Posted on 10/10/2009 12:38:25 PM PDT by Huck
When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
snip
Tort Reform
Representative Paul opposes federal tort reform for the same reason he opposes most federal solutions-he believes the federal approach "damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules."[76] To that end, he has voted against many tort reform measures in Congress:
◦A bill prohibiting lawsuits in federal or state courts against restaurants, food manufacturers and distributors based on claims that the food contributed to the plaintiff's obesity or weight gain[77] ◦A bill barring lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of firearms and ammunition making them liable for gun violence[78] ◦Bills limiting the liability of volunteers,[79] tool makers,[80] users of defibrillators in emergencies,[81] donators of firefighting equipment,[82] and nonprofit volunteer pilots[83] ◦A bill to limit lawsuits resulting from Year 2000 computer failures[84]
Paul recognizes the danger of runaway lawsuits and bemoans "malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business."[85] To his credit-and somewhat incongruous-Rep. Paul voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers,[86] for liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives,[87] and for a bill that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts in order to stop the pernicious practice of court shopping.[88]
Instead of traditional federal tort reform, he proposes "private contractual agreements between physicians and patients" that "enables patients to protect themselves with 'negative outcomes' insurance purchased before medical treatment."[89] In theory, Paul's solution may help alleviate the situation, but it is politically untenable. While Paul's idealism is laudable, he has not offered a viable alternative for dealing with a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses, while diminishing our international competitiveness.
this is a lengthy excerpt...more at the link.
Am I wrong in thinking Club for Growth is a respected conservative source? They basically use a strawman argument to marginalize what Paul is saying.
It seems to me he is not opposed to all except perfect solutions. He's opposed to unconstitutional solutions.
They say he offers no solution to replace federal tort reform, but haven't several states enacted their own? Isn't that the solution?
If conservative groups like Club for Growth basically find the Constitution to be a hassle, and favor imperfect (read unconstitutional) solutions that are "politically tenable", then it occurs to me we are basically screwed.
FWIW, I actually never voted for Ron Paul. I realize ad hominem will probably replace rational discussion where his name is concerned. So be it. Just wanted to demonstrate that a) federal tort reform is unconstitutional, and b) if conservatives can't abide by the constitution---and would prefer to knowingly violate it in pursuit of "politically tenable solutions" and "progress", then conservatism is nothing more than a braking mechanism on liberalism. A slower death. And that is what it is. Thanks for reading.
You make a good point.
Far too many folks have gotten used to and comfortable with the commonplace exercise of centralized Federal power.
Soviet Marshall Zhukov said, “Better is the enemy of good enough”.
Limited government—constitutional government—is an absolute lost cause. A total waste of time. In that sense, Club for Growth is right. Actually limiting federal powers to what was delegated is unrealistic, and a big hassle. He’s just an old crank. The GOP knows they aren’t serious about it. They just toss around some tax cuts (while deficit spending) and give lip service to some social conservative issues, while stoking patriotic war fervor, and that seems to get the job done.
That and moving more aggressively to police all of the quacks out there.
I looked up Ron Paul's stance on it for fun, and found that, sure enough, he opposed it.
But you've got all these talkers--Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc---all clamoring for it. I'm sure they'd never take a call questioning the constitutionality of it. That question would never make it past the screener. And so it goes. Sliding along that slippery slope. We're playing around at the margins. All the decisive battles are lost.
wondering what your thoughts on this are.
Fighting the Persian invasion into Greece was a "lost cause."
Then along came Leonidas at Thermopylae.
Revolting against the tyrannical George III of Britain was a "lost cause."
Then along came Washington (with French military support) at Yorktown.
Now, as to the present fight for limited and Constitutional government, you may be right. Closing the Pandora's box of Big Government may well indeed be a "lost cause." And there may very well be no Washington or Leonidas or even French military success today, but it is far preferable to go down fighting for what is right and proper and good than to admit defeat and surrender like a coward and a slave and a traitor.
I think so. The defense of that approach, to the extent that one has been offered, seems to be that "abuses" necessitate a federal solution.
In my own experience, I've never know anyone who got an undeserved medical settlement. I have however known several people who have suffered terribly at the hands of incompetent medical personnel.
And why aren't the "conservatives" considering loosening the restrictions on medical competition? More medical schools and less artificial scarcity. A greater emphasis on competency testing than on degrees. An expansion of the ability of pharmacists to become involved in prescribing some medications.
There are alternatives to a federal seizure of state laws.
Going down fighting is one thing. But defeat is defeat. When the games over, and the scoreboard says you lost, you can run another play if it makes you feel better, but the game's already over. The results are in. The standings have been updated. It's over.
So what to do, right? All I'm saying is the problem is much worse than it even looks. It isn't just RINOs. It isn't just the GOP. The conservative movement itself is apparantly incapable of staying within constitutional limits. I keep harping on tort reform, and "letting states sell insurance across state lines", because they are topics de jour. Conservatives from top to bottom support these measures. No one stops to question whether it's legitimate federal power.
