Texas Straight Talk

Texas Straight Talk, 20 December 1996 Offices will provide service to all parts of district Mobile office will increase contact with congressional staff
     It is hard to believe that, after more than eighteen months “on the campaign trail,” the swearing in ceremony is so close at hand. I look forward to serving the people of our district in the US House of Representative and hope to be as accessible as possible. In many ways, that is what this monthly column is going to be all about.
     This column will be offered not only to this newspaper, but also over the World Wide Web and through fax and e-mail . Each month this column will address various pieces of legislation and issues facing the Congress. To access the congressional web site, for now use the address http://www.tgn.net/RonPaul/. That address will change in the coming months.
     But this month I want to take the opportunity to update the district on the status of the Congressional Offices around the district.
     First, we will maintain the current offices for the interim. Those are located in San Marcos, Victoria and Brazoria County. As we settle in, the Victoria office will remain open, but the Brazoria County office will move to a site closer to Surfside. Of course, a presence will be maintained in San Marcos.
     These district offices will be able to process all inquiries and problems, whether regarding issue positions, dealings with federal agencies, problems processing benefits claims, military academy applications, or any of the multitude of other issues in working with and through the federal government.
     An innovative change, though, will come from the use of a “mobile” office. This office–a modified RV–will travel the district on a set schedule, opening for business at the smaller, more remote sections of the district to give individuals greater direct contact with the congressional staff than ever before. The mobile office will be able to process all the questions and inquiries the traditional offices handle, including helping people secure their Social Security and Veterans’ benefits. Watch your paper for more details.
     Of course, our Washington office will always be available for legislative and issues-oriented questions. That number–after January 3, 1997–will be (202) 225-2831.
     I and my staff are looking forward to working with each of you in your federal government. If at any time you have questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free to mail us at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC, 20515.
     I truly appreciate the honor you have given me, and the trust you have placed in me as your elected representative in the Congress.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 January 1997 Fiscal Responsibility Balance the budget, but don’t raise taxes or cook the books
     February of 1997 may well go down in history as one of the most important months in the history of the 20^th Century. Important because it is very likely that both Houses of the Congress of the United States will pass an amendment to the Constitution, which is significant unto itself; but this particular amendment could have an impact which reaches far into the future.
     The amendment? One to require that all budgets of the United States government be balanced. On the face of it, balancing the budget is a laudable goal. In fact, a balanced budget with the elimination of our debt is one of the steps needed to ensure a sound, stable and growing economy for the 21^st Century.
     But we must be very careful, for it is critically important that the Balanced Budget Amendment the Congress passes contains strict provisions which prohibit tax increases to accomplish the stated goal.
     Why? Consider this proposition. We could this year balance the budget very easily. Very easily, that is, if one does not mind paying double their current tax levy. And that is exactly what is required to balance our out-of-control spending. Can you afford that? I don’t believe most of us can.
     Our elected officials in the House, Senate and White House have shown absolutely no hesitancy in the past hundred years to increasing taxes for almost any reason. It is difficult to believe that these same bodies would not raise taxes under a Balanced Budget Amendment without a strict Constitutionally-enforced requirement to hold them back.
     And the worst part is that without the prohibition against tax increases, the big-spenders would be able to say, in all honesty, that it was not they who are raising taxes, but the Constitution!
     Our Founding Father, and former president, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “eternal vigilance” is the price we must pay for living in a free society. I believe he was speaking not only of watching for encroachments on our civil liberties, but our economic freedom as well. It is therefore imperative that we not allow the “hype” of amending the constitution to prevent us from addressing the very real concern that balancing the budget could come with an expanding tax rate that would place the nails in our nation’s economic coffin.
     The other concern which must be carefully addressed is preventing the Congress from simply taking items “off budget.” Already expenses like Social Security and Medicare are not stated as part of the National Debt. And it is a very easy process for the Congress to just begin moving more and more items off the budget, sidestepping a “balanced budget amendment” and causing the debt to increase. (Even without a balanced budget amendment, this practice should be abolished immediately.)
     I am committed to doing everything possible to balance the budget and cut taxes. The truth of the matter is that we will only balance the budget when we address the level of spending which takes place at the federal level. The US budget is ripe with targets for cuts which would hurt no one (except, of course, those who get rich and powerful from the big government programs). If the politicians in both parties were serious about balancing the budget–without cooking the books or increasing our taxes–they could do so right now by making cuts in the unconstitutional programs they continue to fund year after year. The only way to get our fiscal house in order is for Congress to exercise its responsibility and begin making the relatively simple choices about which programs are necessary for running our constitutional government, and which simply have no business operating at the federal level.
     Of course, we want this amendment to take place immediately, not in some pie-in-the-sky future year, when none of the current elected officials will likely be around to actually implement the changes.
