Ron Paul: 'End the fed'

Congressman Ron Paul

GLENN: We go to Ron Paul now. Ron Paul is the author of End The Fed which I have to tell you, Ron, a couple of years ago, let's say five years ago the people that were talking about the Federal Reserve were the geeks quite honestly. They were right, but they were geeks.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: And now I think most Americans, while they don't, still don't understand the Fed, they at least now something's not right here.

RON PAUL: There's no doubt about it. I think that is reflected for the supportive for at least opening up the book, not so much to decide at the moment exactly what we should do with the Fed. But 75% of the American people now say that we, as a congress, have to at least, you know, have oversight, know what they're doing, how do they create money, who gets the benefit, what's the gimmick. And this has come about mainly because of the financial crisis, and I think this is all good, that people are paying attention to the Fed and it's a very important issue.

GLENN: Ron, I haven't read the book, and I apologize. I haven't read the book yet, but do you cover in there the selling of our treasuries back to ourselves?

RON PAUL: Not directly. Indirectly I talk about that, the monetization of debt.

GLENN: Right.

RON PAUL: That is that congress has the license to spend and they don't have to be responsible, whether it's domestic or international spending, for whatever the congress wants. But, you know, there's a limited taxation, there's a limited borrowing. Taxation, the people will rebel. Borrowing, our interest rates will go high, too high. So the Fed is there to accommodate anybody who wants to spend too much and unfortunately conservatives and liberals want to spend too much.

GLENN: Right.

RON PAUL: So the Fed buys these treasury bills, but they create the money out of thin air and then the federal -- then the treasury has to pay interest on those bills.

GLENN: Can we get Ben Bernanke at all on something like when he was testifying in front of congress and they said will you, will you monetize the debt, and he said no, we will not. They have, and I have the treasury bill numbers. They have sold our debt. I think it was, what, $5 or $7 billion, something like that. They sold our debt just recently. It sold to a third party. Seven days later we purchased it back. The Fed bought it back. So while they're not directly monetizing, they are not selling it to themselves, they did suspiciously sell it to somebody to hold for five to seven days and then they just bought it back.

RON PAUL: Yeah, and that's well known. They are called repurchase agreements. It's all in the gimmickry and why they do it and when they do it. But overall they have promised when the crisis hit that they would buy up, which means monetizing $300 billion worth. And they are in the process. They are about finished with that. But when he was before the committee the last time, I brought that to his attention. I said, you are not going to monetize the debt. But then I pointed out that that very week he had bought $50 billion in one week. Last week they bought $48 billion of either housing securities or treasury debt. And I said, as soon as you use up that $300 billion that you promised you would buy, if you don't, interest rates are going to skyrocket. There's no way he's going to quit buying debt because the foreigners are buying a lot less right now.

GLENN: Right.

RON PAUL: They haven't dumped it because it's in their interest not to dump them on the markets, all the dollars, but they are buying less and the Fed is buying a lot more, and they are between a rock and a hard place. Pretty soon they're going to have to admit they are monetizing debt and it's not going to be good for the markets.

GLENN: What happens when Israel strikes Iran or Iran has the Earth rays and we know that they now have a nuclear weapon, what happens to our financial system at that point?

RON PAUL: I think the Chinese take over. If there's a real panic and oil shoots up to a couple of hundred bucks, the Chinese will dump their dollars. Chinese are maneuvering for this. The more we threaten Iran, the stronger the Chinese influence gets because they're using the dollars that they have earned from us and saved, they have a trillion, and they are starting to buy up assets in Iran and build plants and get involved in their energy. So the whole thing is back firing on us. We're getting ready to put tougher sanctions on the Iranians and that will make things that much worse. It won't help the dissidents in Iran. It's going to cost us a lot of money, and there will be a bombing and that will be a big, big event. I think it will crash the dollar is what I think it would do.

GLENN: What does America look like after a crashed dollar?

RON PAUL: Not like it looks today. We think it was bad with the financial crisis. When you have a dollar crisis, the whole thing quits functioning. The checks bounce and literally the federal government's checks bounce if you have -- if inflation goes up --

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that all of your friends in Washington then just go away?

RON PAUL: Yeah, that might be a good part of it.

GLENN: That might be a good idea! I say we crash the dollar today if that's the effect!

RON PAUL: I think we're going to have a de facto Tenth Amendment, secession. People are just going to ignore the federal government because they won't -- and there's, you know, a total loss of credibility. You know, this idea that Obama says that we're going to have all this new medical care, we're going to take care of everybody and it's not going to cost us anything and we're going to balance the budget and actually cut the deficit by giving people more services, all that does is build, you know, the lack of credibility and people just say that's not believable. But no, it will continue that way. And the checks will keep coming. People will get their Social Security checks. But like this year, even though there's been a lot of inflation that they don't admit to, there's no cost of living increases in the Social Security check. So the people who are dependent on fixed incomes or Social Security, their standard of living is going down right now and it will continue to go down. It will go down rapidly in the midst of a dollar crisis.

