U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | subsidy |
subsidy
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act H.R. 3339. This legislation would condition the continuation of farm subsidies on the maintenance of rice production. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy will continue to flow in spite of an end to production.
subsidy
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 23:2
Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to “wean” landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are “something for nothing” subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.
subsidy
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 23:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by this legislation they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers.
subsidy
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 23:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
subsidy
Foreign Subsidies
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not really quite in the free market yet.
subsidy
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:33
We are currently under review and the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States because we have given a tax break to our overseas company, and they have ruled against us and said that this tax break is a tax subsidy, language which annoys me to no end. They have given us until October 1 to get rid of that tax break for our corporations, so they are telling us, the U.S. Congress, what we have to do with tax law.
subsidy
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:10
* The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.
subsidy
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:10
* We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it. We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our exempting a small portion of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ‘subsidy.’ We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy — no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its foreign income. Most EU countries don’t tax their corporations on foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a subsidy is ridiculous.
subsidy
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with a decision to do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We have heard proponents of this FSC bill argue for tax breaks for U.S. exporters, which, of course, should be done. Those proponents, however, argue that this must be done to move the United States into compliance with a decision by the WTO tribunal. Alternatively, opponents of the bill, argue that allowing firms domiciled in the United States to keep their own earnings results in some form of subsidy to the “evil” corporations. If we were to evaluate this legislation based upon the floor debated, we would be left with the choice of abandoning U.S. sovereignty in the name of WTO compliance or denying private entities freedom from excess taxation.
subsidy
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”
subsidy
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:5
Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies.
subsidy
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:10
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big corporations.
subsidy
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:11
Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.
subsidy
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2, line 21 entitled “subsidy appropriation.” I do not believe this Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies.
subsidy
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:3
This paragraph is found in the bill which is called “foreign operations.” It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest trade, and I think that is wrong.
subsidy
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:17
Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs.
subsidy
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:2
Under HR 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90% of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.” This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that terms such as “likely insolvency,” “unreasonable economic disruption”, and “market instability” are highly subjective, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.
subsidy
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:7
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
subsidy
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:3
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy.
subsidy
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:2
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
subsidy
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
subsidy
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.
subsidy
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:7
Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! Since 1999, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, according to the latest available figures, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export- Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
subsidy
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.
subsidy
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production.
subsidy
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 45:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.
subsidy
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 45:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to nonproducers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.
subsidy
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:2
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines’ private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.
subsidy
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:4
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! From 1999-2002, the United States government provided approximately $2,172,220,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the United States’ current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals approximately $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,972,220,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!
subsidy
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:3
One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
subsidy
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:2
One of the major government privileges granted the GSE is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
subsidy
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:5
In fact, this program will do much more harm than good. MCA will hurt recipient country economies. Sending US aid money into countries that are pursuing sound economic policies will not help these economies. On the contrary, an external infusion of money to governments meeting the economic criteria will actually obscure areas where an economy is inefficient and unproductive. This assistance will slow down necessary reform by providing a hidden subsidy to unproductive sectors of the economy. We thus do no favors for the recipient country in the long term with this harmful approach.
subsidy
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production.
subsidy
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.
subsidy
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by Federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of Federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of Federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.
subsidy
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:3
This implicit promise by the government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. This is why I am offering an amendment to cut off this line of credit. I hope my colleagues join me in protecting taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble bursts.
subsidy
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 109:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It cuts off a line of credit to the Treasury. The GSEs have a line of credit of $2 billion. It is said that it is not important because they never use it. The answer really to that is if they never use it, why leave it on the books. But we do know they indirectly use it. It has been described as a subsidy, because the GSEs can go into the market and get a discount on their loan costs; therefore, they can out-compete the private sector. My amendment merely eliminates that line of credit, puts a greater burden on the marketplace to regulate the GSEs rather than depending on regulation.
subsidy
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:7
Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.” This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that “avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable economic disruption, and market instability” are highly subjective standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.