     When the roll is called for House votes on the Balanced Budget Amendment, you can expect “Paul of Texas” to vote “yes” if the measure is a responsible one: achieving the necessary goal of balancing the budget by cutting wasteful, big-government programs, not by using shady accounting techniques… or by taking more hard-earned money from our pockets and our children’s future.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 February 1997 Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake With highway funds and Social Security at stake, even a simple
Balanced Budget Amendment could hurt
     Several years ago my house was broken into, vandalized and burglarized. It was a horrible experience, knowing that someone had entered my family’s home and taken those things of ours which had value to us. And then, when the criminal was caught, it was even worse because we found out he broke into homes to steal items to support his drug habit. Our valuables were not only stolen, but stolen to support a vile habit.
     While my family and I got over the incident, both emotionally and financially, we as a nation are going though a very similar experience. In Washington the politicians are now riffling through our belongings, stealing from us, and then using the ill-gotten gains for less than honorable purposes. Listen; you can hear another bag being stuffed with your money.
     But first some background.
     A number of years ago it was decided that establishing trust funds was a good way to earmark money for specific projects. These trust accounts would be paid into by those who use the particular service or project. For example, when a pilot fills up his plane with fuel, the tax on the fuel goes into a special trust fund. Under the law, money from the fund goes only for projects dealing with airport issues–like new runways, control towers, and radar systems. The same holds true for the canal systems, the highways, and, of course, Social Security.
     Of course, what the law states, and what really happens are two different things. And that is how the thief has gotten in the door and begun robbing us.
     Some politicians realized that there is a lot of money sitting in those accounts–more than hundreds of billions of dollars, in fact. And the same politicians realized the federal deficit was growing by even larger sums of money thanks to unconstitutional spending at home, nation-building abroad, corporate welfare for big political donors, and pork projects.
     So they started taking the money from the trust funds and replaced them with what are essentially “IOUs” from the government. Now, this is referred to as using the funds to “contribute” to the “retirement of the debt.” That’s a lot like the thief saying he was stealing my wife’s belongings so she could “contribute” to his filthy habit.
     Of course, the even bigger crime is that the deficit is not being lowered and the debt is not being retired. It’s like you or me running up our credit card bill in order to pay off a loan. There’s no debt reduction, just a shell-game with taxpayer funds.
     Take the Highway Trust Fund. Last year the fund brought in close to $26 billion from gas taxes (except for President Clinton’s 4.3 cent tax increase of 1993, which goes to the general fund–a whole different discussion). The trust fund spent almost $24 billion on highway-building and related projects. The remainder? Well, according to the bean counters, it was “invested” in Treasury notes, which are now held as an “asset.” What does that really mean? It means $2 billion, which could have been used to build the new I-69 or some other highway project, went instead to “cut the federal debt.”
     The situation with the Social Security and Disability Insurance fund is even worse because the number of dollars is even larger. Close to a half-a-trillion dollars has been taken from the trust fund. Yet the politicians talk about cutting benefits.
     Recently, with all the talk of a Balanced Budget Amendment, President Clinton has been edging toward a plan to take Social Security, and possibly other programs, “off-budget.” He says he wants Social Security completely off-budget to protect the funds. A ridiculous claim! By allowing the president to off-budget Social Security or anything else, we will see those funds–and indeed our nation–quickly forced into insolvency as the money is used for more and more “non-trust” uses. It is simply unconscionable to allow the president, or a gang of big-spenders in Congress, to take items “off-budget” to artificially lower the publicized cost of government, or hide ill-advised financial fiascoes. And undoubtedly lead to more and more problems in the trust funds fulfilling their missions.
     Restoring the integrity of the trust system is of critical importance, especially if Congress passes a weak Balanced Budget Amendment. Billions of dollars are being diverted from their intended purposes (and a weak BBA could make it even worse). So when we hear that a local airport cannot get all the runways fixed this year, or when we’re told a new highway project is still sitting on the drawing board, or we have to worry about whether senior citizens’ Social Security checks will be secure, remember it is the federal government that is robbing our trust funds to pay for big-spending habits.
     It must be a top priority for this new Congress to restore the integrity of the trust system and end the practice of robbing these funds.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 March 1997 The Worst Day of the Year
     Everyone is just a little apprehensive; tense, irritable. Sleepless nights have passed and everyone is well aware of what is lurking around the proverbial corner of the calendar.
     It’s not the end of the world (though it sometimes seems that way) and it’s not a natural disaster (though sometimes the results are similar). No, what is lurking around the corner is Tax Day. April 15 is a day Americans have grown to fear. Fear because it means complicated forms, a loss of money, and the very real possibility that somewhere an IRS agent may audit every aspect of someone’s life.
     It is a very sad comment on the size of our government that we now tax and regulate (which is another form of taxation) so much that the average American now works through early July just to pay their levy. Stated a different way, the average worker spends more than half of every work day working for the government. That is unreasonable. For it means that you must work until shortly after lunch time before any money you earn actually goes to the well-being of yourself and your family.
     The Founding Fathers did not have this current state of taxation in mind when the high taxes of England drove them to rebellion and the creation of our nation.
