And he's with us this morning from Clute, Texas, Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul. Good morning congressman. The question that we have to ask this morning, you haven't won a state primary also coming off of another weekend in Louisiana. You're trailing in the delegate count. Romney has ten times the number of delegates that you do. It's obvious that you're not going to win the nomination. So when are you going to drop out? Well, so far there's not a declared winner. We have a ways to go. Yes, I am trailing, but the race isn't over. But I think the Republicans deserve at least one candidate to talk about sound money, balance budget and the free market. And the others don't talk about this. I sincerely believe we need this. I mean, the best we can do is come up, the Republican leadership comes up with a budget that's going to maybe balance a budget in 30 years. I mean, they're not taking this problem seriously. I think we're in a serious problem. I think somebody has to speak out that we need to cut spending and balance a budget and limit the amount of spending that we're doing overseas. If we don't address that, see that's taboo. You're not allowed to talk about any of the militarism overseas. And as long as you can't even talk about it, believe me, the financial problems of this country is going to get a lot worse. Congressman Paul, it would seem that you believe the longer you stay in the race, the more you're going to be able to shape the party platform. How do you know whether you're having any success? How do you know whether it's worthwhile? Because as you know, there are many people who are critical of the primary process thus far and say the GOP simply can't get its act together and unite behind a candidate who can take on President Obama. You know, I don't understand that. I mean, that's what a primary is for is to discuss the issues. I think the discussion should continue. Since nobody's really discussing the alternative to our foreign policy or our monetary policy or our financial crisis and spending, why should we quit and say, oh, okay, you know, it's getting late. We all have to get together. We have to quit debating the issues. So no, I think the debate should go on. That's what primaries are for. And it's not like this is the first time they didn't have a candidate by this time in the cycle. I mean, the Democrats didn't have one by this time last go around. It didn't happen till June. So I think that's just a lot of a lot more talk than in reality. I don't think it hurts to debate the issues. And that's what I want to do. Congressman, you haven't been attacking the front runner. Met Romney too much. Would you be interested in a role in the Romney administration as the leader of the Libertarian movement? Well, I'm glad you say too much because it is true that I have had ads on against Governor Romney. I don't think that's likely to happen. I doubt very much if he would consider it. We have cordial relations. You know, we talk to each other. And I think he's the kind of person that at least listens when I say so that we just have disagreements, you know, on the spending and the policies. I believe in a lot less government that he does. And our foreign policy and monetary policy is completely different. So I don't think that's likely to happen. So we have to wait and see what comes out of this election. Congressman, look, let's make the assumption that either Met Romney or Rick Santorum is going to win the Republican nomination between the two who's making the most sense on foreign policy and economic policy. I don't see a whole lot of difference. I see a big difference in tone. But I don't see any difference in policy. They both are very, very anxious to keep the military very active and, you know, use troops in Syria and plan on, you know, being very aggressive against Iran. I don't think that's necessary. I think that's causing more problems and leads more to war rather than peace and prosperity. And I don't think it's necessary to do that. So I don't see the policies. And even Newt has a policy that's very much the same. But tone is definitely a different tone. I think Governor Romney is more likely to be more willing to listen to his advisors. If he decides he wants to go and bomb Iran, maybe he might listen to somebody else. I'm afraid the other ones would just go do it anyway. I want to ask you, Congressman, about the historic debate at the Supreme Court this week on Obamacare. What are you expecting there? You know, I guess that's up for grabs. I suspect they're going to rule it constitutional. But that's, I mean, that's a pure guess out of the thin air. You know, the whole reason we had this Interstate Commerce Clause was not to regulate the economy. It was to deregulate it. They wanted free trade zones. They wanted to get rid of tariffs in between the states. They want to unify currency. So what they need to be talking about is deregulate insurance that we can sell insurance across state lines. That would be a proper role. But to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to monopolize and institutionalize national health care. What is a disaster? But I'm afraid, the sentiment, although this Supreme Court is slightly better than in the past, they haven't done a real good job in defending the free market and the original intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which was to deregulate, not use it as an excuse to do anything or force you to buy something. This would be a real tragedy if they rule and support this law. Congressman, the debate now in the markets, QE3. Charles Plasser of the Philadelphia Fed said right here on Inside Track just an hour ago, not at the moment, but he's still open to considering it. So for you, the question is, what would QE3, more monetary stimulus mean? Well, it just would have erode the value of the dollar and the people would suffer that much more. The middle class suffers when you inflate a currency and destroy its value. The wealth is transferred from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy. So you just continue that process. That's already what our problem is. But they could talk about QE1 and 2, whether it's going to be 3, but actually the first QE was under Greenspan when everybody recognized, well, one of the big problems we had was that he kept interest rates too low too long. So it's constant. It's the whole process that wealth is supposed to come out of the creation of monetary units out of a computer. That's a fallacy and it has failed in the past and that you can't solve the problem that it created by creating even more money. So yes, they're going to hang it out there and the markets will like it. Oh, if they announce today, they're going to have more quantitative easing. They'll say, oh, this is wonderful. But down the road is a disaster. Well, Congressman Paul, it's not just the markets that might like it. Let's look at some of the economic indicators. The economy is expected to grow in excess of 2% this year. Better in 2013, close to 3% in 2014. Core inflation, but most people look at moderate under 2% unemployment declining. What's wrong with that? Well, not too much, but it's pretty darn expensive to create trillions of dollars and get that meager growth. But the whole thing is, is those numbers on exactly accurate. If you talk about inflation, the real inflation rate is closer to 9% if you use the old CPI and you talk to the average person or the person receiving Social Security. But even Bernanke, you know, he assumes, well, we can destroy the value of the currency at 2%. What right does somebody have to take your money and give you $98 back again? But that's policy. And 2% can be 4 or 8 or 10% and they can't control it. They have no way they can control prices other than wage and price controls. And that is always a disaster. But Congressman Paul, there's no evidence of an inflation problem right now as a result of all of this policy. Well, I'll tell you what, it depends on how you define inflation. Inflation is increases supply of money and credit and sometimes it raises prices. And sometimes it might raise prices in one area and not others. So oil prices are going up. Medical care costs are going up. Education costs are going up. And food prices and many areas are going up. So to say that we don't have an inflation problem, but the inflation, the distortion of the interest rates, the manipulation of the business cycle is the real problem. It's the price fixing and the malinvestment and the increase in the debt and the problems we've had, the severe crisis that we had in OA and O9. This came from inflation. And right now they're inflating like crazy. They're keeping interest rates at 1% or less. That's inflation and that distorts the market. So you don't even know what the price of money should be. So you don't have savings. That doesn't determine interest rates. The Fed determines how you have the consequence of inflation, which is very, very severe. And this is why we're not really getting out of those recessions. So if you look at a couple of those statistics, that sounds good, but that's far from a real recovery. All right. I just want to ask you about gold here because you've brought the gold standard back into the conversation in the debate. Last week, in fact, Ben Bernanke talked about it in his lesson. Four slides on it. He says the gold standard doesn't work. If you look at history, I want to give you a chance to respond very quickly in 20 seconds. Okay. He said it didn't work. And it was flawed because they didn't always follow it, but they always had fraction reserve banking and it caused booms and bus. But the gold standard always brought them back down. I mean, just think of we were still on a pretty good gold standard in 1921, 22, 2021. And that we recovery occurred in one year. But the distortion was not because of the gold standard. It was because they didn't follow the gold standard. So gold restrains the government and you don't have debt. Deficits like we have the day of the end of the election. Okay. Ron Paul, we have to leave it there. Thanks very much.