Ron Paul talks energy at Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition - video, transcript

Ron Paul fielded two questions on energy policy at the October 22, 2011 Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Presidential Forum in Des Moines, Iowa. The event was sponsored by the Iowa Energy Forum, an arm of the American Petroleum Institute sponsored America's Energy Forum.

Question #1: What is your comprehensive plan to shape your future administration’s energy policy, and please include how this vision differs from approach of the current administration.

Ron Paul: Well, my plan is we need to produce energy the same way we produce cell phones. We need to get the government out of the way. We need a lot of competition. And we need to deregulate.

I’ve been in Washington off and on for a good many years. I’ve met a lot of bureaucrats and I’ve met a lot of politicians. They don’t know anything about energy. Why should they make the plan? They have a responsibility for providing the right environment, and that is the market environment.

The point that I’m making about the cell phones. The markets, in spite of all our problems, the markets still deliver cell phones to us. Can you imagine if we gave a contract to the Department of Homeland Security to provide cell phones and they provided one company and they set the prices? It would cost a lot of money and the phones wouldn’t work.

So we don’t need a policy other than the policy of the marketplace. We need to understand property rights. We need to understand contract rights. We need to understand competition. But today – and of course the Obama administration doesn’t understand any of this, so I reject everything that they do because they interject, like putting on moratoriums and supporting regulations.

But the sooner you can get to the concepts of property rights and contracts – all of Texas energy was developed without government. When we came into the Union, we essentially had no government property. But out in the West now, where some of this oil shale and other things are, so much of it is on government owned land. We need to get this land in ownership of private property owners and then we need to get the government out of the way.

Question #2: If you could reverse one energy related policy decision from the last three years, what would it be and what would you have done differently.

Well, there isn’t one policy because the overall policy of interference, the policy that this administration has followed is intervention. He follows a whole philosophy of economic intervention, so you have to reverse the policy of Keynesian economic intervention and re-instill in the American people the concept and the understanding of how real free markets work and how money works.

So that is what needs to happen, but all the policies that result from intervention disturb the markets. And you can’t do that unless you have a lot of other things. In order to reverse that you have to deregulate across the board. You have to change the tax code. You have to have the sound money system. You have to have better trade policies. And all of these things would generate the type of energy that we need. 

Video of Ron Paul's remarks at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition (energy segment starts at 15:20):

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.