     Right now there is little talk of doing much to cut taxes. The politicians here in Washington just don’t want to use the “political capital” to address the issue. Sure, there is a lot of talk about tinkering around the edges–and if it helps people in even a small way, I am supportive–but there is little resolve to address the real problems.
     Government has expanded far beyond the size outlined in our Constitution, and has taken on powers (which necessitate spending) without authorization. Until we address the role of government, until we can calmly address the question of “Should the federal government do the things it is now doing?”, we will never be able to adequately address the issue of taxation.
     Debates over how we collect taxes–whether by a “flat tax” or a national sales tax–are interesting, but often tend to cloud the real issue. The real debate should be over the question, “Why is government this big and spending this much money?”
     While I do not believe this debate will come soon and without major economic problems prompting it, I am not content to simply moan about the problem. I have signed on to several pieces of legislation which will, if passed, make a significant difference in the lives of everyone who pays taxes.
     The first piece of legislation is the Family Preservation Act. This legislation will repeal the Estate and Gift Taxes, which I refer to as “death taxes.” These taxes are the most despicable, for the laws assume that after you have worked hard all your life, prepared for your family’s future, that when you die the government has first claim to everything you own. Not only do they tax your productivity while you are alive, they tax your accumulated “after-tax” wealth once you have died, thereby punishing your spouse and children–it is as if the government owns your life, and has a fundamental right to all you have accomplished. The hardest people hit by these taxes are not the rich, but rather the middle-class Americans who own farms and ranches right here in the 14^th District.
     A second piece of legislation I will be supporting is the Capital Gains Reduction Act. Right now, the profit someone may make off of selling a house, trading stocks or other activities, is taxed at 28 percent or higher. This bill would cut that rate in half. Again, the people hurt most by the capital gains tax are not the wealthy, but the middle and low income families. When a parent has provided for their child’s future by investing for college, it is immoral that the government should be able to step in and take almost a third. The taxes paid on those gains could have paid for an extra semester, or more.
     A third piece of legislation I am going to be supporting may not at first glance appear to be related to tax reduction, but in fact it is intimately tied to the issue. The legislation is called the “Enumerated Powers Act,” which will require that every bill brought before the Congress must contain the exact section of the Constitution which allows for that measure’s existence. If a bill fails to include that citation, the bill will not be considered. The importance is this: If we followed the Constitution in the legislation presented, taxes would be only a fraction of their current level. By requiring that every bill brought before the Congress specifically cite the Constitution, it will at least force Members of Congress to consider exactly what it is they are doing. Right now, very few ever think about what gives them the power to regulate, spend and tax.
     As April 15 grows near, I hope that everyone looks very closely at how much money they pay to the government–either by a check written at midnight on April 14^th, or taken quietly from their paycheck each week–and then consider this question: Could the money be better used by you than the ways in which the government will use it?
     The economist Adam Smith once wrote that, “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would… assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”
     It is my contention that you are smarter than all the politicians, especially where your life and money are concerned. Right now, the best thing government can do is cut your taxes, get out of the way, and applaud as you succeed in life and prepare for your family’s future.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 April 1997 Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
     Imagine that you have taken a position contrary to the official dictates of the government in your nation. Instead of simply facing criticism from opposing political sides, you find your life turned upside-down; every aspect of your life is closely scrutinized. Without warning, your life savings are seized, your personal, private records divulged far and wide. Suddenly, how willing are you to continue holding your views?
     It sounds almost like a slice of life from the dictatorships of the world’s past or in the modern third world.
     Or is it?
     For many years the fearful power of the Internal Revenue Service has been used in just that fashion against Americans.
     It’s unfortunate enough that IRS employees–unfairly perhaps the most hated individuals in the nation–by the virtue of their jobs have to enforce tax policies which run contrary to our nation’s notion of freedom, but what is worse is that these individuals have many times been used to carry out far less appropriate agendas for elected officials and federal bureaucrats.
     This tactic has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike; neither are without the sin. We know that Richard Nixon often used the IRS–or at least the threat of the IRS–to silence groups opposed to his re-election efforts.
     In recently released White House recordings, former President Nixon made it abundantly clear that he wanted the IRS to be cracking down on groups (like “the Jews,” he said) and individuals who were contributing to the Democrats. It has recently been revealed that Mr. Nixon was planning on having the IRS investigate every member of Congress because “it worries the (expletive) out of the thieves… It really does. Even if a person isn’t a thief…”
     Likewise, it is becoming increasingly clear that President Clinton’s White House has engaged in similar tactics.
     Diverse groups, ranging from small churches in Texas to the NRA, are reporting that the threat of the IRS has been held over their heads unless they repent of their often conservative views.
     The hypocrisy is palatable: Vice President Al Gore can go to a Buddhist Temple and hold a fundraiser without an official eye being batted. President Clinton regularly invited speaks at churches, and Jesse Jackson actually makes political fundraising speeches from pulpits, yet the IRS takes no action. The unions spend millions of dollars–without any opposition–promoting liberals and bashing conservatives.
