1998 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to explain why I oppose the Conference
Report of the Parent and Student Saving
Account Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite
having been an original cosponsor, and having
been quite active in seeking support, of the
original House bill. I remain a strong supporter
of education IRAs, which are a good first step
toward restoring parental control of education
by ensuring parents can devote more of their
resources to their children’s education. However,
this bill also raises taxes on businesses
and expands federal control of education. I
cannot vote for a bill that raises taxes and increases
federal power, no matter what other
salutary provisions are in the legislation.
1998 Ron Paul 62:2
I certainly support the provision allowing
parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year to
education savings accounts without having to
pay taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands parental control of education, the key to true education reform
as well as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded
by the excessive tax burden imposed on
America’s families by Congress. Congress
then rubs salt in the wounds of America’s
hardworking, taxpaying parents by using their
tax dollars to fund an unconstitutional education
bureaucracy that all too often uses its
illegitimate authority over education to undermine
the values of these same parents!
1998 Ron Paul 62:3
I also support the provisions extending the
exclusion of funds received from qualified
state tuition programs, and excluding monies
received from an employer to pay for an employee’s
continuing education from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans
to spend more of their resources on education,
rather than hand their hard-earned
money over to the taxman.
1998 Ron Paul 62:4
Returning control over educational resources
to the American people ought to be
among Congress’ top priorities. In fact, one of
my objections to this bill is that is does not go
nearly far enough in returning education dollars
to parents. This is largely because the deposit
to an education IRA must consist of
after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRAs
would be so much more beneficial if parents
could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing contributions to be
made from pretax dollars would provide a
greater incentive for citizens to contribute to
education IRAs for others’ underprivileged children.
1998 Ron Paul 62:5
Furthermore, education IRAs are not the
most effective means of returning education
resources to the American people. A much
more effective way of promoting parental
choice in education is through education tax
credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816,
the Family Education Freedom Act, which provides
a tax credit of up to $3,000 for elementary
and secondary expenses incurred in educating
a child at public, private, parochial, or
home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get
back the money they spent on education, in
fact, large tax credits will remove large numbers
of families from the tax roles!
1998 Ron Paul 62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a
good first (albeit small) step toward restoring
parental control of education if it did not further
expand the federal control of education
and raise taxes on American businesses!
1998 Ron Paul 62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government”
(revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the
rules by which businesses are taxed on employee
vacation benefits. While I support efforts
to ensure that tax cuts do not increase
the budget deficit, the offset should come from
cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government
programs, such as foreign aid and corporate
welfare. Congress should give serious consideration
to cutting unconstitutional programs
such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod
over the rights of parents to control their children’s
education, as a means of offsetting the
revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A
less than 3% cut in the National Endowment
for the Arts budget would provide more funding
than needed for the education IRA section
of this legislation.
1998 Ron Paul 62:8
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral
nor scientific means by which to determine
which Americans are most deserving of tax
cuts. Yet, this is precisely what Congress does
when it raises taxes on some Americans to
offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting
some arbitrary means of choosing which
Americans are more deserving of tax cuts,
Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.
1998 Ron Paul 62:9
Moreover, because we have no practical
way of knowing how many Americans will take
advantage of the education IRAs, or the other
education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative
to those who will have their taxes raised
by the offset in this bill, it is quite possible that
H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has
estimated that this legislation would have increased
revenues to the Treasury by $24 million
over the next eight years!
1998 Ron Paul 62:10
It is a well-established fact that any increase
in taxes on small businesses discourages job
creation and, thus, increases unemployment! It
is hard to see how discouraging job creation
by raising taxes is consistent with the stated
goal of H.R. 2646 — helping America’s families!
1998 Ron Paul 62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes
instead of decreasing spending, it increases
the federal role in education. For example the
conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new
federal program to promote literacy, the so-called
Reading Excellence Act. This new program
bribes the states with monies illegitimately
taken from the American people, to
adapt programs to teach literacy using methods
favored by Washington-based “experts.”
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program
will move America toward a national curriculum
since it creates a federal definition of
reading, thus making compliance with federal
standards the goal of education. I ask my colleagues
how does moving further toward a national
curriculum restore parental control of
education?
1998 Ron Paul 62:12
This bill also creates a new federal program
to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher
testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these
may be valuable education reforms; however,
the federal government should not be in the
business of education engineering and using
federal funds to encourage states to adopt a
particular education program.
1998 Ron Paul 62:13
While the stealth tax increase and the new
unconstitutional programs provide significant
justification for constitutionalists to oppose this
conference report, the new taxes and spending
are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward
making the federal government a National
School Board by mandating that local schools
consider a student’s bringing a weapon to
school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.
1998 Ron Paul 62:14
The issue is not whether local schools
should use evidence of possessing a weapon
as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before
this Congress can even consider the merits of
a policy, we must consider first whether or not
the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment
to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is
forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.
1998 Ron Paul 62:15
The drafters of the United States Constitution
understood that to allow the federal government
to meddle in the governance of local
schools, much less act as a national school
board, would inevitably result in the replacement
of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education
when the decision making power is located
closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized
control over education, it weakens the
ability of parents to control, or even influence,
the educational system. If Congress was serious
about restoring parental control on education,
the last thing we would even consider
doing is imposing more federal mandates on
local schools.
1998 Ron Paul 62:16
In conclusion, although the Conference Report
of Parent and Student Savings Account
Act does take a step toward restoring parental
control of education, it also raises job-destroying
taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference
report creates new education programs,
including a new literacy program that
takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum,
as well as imposes yet another mandate on
local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution and reduces parental control
over education. Therefore, I cannot, in
good conscience, support this bill. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
instead support legislation that returns education
resources to American parents by returning
to them monies saved by deep cuts in
the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes
on other Americans.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul Chapter 62
The text of this chapter was inserted in CongressionalRecord as an extension of remarks, and was not spoken on the House floor.
1998 Ron Paul 62:4 pretax dollars perhaps should have been pre-tax dollars in both instances.
1998 Ron Paul 62:5 tax roles! probably should have been tax rolls!
1998 Ron Paul 62:15 decision making power probably should have had a hyphen: decision-making power.
Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens .... probably should have been,
Thus, when Congress centralizes control over education, it weakens ....
