feelings about intentions of the legislation relating to public offices, stating that he "overwhelmingly agrees with the intent of the [Civil Rights Act] which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," and that Constitutional challenges to the law have been settled by the courts.^[87]

Endorsements[link]

Paul has secured endorsements from several public figures and political organizations. They include the Downsize DC Foundation,^[88] Concerned Women for America,^[89] Gun Owners of America,^[90] Steve Forbes,^[91] FreedomWorks,^[92] Club for Growth,^[93] James Dobson,^[94] Sarah Palin,^[95] Jim DeMint,^[96] Cathy Bailey,^[97] Jim Bunning,^[98] Erick Erickson,^[99] National Federation of Independent Business,^[100] Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,^[101] National Right to Life,^[102] US Chamber of Commerce,^[103] National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition,^[104] Mike Huckabee,^[105] and Tony Perkins/FRC Action PAC.^[106][107]

U.S. Senate career[link]

Tenure[link]

Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011 along with his father, marking the first time in congressional history that a child served in the Senate while the parent simultaneously served in the House of Representatives.^[108] He was assigned to serve on the Energy and Natural Resources, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Business committees.^[109] Paul also formed the Senate Tea Party Caucus with Jim DeMint and Mike Lee as its inaugural members.^[110] Paul’s first legislative proposal was to cut $500 billion from federal spending in one year. This proposal includes cutting the Department of Education by 83 percent and the Department of Homeland Security by 43 percent, as well as folding the Department of Energy into the Department of Defense and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Seven independent agencies would be eliminated and food stamps would be cut by 30 percent. Under Paul’s proposal, defense spending would be reduced by 6.5 percent and international aid would be eliminated.^[111] He later proposed a five-year budget plan that he believed would balance the budget.^[112]

In February, Paul was one of two Republicans to vote against extending three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals not linked to terrorist groups).^[113] In May, he remained the last senator opposing the PATRIOT Act, and was ultimately defeated on May 26.^[114]

On March 2, Paul was one of nine senators to vote against a stopgap bill that cut $4 billion from the budget and temporarily prevent a government shutdown, citing that it did not cut enough from the budget.^[115] One week later, Paul voted against the Democratic and Republican budget proposals to keep funding the federal government, citing that both bills did not cut enough spending. Both bills failed to pass the senate.^[116] He later voted against stopgap measures on March 17 and April 8, both of which passed the senate.^[117] On April 14, Paul was one of 19 senators to vote against a budget that cut $38.5 billion from the budget and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.^[118] Paul voiced opposition to U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war and has criticized President Obama for not gaining congressional consent for Operation Odyssey Dawn.^[119] During the debt ceiling crisis, Paul stated that he would only support raising the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment was enacted.^[120] Paul was a supporter of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was tabled by the Democrats.^[121] On August 3, Paul voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.^[122]

On September 7, Paul called for a vote of no confidence in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[123] Later that month, Paul blocked legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines because he felt the bill was not strong enough.^[124] In October, Paul blocked a bill that would provide $36 million in benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, saying that he was concerned that it could be used to aid domestic terrorists. This was in response to two alleged terrorists, who came to the United States through a refugee program and were receiving welfare benefits, were arrested in 2011 in Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green.^[125] Paul lifted his hold on the bill after Democratic leaders promised to hold a congressional hearing into how individuals are selected for refugee status and request an investigation on how the two suspects were admitted in the country through a refugee program.^[126]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • Subcommittee on Energy
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
• Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
• Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Political positions[link]

Paul supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Abortion and bioethics[link]

Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.^{[127][128][129]} He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest,^[130] but supports use of the morning-after pill.^[131] He opposes federal funding for abortion.^[128] He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal involvement.^[132]

According to the Paul campaign, Paul received a 100% pro-life score on a Kentucky Right to Life survey^[133] and indicated on the survey that he opposed human cloning. This was disputed by Kentucky Right to Life, however, who endorsed Paul's primary opponent instead and claimed that Paul did not, in fact, answer the cloning question.^[134]

Campaign finance reform[link]

Paul opposes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and has called it a "dangerous piece of legislation".^[135] Instead, he supports regulating the contracts given out by Congress and placing limits on corporations receiving government contracts. Paul opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."^[135][136]

Civil liberties[link]

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.^[137]

Economics and tax cuts[link]

Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank and auto industry bailouts.

He also opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates. He has advocated allowing the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports Congress' constitutional role in controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill, introduced by his father, mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".^[138]

Paul supports tax cuts and a balanced budget amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.^[139]

Education[link]

Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education, but he says that some functions of the Department of Education, such as disbursing student loans and Pell Grants, should be transferred to other departments instead of being eliminated.^[140][141] Paul opposes federal regulation of homeschooling.^[142]

Energy[link]

Paul supports allowing the free market to compete and dictate which forms of energy to use. He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. He has said that subsidizing the energy industry will only add incentive for companies to lobby the federal government.^[143]

Health care[link]

Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care. He has stated that he would repeal the HMO Act of 1973 that "drives a wedge between the patient and [one's] doctor".^[144] He believes that government has driven up the cost of health care and causes the quality and coverage to decrease. Paul would support a free market approach to health care, including tax deductions for medical expenses. He opposes federal regulations discouraging businesses from providing coverage. He supports Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).^[144] On Medicare, Paul has suggested higher deductibles as well as changes to premiums or eligibility rules as ways to address what he sees as the program's looming financial problems, saying "You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement... by that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."^[145] Paul also stated that he does not support such changes for current retirees or people nearing retirement.^[145]

Illegal immigration[link]

Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches.^[146] He opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.^[147] Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," to conclude whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants. If court challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.^[148]

Medical marijuana[link]

Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.^[149] In August, the Associated Press reported that Paul said he was opposed to the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes,^[150] but the Paul campaign says he was misquoted.^[149] Though Paul describes himself as a "social conservative," he was nonetheless described by the AP reporter as holding "libertarian leanings on drugs" and believing some drug sentences were too harsh.^[150]

Foreign policy and national defense[link]

Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from “about ten rogue nations.” He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.^[151]

During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.^[152] He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated."^[153]

He also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.^[154]

Same-sex marriage[link]

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide.^[129]

Second Amendment[link]

Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[155]

References[link]