     Yet conservative groups and churches have lately come under intense scrutiny by the IRS. All of them are groups which tend to hold views opposite those of the President, Vice President and the Democrats.
     But again, this has nothing to do with partisanship. If anything, the power of the IRS has been fairly well used and abused by members of both political parties.
     While looking at the countless number of cases of the IRS being used as a political tool of administrations past and present may be interesting and even instructive, we should instead be focusing on what has allowed these cases to occur.
     The problem is not with the IRS agents themselves, but with the policies behind the Internal Revenue Service.
     First, under the state of the law, the IRS is a tool of the Executive Branch, the presidency. The IRS must follow–almost without question–the orders of the executive.
     Second, the Internal Revenue Code is bulky, confusing and downright unintelligible: an individual of the absolute best intentions can violate major sections of the code without realizing it. The code itself makes it likely we all have violated something–we just haven’t been caught. And that is preciously what keeps so many people up late into the night worrying about–what they may have unknowingly done, and what the results may be.
     Third, under the administrative law which governs the IRS and all other federal agencies, a person found to be violating the code must prove themselves innocent, a concept which runs contrary to our judicial system in virtually every other area of law. This has the real effect of forcing individuals to passively submit to the agency’s decrees not because the individual believes they did anything wrong, but simply because they do not have the resources to prove their innocence.
     Taken individually, all three are bad. But when added together, the IRS becomes a recipe for disaster. Or worse.
     The answer is not to simply revise the code, or to make the IRS more independent, or to have an added layer of judicial review, the answer is to fundamentally change the way we collect taxes in this nation. The nonsensical body of law which governs the IRS is too far removed from sanity to be saved. And the graduated income tax system is neither fair, economically sound, moral nor useful.
     In my mind, the jury is still out on whether a flat tax or a national sales tax is the absolute best way to go (my main goal is for lower taxes, across-the-board), but both will go a long way toward eliminating the politically powerful weapon known as the IRS.
     We need not only a simpler, fairer system to eliminate the second problem I described, but also a smaller, more inexpensive agency responsible for collecting the taxes to solve the first. Finally, by making Congress directly responsible for the levy and collection of taxes–as constitutionally prescribed–the third problem vanishes by placing legal questions squarely in the hands of the legitimate federal court system. And best of all, Congressmen–the direct representatives of the people–become more accountable.
     There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But in fact, there is no real reason to even have an IRS.
     Like so many of the problems we see in our nation today, the heavy political hand of the IRS being used against individuals is not ultimately traceable to the employees of the federal government, but to the elected officials who have allowed unconstitutional principles and practices to take hold in our country. It is only when we restore the integrity of the Constitution, and follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, that we will see these problems corrected.
     To paraphrase Mr. Nixon, the system treats us all like thieves, even though we aren’t.
     There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But there are plenty of reasons why we should end the IRS.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 June 1997 The China Syndrome: Let’s not be hasty with a prescription
     As a physician I know that what might at first seem to be a cure for a particular ailment is really sometimes not a cure at all. In fact, going with a gut reaction to prescribe a cure can do more harm than the original problem.
     The same is true for matters of state. The initial reaction to a problem in society, or the world, will leads us to make a conclusion about a course of action. Unfortunately, that first reaction can be wrong, even though guided with the best of intentions.
     We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as “Most Favored Nations,” or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs.
     The initial reaction of our collective national psyche is to oppose MFN, to be tough, and say, “No way, no special deals for China.” But is it the best solution?
     To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a “special” status. In fact, MFN for a country simply means we will trade with that nation with no extraordinary barriers to their entering our marketplace. Free trade is not something to be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more than an attempt, albeit imperfect, at free trade.
     Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese government. But it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing what is essentially a tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the American consumer who will pay higher prices on goods which come from China due to US policy. That means higher prices on many items, but not just items which come directly from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increases, people will be forced to find replacement products. As the demand for those products increase, so will those prices.
     The second way it hurts Americans is the reciprocal barriers China will inevitably create. It will be almost impossible for our farmers and businessmen to sell their products there, which is why nearly every farmer and every agricultural group I have heard from supports MFN.
     But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN will have on the American people. Instead, they focus on the real facts that the basic rights of people the rights we as Americans declare come from God are often violated by China. And for that I defer to those who are “on the ground” in China: the missionaries.
     According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently discussed this topic on the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page, the Americans actually in China working to help the Chinese people are scared of what ending MFN might do to their efforts and the people to whom they minister. After all, ending MFN will not bring about the freedoms we hope China may confer on its people, nor will ending MFN mean more religious freedom or fewer human rights violations. In fact, those working in China to bring about positive change fear only the worst if MFN is withdrawn.
     “As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to travel freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors,” Sirico writes. Even worse, the missionaries have been reporting that “such action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in… religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious exchanges.”
