Las Vegas Sun

December 17, 2014

Currently: 50° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Paul has the recipe for true freedom

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

The final speech by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, on the House of Representatives floor about what we must do to get our country back on track was great.

Free market economics and individual liberty are solutions for having a prosperous and free country, unlike his colleagues’ ideas of more government or approaches to civil liberties that aren’t best to help citizens thrive.

Their solutions only bring us to a larger government and ultimately authoritarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world.

Paul’s libertarian principles of free markets and individuals described in his final speech should be food for thought to each person who wants true freedom in our country.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 16 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Letter writer makes an excellent point about Representative Ron Paul. Paul consistently maintained a strong 10 plus percent of the electorate during the primaries and caucuses. And his positions and opinions won favor across party lines. I had hoped that Governor Romney would have invited Ron as a speaker rather than Rand to the GOP convention. And Ron would have campaigned for Romney. It may have influenced some libertarian GOP/Democrat voters who sat the election out to vote.

    CarmineD

  2. A hundred years ago Paul and his followers would have been labeled differently - as non-violent Anarchists.

  3. "A hundred years ago Paul and his followers would have been labeled differently - as non-violent Anarchists." @Jim Weber

    And one hundred years before that, we called them the American colonists.

    CarmineD

  4. Ah yes! Who doesn't yearn for those halcyon days of 1812.

  5. Comment removed by moderator. - -

  6. I agree with about 85% of what Paul stands for. But it's the other 15% that scare me and many others.

  7. I would have preferred Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for President much rather than Mitt Romney. That is where the Republican party messed up. Will Ron Paul consider another round in 2016? Hope so!

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star

  8. Paul has put forth over 600 bills and only one has been passed to the best of my knowledge.
    His campaign manager was an ardent follower. Read what happened to that poor guy!
    http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-camp...

  9. Paul gets a nice salary, decent medical, and will get a good pension because of his years of service. It is OK for him but he doesn't want you or his campaign manager to have the same thing. Dead at 49 with $400,000 in medical bills. Go Ron!!!
    Another classic hypocrite.

  10. "Will Ron Paul consider another round in 2016? Hope so!" @Star

    Don't think so. Too old.

    CarmineD

  11. "Paul gets a nice salary, decent medical, and will get a good pension because of his years of service." @Jerry Hageman

    ""Congressman Paul has always voted against congressional pay raises, and he not does participate in the lucrative pension program," said Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman, in a statement. "Ron Paul understands that Washington has to tighten its belt just like the rest of America, which is why as president, he plans to take a salary of $39,336, which is approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."

    The "lucrative pension" is FERS [Federal Employees Retirment System]. If he were covered, he would have 15 years government service [1997 to 2012]. He's not eligible for full retirement unless and until he has 30 years service [at full retirement he would receive about half of his current salary before a 10 percent annual deduction for survivor benefits for his wife and medical coverage]. With 15 years service, he's eligible for Social Security only, if as stated, he opted out of FERS. I have no reason not to believe he opted out of FERS.

    CarmineD

  12. You mean his new campaign manager. His philosophy killed his old one. His govt. career started when he was drafted into the military in 1963. He has held various govt. jobs on and off ever since. Being a doctor and politician isn't psychically demanding work. He will probably be in the public eye till he is 90.
    Try to collect garbage or do construction work at that age.

    Getting help from the govt. with education, food and medical care doesn't make the govt authoritarian.

  13. "His govt. career started when he was drafted into the military in 1963. He has held various govt. jobs on and off ever since. " @ Jerry Hageman

    Paul was in the Air Force from 1963-1968, or 5 years. This service is probably covered by Social Security.

    "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 from 1997 to 2012."

    The first and second terms [1 year an 6 years] would have been covered by the old Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS]. Like FERS, since it is not 30 years, he is not eligible for a pension under CSRS. IF, IF, did I say IF, he transferred his CSRS service to FERS, that would give him 22 years of total government service. Still not enough to collect a pension other than Social Security. And we already know from his "Campaign Chairman" Paul opted out of FERS. So he gets notta from the Feds except SS.

    CarmineD

  14. I like that Paul actually believes what he says, and he says what he believes, even if it gets him boos at a republican primary debate.

    However, he refuses to accept the realities of globalization. Isolationist policies will not bring about prosperity. They will diminish our competitiveness as a nation.

  15. http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligi...
    Carmine...He was vested in FERS at 5 years and was eligible for pension benefits. You don't need 30 years to collect benefits. The longer you work the more you get.

    When Paul hangs up his hat he will probably have close to some type of longevity record in terms of govt. service. In addition he will have the dubious distinction of decades of service and never getting a single piece of consequential legislation passed. He is currently approaching 700 bills and all he has to show for it is a library in Texas.

    700 at bats and one base hit doesn't get you into the hall of fame.

  16. "Carmine...He was vested in FERS at 5 years and was eligible for pension benefits. You don't need 30 years to collect benefits. The longer you work the more you get." @Gerry Hageman

    First, that assumes his Campaign Chairman is not telling the truth when he says Paul opted out of the "lucrative pension." I think he is telling the truth.

    Second, being vested in FERS does not mean a normal retirement and pension. It just means a partial payout based primarily on Social Security, if you meet SS eligibility. Under FERS, SS is one of the main components of the FERS retirement. The other 2 are the Thrift Savings Plan and FERS. Obviously, if you only have 5 years, or 15 years, or 22 years, it does not meet the requirement for a full pension with 30 years service. For every year under 30 years of the service, the FERS pension is reduced by 2 percent from the 50 percent level [full retirement level before 10 percent reduction for survivor benefits and medical coverage].

    CarmineD