Ron Paul: The truth about my student loan plan

By Ron Paul

Anytime someone dares to seriouslyaddress the major problems posed to usby a government program, many in thenews media accuse that person ofwanting to hurt citizens in a recklessmanner. Though everyone knows SocialSecurity has major solvency issues,simply trying to save the program forthose who rely on it, or finding bettersolutions for younger Americans, isportrayed as somehow attacking SocialSecurity.

Though everyone knows Medicare is rife with major difficulties, trying to protect it for thosepromised particular services by offering a different approach is portrayed as attacking Medicare.

The demagoguery makes solving our problems even harder.

My "Restore America" budget plan would eliminate five federal departments, including theDepartment of Education. But the aspect of that department that deals with student loans isn'teliminated — it's simply handled elsewhere in the budget. Yet the many headlines that came outafter my interview Sunday on Meet the Press exclaimed that I wanted to "end" or "phase out" allstudent loans. In the long term — just like Social Security for people under the age of 25 — thisis technically true. But to portray my budget plan as immediately getting rid of student loans issimply dishonest.

Transitioning to a better system

When host David Gregory asked me whether or not we should abolish federal aid for education, Ireplied: "Eventually, but my program doesn't do it; there's a transition in this." To read many ofthe headlines this week concerning my budget plan and student loans, you would think there wasno transition.

The accumulated total student loan debt in this country is over $1 trillion.

Think about that for a moment.

Our entire national deficit for this year is $1.5 trillion, and the cost of college education alone istwo-thirds of our country's entire budget shortfall.

This is staggering.

When you also consider the state of the economy — that there are few jobs for graduates, that theactual quality of education our young people pay through the nose for has eroded, and thatcountless Americans are now slaves to massive debt simply for trying to get a college education— the notion that the status quo must hold is unconscionable.

Like housing and medicine, education costs went through the roof when government becameinvolved. In the last three decades, the overall inflation rate has increased more than 100%, whichmeans we basically pay double now for everything we buy. This price inflation is an inevitableconsequence of printing money out of thin air and devaluing our dollar. But compare this inflationto the rise in the cost of college tuition, which has increased almost 500% in the same amount oftime.

This is what happens when we print money out of thin air and couple it with governmentintervention in education.

When I went to school, we didn't have a federal student loan program, and I was able to work myway through college and medical school because it wasn't so expensive. What has changed? In thename of "helping" students through federal loans, the government has really hurt them in the longrun by drastically driving up the overall cost of education and forcing poor and middle classAmericans, who are just trying to better their lives, to take on unreasonable debt.

And look what that has given us. Our young people are jobless and saddled with student debtgreater than all of the credit card debt of every American combined!

What I plan to do

My budget plan cuts $1 trillion of excessive spending inyear one. This is a first major step in getting biggovernment off our backs and allowing the free marketto work.

In my budget, Social Security, Medicare, — and yes,student loans — are not cut in any way for thosecurrently receiving such services or for those who willbe in the near future. Our economy is not healthyenough, nor are most Americans in a financial positionat the moment, for any of these programs to besignificantly altered now. But perhaps after balancingour budget during my presidency, reining in thegovernment and easing the regulatory burden placed onthe taxpayers — which will result in a more robusteconomy and new jobs — the price of education andother services will decline because of more free market

competition and less government interference. Then, and only then, will we be able to addresswhether some of these programs are the best way to care for people.

I want to help our students, but I believe we will assist them the most by eventually transitioningstudent aid away from the inefficient and ineffective federal government and back to localgovernments and private market-based solutions — which simply work better.

Getting the federal government out of the way will give us better educational opportunities at abetter price. The notion that I am somehow "anti-education" is absurd.

Centralized government planning is the main cause of so many of the challenges we face, andremoving that obstacle is the primary way to ultimately fix education in the long term. The soonerwe resolve these problems the better, of course, but it is never too soon and certainly never at theexpense of Americans' best short-term interests to take serious action now.

As we close in on a $15 trillion national debt, we must start such a government-to-free-markettransition right away, and this is certainly something that can be accomplished without harmingthe average American in the process.

But constantly frightening Americans anytime someone dares to offer serious solutions is theeasiest way to make sure there is never any transition, never any real reform, and never anyrecovery.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

Ron Paul Does Not Rule Out A Third-Party Run

Ron Paul would not pledge to rule out a third-party runfor president if he did not get the Republican nod. Paulsaid he is running for the Republican nomination and tomake such an announcement now would undermine hiscurrent campaign.

Paul was discussing his candidacy with the panel on FOXNews' "Special Report."

However, Ron Paul hinted several times during theinterview that the thought is in his mind. Paul noted thatthere are more registered Independents than Republicans

or Democrats in the state of New Hampshire.

When asked if he would pledge not to run as a third candidate Paul dodged giving a directanswer. "I pledge that I have no intention of doing it," Paul said cheerfully.

"Well, you know, I have to vacillate a little bit in my life," Paul said when pressed more about his

opinion. Transcript below.

Juan Williams, FOX News: "Everybody in thistown thinks there is going to be a third-partycandidate. An independent candidate. If you don'tget the Republican nomination, could thatindependent candidate be Ron Paul?"

Ron Paul, candidate: "Look, Juan, you have torealize let's say that I was thinking about that andI said that. Then it would undermine what I'mdoing. I'm running for president. I'm doing prettywell, I'm in third. So, no, I'm running for presidentin the Republican party, I'm doing very well. Andlast time they wondered about it, but, you knowthe whole thing is, is boy the people are reallyfrustrated. You go to New Hampshire there are more independents then Republicans orDemocrats."

Williams: "But what you're saying is you are not saying that you will not run as anIndependent."

Paul: "Well, I say, is that I have no plans to do it."

Bret Baier, host: "So, how about are you big on pledges? Would you pledge here tonight thatyou would not run in a third party?"

Paul: "I pledge that I have no intention of doing it."

[laughing]

Paul: "I'm running for this Republican primary!"

Baier: "That sounds pretty political,Congressman."

[more laughing]

Paul: "Well, you know, I have to vacillate a littlebit in my life."

Charles Krauthammer: "We need a grammarian towork on that sentence."