     And so the critical question remains: MFN, or no MFN? Ideologically, revoking MFN is a step in the wrong direction, a step away from free trade. It is equally clear that revoking MFN is harmful to our people, and harmful to the Chinese. The ones to suffer will be the very individuals we seek to help, not the powerful elite in Beijing.
     I have long held that governments do not solve problems, and government actions often creates more problems than existed previously. It’s people who are able to bring about good change in this world, it’s people who solve problems. China is indeed a problem: for us and its people. But it is a problem we can only resolve by changing the hearts of the Chinese leaders.
     And whether we like it our not, the way we can do that is through trade with China.
     By rushing quickly for the pills of government-enforced sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure China of her evil leadership. But unfortunately, those pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution.
     It is only through the open dialogue of individuals that China will ever be convinced it is wrong. By closing the door now, when we have the opportunity to allow to grow the seeds of change which have been so firmly planted in China, we will be damning that nation’s people to a return to their darker days.
     We will lose the patient if we act hastily, and that cannot be option. It’s never an option when I have a patient on the operating table, and it cannot be an option when dealing with China.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 July 1997 Parents must have control of education
     An American statesman once said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. And thanks to the federal take-over of education, that’s a thought which should scare us all.
     After all, the federal government has so invaded our classrooms, that daily our children are constantly bombarded with the message that everything good flows from the federal government, and that no one but the federal government has the ability to put right problems in our culture and world. On any given day, the federal government has more influence on the education of the average child than that child’s parents.
     An important note should be made that the fault for the lowering standards and worsening conditions in our public schools does not rest with our teachers. In fact the contrary, I am convinced our educational system would be even further in the hole were it not for the valiant efforts of our school teachers bucking the ridiculous trends and still trying to teach their students. But there is only so much they can do as the pressures mount from Washington for schools to conform to the models developed by federal bureaucrats and university professors who have never taught in a classroom.
     The scary thing is that this will only get worse as the federal government creates more funding schemes to convince cash-strapped local school districts to give in and implement the latest plans of the Washington-based education bureaucrats, the so-called “educrats.”
     As long as we accept the notion that the federal government has some sort of “right” to control education, we will never see this trend reversed. But the good news is, more and more people are awakening to the horrible things which have occurred since the federal government began taking over our schools. Recently, more than 54 percent of the people of the 14^th District of Texas, responding to a survey my office conducted, said they wanted to see the federal Department of Education completely abolished. The people of the 14^th District–and people from around the nation–are sick of programs like the president’s “Goals 2000,” which are more about social and political correctness than education; they are tired of seeing classrooms turned into vehicle for social engineering, instead of as a place for reading and math.
     There is absolutely no authority over education given to the federal government by the Constitution, none whatsoever. Everything we see the federal government doing in education is outside the bounds set by the Constitution; not, of course, that many people any longer feel bound by the restrictions set forth in the highest law of the land.
     So the real challenge for us is determining how to rescue our school kids from the clutches of the federal education bureaucrats.
     Even though many people across the nation are tired of what they see the federal government doing in education, there are too many entrenched congressmen, senators and federal employees who are unwilling to eliminate this unconstitutional waste of tax dollars. Therefore it is unlikely we see the Department of Education abolished, as it needs to be, any time soon, nor will we see the myriad of education-related federal rules and regulations discarded.
     I am confident that day will come, for history has shown us that big, centralized government systems always collapse. But until that days arrives we cannot sacrifice our children. In order to ensure our children and grandchildren are receiving the education they need, parents must be able to consider options for their kids other than, or in addition to, the government schools. But realistically, tutoring sessions, home schooling and private schools are options far out of reach for many people, simply because of the cost.
     As such I am proud to be sponsoring legislation which will give parents an unprecedented amount of control (in recent history) over their child’s education. The legislation is called the Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816.
     This bill will provide up to $3,000 in tax credits per child, per year, for every American family. Parents will be eligible for the tax credit whether their kids are in public schools, private schools, church schools, or are home schooled. The tax credit can apply toward items such as after-school tutoring, purchasing a computer and educational software, tuition and the cost of books and materials, and almost anything else which the parents believe will enhance their child’s education.
     I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents–consulting with teachers and local administrators–to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government.
     And that is a philosophy of which we are in desperate need not just for the next generation, but also today.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 August 1997 Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America’s constitutional form of government
     While Congress is not in session for the month of August, important business does continue in Washington. Even though I’m in Texas for the month, I am intrigued by an historic event of the past week: Bill Clinton became the first US President to wield the line-item veto–a power which I believe is a major stain on the legacy of the so-called conservative revolution of the 104th Congress, two years ago.
     The Constitution makes it very clear how the legislative process is to work if we are following the law of the land. Of course, the Constitution is the law of the land, or at least it is supposed to be. According to Article 1, Section 7, of the Constitution, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives... every bill which shall have passed the House of Representative[s] and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President... if he approve[s], he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections...”
