Publicly, Ron Paul, that allegedly contrarian, Libertarian defender of the Constitution, despises the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). According to this 11/22/2005, Ron Paul diatribe against the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act hosted on LewRockwell.com, the FDIC is a monstrous organization that, among others things,
and, undoubtedly the worst of all in Paulite eyes,charges banks premiums, 'which are actually taxes,”transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions, to their competitors,”aggravated the S&L banking crisis of the 1980s and 1990s due to its inept management"removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to thehealth of their financial institution."
"lacks constitutional authority"
Given his antipathy towards FDIC, and the ease with which Ron Paul can avoid supporting this system (by simply withdraw one's money from a bank), you'd expect Ron Paul to have no contact with the FDIC banking system, right? Wrong. Like most things government, Ron Paul is content to spit out platitudes about the evils of government, while mindlessly gorging on the benefits and goodies it gives out. As shown by Ron Paul's 2010 Presidential Campaign financial disclosure forms (h/t Opensecrets.org), Paul not only uses FDIC protection, but actively maximizes his protection by keeping the maximum amount of money covered in FDIC in one bank, and then spreading the rest out to a number of other financial institutions. As shown by the screen shot below, Ron Paul has 250,000+ in account at FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKE JACKSON and spreads out the rest of his cash to two other Lake Jackson banks, the TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION and the TEXAS GULF BANK.
Now, I am sure the Paul nuts are going to vomit forth two defenses of their beloved icon. First, they'll argue that Paul is merely getting back the money he pays into this system. This is a common Libertarian argument, one that is without merit given that there is not a Libertarian alive who tracks his use of government resources to ensure that he only uses what he paid into the pot and not a penny more.
Second, they'll offer some convoluted gibberish about how Paul is forced to do this because of the government and he has no choice. Like the banks, he has the option of not being covered by FDIC. He can keep the money at home or in an investment not covered by the government.
Christ, given that Mandela spent decades in jail to maintain his beliefs, is it too much to ask that Ron Paul incur the slightest inconvenience in order to earn his reputation as some solid, limited-government, "pro-freedom," reputation?