Ron Paul talks energy policy at Portsmouth NH Town Hall (Video)

Ron Paul laid out his plan for partially eliminating the Department of Energy while responding to a voter's question at a November 30, 2011 Town Hall style event held in Portsmouth, NH. The Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman also explained his free market approach to energy policy:

Voter: You propose to eliminate five departments. Let’s pick on one. Let’s pick on the Department of Energy. I’m not really sure what the Department of Energy really does, but how would you go about doing it?

How do you think you can accomplish it?

Would you replace it with another energy project?

Ron Paul: No – one out of five – Department of Energy – How do you go through the process? 

You go through the process by eliminating it, but you don’t eliminate every single function of the Department of Energy, because there will be some with nuclear materials and other things. That would be transferred.

The program that I’ve devised takes that into consideration.

But the question that we hear so often, and it’s a serious question, but it’s somewhat misleading. They say, “Well, what is the energy policy?”

“Who’s going to do the energy policy?”

Well, the market does the energy policy and not the government. Therefore you're not involved in trying to figure out who should get the subsidies and who should get the help, because the market would determine it.

What you want to do is get the regulations out so you don’t need a lot of regulators in the Department of Energy.

But the President would have a lot of authority to shrink the size of it. You would work with the Congress as well in making sure that some of the functions you need to take care of are transferred.

Because it’s in the Executive Branch, the President certainly does have the authority to just shrink the size of this thing and release some of the decision making to the people and talk Congress into making sure that you don’t give subsidies to corn, but not to some other substance.

They give us bad policy. They’ll subsidize corn.

But today I read, well I think it’s been known for a while, that we probably use up more hydrocarbons making corn than we do otherwise. But there was an article today that I’d never thought about and they said, “Boy if you really want to protection your…”

This guy at least was posing as a mechanical expert, he said, “Don’t ever use that ethanol, it’s really bad for your engine.”

I’ve never heard of that one. Have you heard of that? I wouldn’t be surprised.

But you know, this is like governments shouldn’t be making these decisions. I want them out of that.

You don’t need many people to do it, but you could protect some vital functions by transferring it to other – like if it had to do with nuclear waste or nuclear power, you could have the DOD take care of it. 

Ron Paul talks ethanol in Iowa

Iowans Fueled with Pride has posted a video of Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul fielding a question about ethanol at the Iowa State Fair on YouTube.

Watch the video:

Transcript of Ron Paul's comments on ethanol:

Iowans Fueled with Pride: Congressman, the recent introduction of the EPA appropriations bill would effectively ban E15…

Ron Paul: It would ban what?

Iowans Fueled with Pride: It would ban E15 ethanol gasoline. 

Ron Paul: Yeah?

Iowans Fueled with Pride: I was wondering if you would oppose that bill?

Ron Paul: I don’t want to ban anything. But I don’t want any mandates either.

I want ethanol to exist, but I don’t want to artificially boost it.

I don’t want to ban ethanol, but I want the market to determine, you know, which is the best energy.

I don’t believe much in tariffs or mandates, but I wouldn’t have banning anything.

What would that do, it would ban would ban the production of ethanol?

Iowans Fueled with Pride: Yup, the introduction of E15 gasoline, 15% blend. It would ban that. 

Ron Paul: Yeah, but I wonder. You would think the environmentalists would want that. There are some people who want to ban it?

I think the market should decide if it’s a good idea and it’s economic.

Iowans Fueled with Pride: Its Republican Congressmen from the oil states that have introduced it.

Ron Paul: Oh, they want to do that?

See, one minute they give an answer to one person, the other one has to come back and give an answer for themselves. All this stuff can be sorted out through the marketplace.

No appropriations and no mandates. If you try to apply those, everything’s voluntary and the consumer gets to decide which products will survive.

For instance, we have the ethanol from corn because of subsidies. We have tax imports as well as mandates. In Texas they could raise sugar cane like they raise sugar cane in Brazil. But we don’t allow it because we don’t give the same tax credits and things.

So you want the market to work and sort it out.

You don’t want to mandate it or prohibit it. 

Ron Paul on energy subsidies and tax credits (Video)

Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul talked his reasons for opposing energy subsidies and supporting energy tax credits in his Weekly Update for June 27, 2011. Paul also reiterated his opposition to ethanol mandates, while calling for tax credits for vehicles that run on natural gas and deregulation of the offshore drilling industry.

Transcript of Ron Paul's comments on energy:

As the economy continues in its downward spiral and talks in Congress about reducing spending have only amounted to political theater, the subject of how the tax code treats energy has become a topic of controversy. Specifically, should we subsidize, enforce mandates, or give tax credits and deductions to industries like ethanol and natural gas? Having a thriving energy market domestically is a good thing and something the government should not hinder. Not only would decreasing our dependence on foreign oil simplify our foreign policy, but it would greatly enhance our anemic economy at home.

Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy. While many people agree with that statement, there is much confusion over the difference between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions. The difference is night and day, yet so many times they are all lumped together as evil government handouts. A subsidy IS a government handout. It amounts to the government taking money from the people and giving it to a favored interest. It is the worst sort of market manipulation and it is something I can never support. This kind of government mischief is anathema to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and the free market.

By contrast, with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned. Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested. This means I will support tax credits and deductions for energy producers, farmers, homeschoolers, family child care expenditures, expenses of evacuees from disaster areas, and even adoption expenses. I’ve almost never met a tax cut, deduction, or credit I didn’t like. Any measure that keeps money in the private sector to spend, save or invest, rather than allowing the government to waste or misallocate is a win for the economy.

Inequities in the tax code dealing with tax credits should be solved by giving all participants equal treatment.

I oppose ethanol mandates because I do not think anyone should be forced to use or buy ethanol. Ethanol mandates often serve as corporate welfare for big agriculture ethanol producers. The marketplace should decide whether or not to use ethanol, and producers of ethanol have to discover if they can produce it at a price that makes good business sense. No industry should be allowed to use legislation to create a “market” for its products. The real reason ethanol mandates continue to surface in federal legislation is that agribusiness continues to have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

Furthermore, while I do not support providing federal grants to any industry, I do support the tax credits contained in the NAT Gas Act, HR 1380. These credits reduce taxes for the production or purchase of vehicles that run on American-made natural gas. These credits are not subsidies. Of course, we should repeal federal barriers to energy production and reduce taxes on all forms of energy. Therefore, I have also introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act HR 1102 which would remove governmental barriers to offshore drilling, encourage private investment in new refineries and suspend taxes on gasoline when the price at the pump reaches a certain threshold. Lowering taxes to encourage the domestic production of energy and getting government out of the way of the American energy market is not a government giveaway; it is the way it should be in a free country.