     According to the Constitution, the president must review legislation brought to him as an all-or-nothing deal. He is not free to create or change legislation passed through the two Houses of Congress. Under the Constitution, if the president doesn’t like a portion of legislation, he may freely veto the entire measure and then work to convince Members of Congress to remove or change the portion he finds objectionable. This is completely constitutional.
     But under the Constitution-circumventing power given the executive branch by Congress two years ago, a president can (at least according to legislative edict) strike single lines or portions of legislation and set the revised law into effect without the consent of Congress. If two-thirds of Congress does not object–and it is almost impossible to imagine finding two-thirds of the Congressional members who agree on anything of substance–the president’s version of the law stands. This line-item veto process is the kind of absolute power our founders sought to escape, not embrace.
     The direction this newly-created power takes us is 180-degrees off course; it is completely misguided and only further undermines the Constitution. The line-item veto consolidates too much power in the hands of the President, giving him excessive legislative power. The Constitution makes it clear that the president is only allowed to approve or disapprove entire pieces of legislation. The line-item veto opens the door for a president to do much more.
     The line-item veto gives the president a whole new way to pressure members of congress and senators. It gives the president the opportunity to lobby for his particular piece of legislation with the threat that if the member does not vote for what he wants, the president will line-item veto something important to that member.
     On April 15 of this year, I addressed the House of Representatives to oppose the line-item veto. As I told my colleagues, I was pleased to have been able to serve in Congress for four terms in the ’70s and early 80s. During that time I was lobbied on a few occasions by presidents regarded as much more conservative than the current holder of that office.
     The only time either of these presidents ever called me was when asking me to vote for more spending or taxation. Never have I experienced or heard of a president actually calling Congressmen and asking them to vote for less spending or less taxation. So I see the line-item veto as something a president can actually use to enhance or increase spending, not to reduce spending. Increasing spending and taxation was not, the stated intent behind passing the law in the first place, in fact, it was the opposite.
     Fortunately for our nation, I do not expect this issue to simply fade into the arsenal of power held by the president. One court challenge has only recently ended, with the people who brought the suit being told they had no case simply because the line-item veto had not yet be used, so no one had been injured and in need of judicial redress. The Constitution requires that an actual case or controversy exist prior to judicial consideration. This constitutional requirement will, however, be met and I will be quite surprised if those negatively affected by the president’s use of the line item veto do not challenge the process as unconstitutional.
     Sadly, though, regardless of what the courts end up saying, the mere granting of this power has shaken our constitutional heritage of separated powers. The separation of powers in our nation is the hallmark of our form of government, and one attempt by the founders to safeguard individual liberty. The Constitution, and the arrangement of power in federal government, was designed deliberately and specifically and we must respect it, or risk jeopardizing the very foundations of our nation.
     Congress acted improperly during the 104th Congress when giving this power to the presidency. Under the Constitution, it is Congress which has the responsibility to craft legislation, not this president, not a Republican president, not any president. Like the creation of administrative agencies, it is a means by which members of Congress have chosen to evade their responsibility as lawmakers and created scapegoats for the seemingly never-ending growth of liberty-oppressive government.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 August 1997 Paul’s legislation focuses on individual liberty
     Congress has not been in session during the month of August and I have absolutely enjoyed being able to spend so much time in Texas. I’ve been pleased to discuss not only what Congress as a whole has been doing but also what I specifically am working on. I have introduced eight pieces of legislation, and am cosponsoring 87 others.
     This week I will describe two of the measures I have introduced, both of which have a direct impact on the lives of us all.
     The first is HR 2029, the Selective Service Registration Privacy Act. Put succinctly, this legislation will prohibit Clinton’s Americorps program from using any Selective Service Administration resources, including draft registration information. Current law requires 18-year-old males to register with Selective Service.
     Americorps is a program which should have never come into existence, it is simply an unconstitutional government expenditure. The Americorps program has absolutely no constitutional basis, no rational economic basis, and no pragmatic basis; it is simply another program aimed at making more people dependent on government largess, at the expense of the hard-working taxpayers.
     But what we have today is not nearly as bad as what the president and his friends have indicated they hope it will become. First, the president has proposed the “Service to America Initiative’ which would allow Americorps to use Selective Service resources to promote his brand of federally subsidized, so-called ‘volunteerism’ in Americorps. To use Selective Service, ostensibly a program designed to enhance our national security, as a means to bolster President Clinton’s liberal, failing Americorps is completely ridiculous. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
     Letting Americorps get its foot in the door of the Selective Service system now is troubling by what it could portend for the future. I absolutely do not want my grandsons to be drafted into Americorps’ “national volunteer service” and be sent to distribute needles in some drug-infested urban area, or be forced to pick-up trash in the national parks, but that is exactly where this could lead; and what the social liberals want. Already the president and his cronies have warped the meaning of the word “volunteer” by instigating this program, and we see school districts around the nation requiring volunteerism or public service as a condition of graduation It is not at all unlikely that this same social-planning crew will try to mandate that all kids ‘volunteer’ with Americorps.