GLENN: John -- I mean, Congressman Paul, the media and even Patrick Kennedy said this, we heard this from two people, Muammar Gaddafi and I believe the other one was Ahmadinejad that both spoke last week and they -- we're hearing it all the time that there's going to be violence here in America, that people are targeting. Basically everyone is going to blame this on the right, any kind of violence. They are setting up any violence on those who are from the right or, you know, from the tea party movement. Are you concerned about this and what is happening in Washington where Nancy Pelosi comes out and says -- you know, she starts to cry and, you know, says that she's seen it before and we're going to see it again?

RON PAUL: I think that there will be violence. I hope we don't have to go through, you know, a very violent period of time, but that's what happens too often when the government runs out of money and runs out of wealth, the people argue over, you know, a shrinking pie and, of course, the people who have to produce are sick and tired of producing.

GLENN: But I think what they're saying is there would be -- violence would come first.

RON PAUL: I think it will come after a dollar crisis. I think you are always going to have some violence but, you know, I lived through the Sixties and I was in the military during that time, and I know the Sixties were very rough and there was a lot of violence there. I don't think next month we're going to have anything like the violence we had in the Sixties, but potentially if we do have a dollar crisis and the whole system comes unglued, then I think there's going to be a lot more violence, especially in the inner cities.

GLENN: I know I've asked you this before, and I'm really bad at time as well, and it's an unfair question because, you know, if you hit a date and then it doesn't happen, you know, then everybody's like, he was saying -- but do you have any concept sooner rather than later on dollar crash?

RON PAUL: No, and I do try to avoid picking dates. Economists don't like to pick dates. They pick trends and they know what the consequences will be but so often the debate is emotional or some event, like you mentioned the event of bombing Iran. I don't know when they will do it. I suspect they will. But if I knew next week they were going to do it, I would say that would be the big event, but --

GLENN: Well, I've talked to several people, you know, that I would say would be in the know and they said the outside date would be March. Sometime before now and March. March it's a done deal. Everything's hardened and everything's done, and the Earth is risen by then. So it's sometime between now and March that people think that --

RON PAUL: I wouldn't be that precise but I would say there's no foundation and that within the next several years something would happen which means it could happen in a month or it could happen in three or four years. But it's going to happen. You just can't do what we're doing. If that were the case, Americans would never have to work again. All we would do -- like we have been doing, we've been working less, our good jobs going overseas, we print money action we're able to buy from overseas. But if we could do that forever, none of us would have to have jobs. It would just depend on borrowing from foreigners and printing money. But eventually the world

WILSON: Give up on it. Right now it's in the interest of so many people to keep this dollar going that we haven't had to suffer the consequences yet.

GLENN: You're a doctor. How do you feel about the steps that we're taking on the swine flu?

RON PAUL: I think it's terrible. I don't think this swine flu is necessarily all that dangerous, but I do recognize some flu is. The last thing I want is central economic planning dealing with personal medical matters. So this idea that everybody might have to take a flu shot I think is atrocious. It violates the principles of liberty and it's not good medicine.

GLENN: I find it interesting that the same people that tell us that we will never stand between you and your doctor are now telling us that if your doctor says no, you don't take the swine flu, you have to take it anyway.

RON PAUL: Oh, I know. It's collectivism at its worst and it's a very personal matter. That's why I start with the basic principle that medical care is not a right and the federal government shouldn't be involved and we should work in that direction rather than saying that everybody deserves medical care and the government is going to be the director and the distributor of medical care. So those are the two opposites, and I think we continuously go in the wrong direction and we've been doing that ever since the 1960s.

GLENN: Have you been following the bacteria itself to be able -- the virus itself to be able to see that it is -- I'm told that it is devolving, that it is actually not becoming more virulent; it's becoming less virulent. And yet that's not the impression you get from anybody.

RON PAUL: No, they scare tactic to try to frighten everybody into doing things, whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy, economic policy. They want to scare everybody into accepting the role of government as being the caretaker and to take care of us. In 1976 we had a similar thing happen. Two of us, another doctor and myself, voted against the bill to inoculate everybody. Turned out that they gave shots to millions of people, and a lot more people died from the shot than from the flu because the flu turned out to be a fizzle and wasn't much of a thing. But for political reasons, I think it was Ford at the time, wanted to grandstand and say, oh, we've got to take care of the people, everybody should be inoculated and we appropriated all this money, it wasn't good medicine; it was lousy politics.

GLENN: Ron Paul, the name of the book is End The Fed. And it is out and available everybody where.

You gave a -- you had a big day last Friday on this. What is the next event that people should be watching for on the Fed?

RON PAUL: Boy, you caught me off guard right now. I was just up into Minneapolis, we've been to Philadelphia and I've been around, but I don't have one within the next week or so. Beck okay. Thank you very much.

RON PAUL: All right. Thanks for having me on.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.