subsidy
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:3
This implicit promise by the Government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the Government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
subsidy
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:7
Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.” This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that “avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable economic disruption, and market instability” are highly subjective standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.
subsidy
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5140
29 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 2:2
Ironically, many of the same members who insisted that upper income taxpayers be denied the tax rebates are enthusiastic champions of the provisions in HR 5140 increasing the FHA loan limit to $633,500 and the GSE loan limit to $729,750. This increase in the loan limits represents a generous taxpayer subsidy to high-income homeowners.
subsidy
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
I was pleased to introduce a piece of legislation several months ago which would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only 37 Republicans and three Democrats supported my measure. Apparently, the Congress just wasn't willing to take that big of a step in ending US support of the Communist reign of terror.
subsidy
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
And, who knows, maybe next year - when I will again have the opportunity to introduce my amendment to end US subsidy of China - we will see more Members of Congress willing to stop handing the monster of Asia a $4 billion check. Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.
subsidy
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The most blatant example of the World Trade Organization undermining US sovereignty was the recent ruling rejecting US tax breaks to US companies doing business overseas. The European Union charged that the Foreign Sales Corporation program established in 1984 is now an "illegal subsidy," and the WTO appellate panel supported this position. Despite the fact that the US unfairly taxes corporations for profits earned overseas, unlike our foreign competitors, this program was meant to compensate to some degree for this unfairness built into our tax code. Nevertheless the WTO, in a ridiculous ruling, claimed that allowing a company to keep more of its own money through lower taxes is a "subsidy" -- something given at the behest of government.
subsidy
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
I focus on the Constitution when voting on trade issues. This approach leads me to always oppose trade subsidies, as there is no enumerated power that gives Congress authority to send your money abroad to help big corporations sell their products. The current system allows the most powerful interests, with the largest political lobbies, to prevail in the Congressional pork subsidy game. So the biggest corporations tend to get bigger, while smaller competitors face a very uneven playing field. This is not free trade, but rather government-mangaged trade epitomized by international bodies like NAFTA and the WTO. As noted Austrian economist Murray Rothbard explained, we don't need government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-managed trade always means political favoritism. Merit, rather than politics, should determine which companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out of the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans.
subsidy
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Last week, the WTO appellate panel ruled that U.S. tax rules exempting some corporate income earned overseas from taxation constitute an "illegal subsidy." Incredible as it seems to liberty-minded Americans, the WTO and the Europeans are now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed. It's hard to imagine a more blatant example of a loss of U.S. sovereignty. Yet there is no outcry or indignation in Congress at this naked demand that we change our laws to satisfy the rest of the world. I've yet to see one national politician or media outlet even suggest the obvious, namely that our domestic laws are simply none of the world's business.
subsidy
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
subsidy
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Consider this: Iraqis can buy gas for as little as five cents per gallon, courtesy of American taxpayers! We’re talking about imported refined gas, because Iraqi refineries are not operating. Iraqi officials, using American tax dollars, buy this fuel from the Saudis or other OPEC nations at market rates. This subsidy to Iraq cost us nearly $3 billion in 2004 alone. What kind of foreign policy justifies using your tax dollars to subsidize gas prices in an oil-rich nation, while prices skyrocket in the U.S.? We must change our priorities and focus our resources on the American people. We cannot count on using military or political influence in the Middle East to keep gas prices low.
subsidy
Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?
17 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The panelists also misused the term “tax subsidy” over and over. A true subsidy is very simple: certain individuals or businesses receive taxpayer money from the government. But the panel members clearly have accepted the thoroughly leftist idea that all income belongs to the state, and therefore the state “subsidizes” you by letting you keep some of the money you earned. This is nonsense. If the government uses tax dollars to build you a house, you have received a subsidy. Taxpayers have given you something. But if you pay less in income taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction, you have not been “subsidized” by anyone. The government has not given you something; it simply has taken less. What kind of tax reform proposals can we expect from people who can’t understand the fundamental difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?
subsidy
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates.
subsidy
Bombed if you do...
09 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Are we to think that Iran hasn't noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn't they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.