     HR 2029 has been sent to my committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, as well as the National Security Committee.
     While we are waiting on an opportunity to stop Americorps, we can not allow this new “back door” attempt to strengthen it to slip by us. If we do not stop these two programs from merging, I believe our attempt to end Americorps will become more and more difficult as time wears on.
     The second piece of legislation I will discuss this week is HR 1121, the Financial Freedom Act. This legislation will directly affect every American who does business with a credit union or a bank. Over the years banks and credit unions have rightly perceived that they are disparately burdened by federal regulations and taxation, and have seen any relief for their ‘competitors’ as harmful to their own business.
     However, the answer is not to increase the level of regulation or taxes on one or the other, but to instead lower the taxes and regulations on both. My legislation helps both ends of the industry by cutting government regulation and taxes on each type of institution.
     For the banks, HR 1121 ends the Community Reinvestment Act and lowers federal taxes; for the credit unions, the common and multiple membership bonds are expanded.
     But the biggest winner is the consumer, who benefits either way: with fewer regulations and lower taxes consumers will see savings in their banking costs, while the needed flexibility for credit unions will give individuals greater choices in their financial dealings as competition between institutions increases.
     The Financial Freedom Act is a step in the right direction, the direction of cutting taxes and regulations to the benefit of all Americans, regardless of where they live, how much money they make, or how they manage their finances. And while cutting taxes and regulations is always the morally and constitutionally correct position to take, this legislation has the added effect of being a direct, financially positive benefit to every American.
     The role of government is to protect life and liberty from initiations of force or fraud. By preventing government from drafting our children into a system of social engineering, and by reducing the unconstitutional barriers to financial freedom, these two pieces of legislation take a step in the direction our nation must head; the direction of individual liberty.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 September 1997 Constitution must always be considered
     Congress was in recess the entire month of August, but is returning to session this week to tackle two pieces of legislation, including an amendment I am introducing.
     The first bill to be considered will be the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 1998. Congress began work on this measure back in July, but tabled it until now to avoid some partisan wrangling. This measure includes funding for such unconstitutional programs as overseas corporate welfare for big US corporations, funding for Bosnia activities, the UN’s so-called peace-keeping missions in Sinai and Cyprus, and a wide variety of direct foreign aide packages. I introduced an amendment in July, which was voted down, to abolish some of the corporate welfare included in the measure. That amendment alone would have saved taxpayers more than $700 million dollars.
     The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also includes funding of so-called family planning and international population control activities, both of which are, in reality, back-door methods of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide. More than $385 million of US taxpayers’ money is being spent on these programs.
     It is in response to this portion of the “Foreign Ops” Act that I am introducing an amendment to be voted on this week to zero-out all taxpayer funding for international family planning activities, population control activities, and, of course, abortion services.
     In the first place, there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to take money from the taxpayer and then transfer it overseas, and there is certainly no basis–constitutional or moral–for spending taxpayers’ money in foreign countries to pay for the wholesale slaughter of children.
     The second piece of legislation to be considered this week will be the 1998 appropriations bill for the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. These departments, and their related agencies, are entirely unconstitutional, have been completely ineffective, and when one looks at their stated goals they are in fact destructive. This appropriations act will spend at least $80 billion to continue funding these departments, and the systematic attack on the constitutional principles their existence represents.
     For example, included in this appropriation is $32 billion for the Department of Education, an increase of $4 billion over last year. We need to abolish the Department of Education, not increase it’s budget. As the federal government has taken over education, we have seen academic achievement plummet and our schools become a mockery of scholarship. The Department of Education has been a favorite tool of those seeking a big-government agenda, and they are constantly working to tighten their grip on the minds of our children by forcing more and more programs on local schools, such as Goals 2000.
     My basic opposition to these appropriations, though, has really little to do with how the money is being spent. It’s almost useless to criticize how the federal government is spending the money, for that is not the real issue. For example, when we only criticize how the federal government spends money on education, we are tacitly agreeing to the philosophy of federalizing education. Instead, we need to focus on the fact that the federal government, under the enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, has no authority at all to be involved in education.
     The real issue we need to address is whether or not the federal government has the authority to do the things it does. Under our Constitution–the law of the land–it is very clearly stated what the federal government can and cannot do. So on these appropriation measures the question really isn’t one of supporting or not supporting the multitude of ostensibly “good things” they entail. The issue is whether or not we are going to follow the law, the Constitution.
     I swore an oath to uphold and follow the Constitution. It’s an oath I take seriously because when a congressman violates the Constitution and spends money on programs not authorized, a great deal of harm is done. In the first place, harm is done directly to the individual taxpayer because the fruit of his labor is wrongly taken from him. Second, harm is done by the way the money is spent, almost always violating the rights of states and the liberties of people. Finally, harm is done to our society as we hypocritically throw to the wind the notion that Congress is bound by any law. How can Congress expect individuals to follow the laws created on Capitol Hill, when Congress doesn’t follow the law as embodied in the Constitution?