So, that means it's the DEMs, RINOs, The GOP, conservative talk radio, Club for Growth, and anyone else you can think of that are AGAINST limited gubmint. They only like it when it suits them. So that's the situation.
I personally think America should be busted up. I hope one day it gets so bad that states start to break away, and modern Western wimps don't have the balls to do anything about it. Then at least people can start from scratch. But the American experiment is a failure. It's still a nice place to live, all things considered, but miles and miles removed from what it was supposed to be.
I must admit I am one on favor of federal Tort reform, but now I must rethink my position.
Thanks for the insight.
I’ve often imagined what life would be like if all of The Party were replaced overnight with Libertarians.
Then they and the Republicans would agree with one another on the basic premise of freedom (leave people the hell alone), and gridlock on anything wacky from either side.
If the biggest political worry were whether tort reform should be enacted at the state or federal level (rather than what new aspect of our lives the government should seize control of first, and to what degree), what a great “problem” that would be.
First, that government within the United States tends to grow because there are more factors encouraging it than discouraging it. I'll list only a few and I'm sure others can do better: 1. We have 535 employees in Congress whose full-time job is the crafting of legislation. Not one of them is rewarded for cutting, revising, or ending legislation and hence they don't do it. 2. Central government is an easy place to collect money for people whose ideas can't be funded by themselves. 3. Central government is an easy place to leverage decision into action in the widest possible scope.
Against these three broad motivators there stands what? The limitation of government should be dictated by the finite amount of funds available and the resistance of the public to being tapped for more. But it isn't, and the reason that it isn't is that the ones allocating resources are allowed to allocate more than they have - the government is permitted to run a deficit. And one upshot of "progressive" taxation is that the entire public doesn't pay taxes where it's applied - income taxes most visibly. For them government spending is largesse - what possible reason would they have for limiting it?
This does not even address the fact that power is an aphrodisiac to those who have a little and they're far more likely to desire more than less. For the noblest of purposes, of course - as Webster said, "they mean to rule wisely, but they mean to rule."
Against these factors have been posed attempts at remedies - for one, a balanced budget amendment, for another, term limits for legislators. These have been rejected, (not all of the arguments against them being illegitimate, IMHO) and at best they'd be only partial remedies anyway. For example, term limits are useless if the ones allocating the resources are not elected at all - czars, anyone? But those relatively feeble gestures were just about all there has been merely to limit the growth of government, not actually to shrink it.
To shrink it, government employees are going to have to be let go and bureaucratic organizations are going to have to be eliminated. Naturally no one in these wants to lose his job and so resist those efforts with the aid of a labor union protecting their interests.
Short a broad-based political consensus in favor of these fiercely-resisted measures we will have what we have now: a few lone figures shouting what appears to me at least to be an undeniable truth and a vast crowd nodding their heads but unwilling to sacrifice their own bit of the system in order to shrink it. Historically the power of government has tended to shift around but not to decrease unless there is some sort of radical revolution in social construction that forces it. Our own structure of government allows for such a thing (many do not) but only if enough people press for it in terms that force the vested interests to divest. And at the moment there aren't enough people doing that to overcome all the institutional resistance and innate growth tendencies.
That certainly doesn't imply we need to stop calling for government reduction. We push for system reform or we experience system collapse. But it isn't going to be either quick or easy. Just some thoughts.
The answer is in an educated Jury. The Jury has far more power than a Judge, despite what we’re lead to believe. THAT’S where we get Tort Reform, by voting not guilty if we are picked for medical malpractice lawsuit cases and encouraging others to do the same (unless, of course, the doctor truly was careless and at fault). Good topic.
Ping
I think we started out something like that. The problem is, once they get a taste for extraconstitutional gubmint, it becomes a habit. So the Republicans become the Democrats, and the Libertarians become the Republicans, etc, always moving leftward.
It's the feds putting caps on STATE court awards. It's the feds creating some sort of advisory panel. It's the feds sticking their noses where they don't belong.
It just shows you how bad off we really are. You think Limbaugh ever stopped to ask the question--is it constitutional? Hannity? Levin? Nope. They just spout the party line, egging on well-meaning but ill-informed listeners to support something that is just plain wrong.
Then I come to find out that several states have already enacted tort reform. So what's the deal?
Same goes for the other piece--letting people buy insurance across state lines. It's a clever upside down phrasing. What they really mean is force states to allow insurance that doesn't comply with their state laws.
People fall for it so easily. It sounds good. It sounds like it'll help. And since they trust the sources, they don't question it. They just assume it's kosher. It's not. Which means those voices--Limbaugh et al, are not kosher. That's how bad off we are.
It's not just RINOs. It's not just the GOP. The Dems. It's everyone.
An educated jury would be nice, but it’s about as likely as a principled freedom loving Congress. The answer is for each state to sort it out for themselves, where the trials take place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.