     The real challenge before Congress as we come out of this August recess is not to be found in the specifics of each piece of legislation, but rather by addressing the issues before the nation in the light of the Constitution.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 September 1997 Congress to tackle Education budget this week
     Congress is back in session, having met last week and all this week, as well. For at least the next month Congress will be taking up the various appropriations measures, which are the individual pieces of legislation funding the various aspects of the federal government.
     My amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act finally came to the House floor for debate and a vote last week. My amendment would have ended the federal government’s use of our tax dollars to subsidize overseas abortions and “population control” programs, including related family planning services. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to take your money and spend it in such a manner, whether here or abroad.
     I was pleased that 146 of my fellow congressmen voted for the constitutionally and morally correct position, but our side of the issue did not have enough to win. But I’m not discouraged because we were able to change the debate and make people think about whether they wanted to vote for morality, constitutional government and less spending, or for more big spending on unconstitutional programs. Maybe next time we will have more support.
     Unfortunately, the House then overwhelmingly voted to pass the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. I voted against the measure not only because it includes the funding for population control, family planning and abortions, but also because this act called for spending more money on the so-called “peace-keeping” missions around the world. I cannot in good conscience vote to put the lives of our troops in very real danger for purposes that have nothing to do with our national defense. It’s time to end our involvement in these activities and protect and support our troops, not open them up to more and more hostility and danger for no good reason.
     This week the Congress will continue debate on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. This is perhaps, next to foreign aid, one of the easiest appropriation to vote against this “budget season.” This appropriation has absolutely no legitimate basis. None. It pumps more and more money into the tired liberal mantra of “national education standards” which have done exactly what the liberals wanted: standardized education. Unfortunately, it has standardized education down. Since the federal government and the advocates of anti-constitutional education programs began creeping into the scholastic picture, we have seen all measures of academic achievement drop.
     According to the Constitution–and common sense–education is not something for which the federal government should involve itself. Only parents know what’s best for their child’s educational needs, not federal bureaucrats. The teachers and school boards in the cities and towns of the 14^th District know the standards appropriate for their students, not congress, the president and educational bureaucrats’ unions. The way for the federal government to help improve education in our country, is to get out of the way. Those who advocate more federal involvement in education have failed our children, and failed miserably.
     Additionally, the Labor and Education Appropriations Act is easy to vote against because of it’s inclusion of continued spending for what is commonly called “Title X.” This section of the bill includes the funding for the availability of birth control devices , sex education and “services” to minors in our public schools. A large portion of the money appropriated in this act actually goes to the pro-abortion advocacy organization Planned Parenthood.
     Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, sex education or even the distribution of birth control devices to children, the real issue is that the Constitution simply does not allow Congress to spend tax dollars in this way. If we are serious about wanting to balance the budget, cut taxes and restore personal liberty, Congress does not need to pass new laws, new taxes or new spending.
     Balancing the budget, cutting taxes and restoring personal liberty is easy: Congress just needs to follow the Constitution.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 September 1997 If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
     Last week, Congress met and debated the Labor-Health-Education Appropriations legislation. That debate will continue through this week.
     During debate last week an amendment was offered to prohibit the use of federal funds to perform abortions or offer various contraceptive devices to minors, if parents are not notified. The real debate on this point is not one of the rights of children versus the rights of parents, or even the question of whether federal money being spent this way–which constitutionality it obviously should not. The real debate is to what extent strings may be attached to federal funds. If the government is going to fund an unconstitutional program which should not exist anyway, then at the very least Congress should add sensible requirements for the sake of accountability. Doctors and nurses cannot even give out even an aspirin to a child without parental consent, mainly for fear of liability. And the government should do no less. If parents want their children to have ready access to birth control devices, then the parents should pay for it. But if the government is going to force us, the taxpayers, to subsidize these programs, then at the very least we should have a reasonable expectation that we–as taxpayers–are not going to be held accountable for any problems which may result from a child being given unlimited, uncontrolled access to various items paid for by the government. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect parents to assume liability for complications resulting from actions over which they are no allowed no control.
     Unfortunately, the amendment was narrowly defeated.
     This past week also gave me the opportunity to testify about my education legislation, HR 1816. This bill gives parents the ability to take tax credits for up to $3,000 per year per child for education and education related expenses. This legislation has the benefit of imposing no cost to the taxpayers, and contains no federal “strings.” It simply means people get to keep their own money, and spend it on the educational needs appropriate to their own child, rather than sending that money off to Washington bureaucrats and their failed, one-size-fits-all approach to government.
     This week, I will be introducing two very important pieces of legislation. There has been a lot of talk around Washington and the nation about reforming our system of campaigning. Unfortunately a lot of this talk has centered around violating the Constitution, and especially the first amendment.
     The two items I will be introducing on Tuesday embrace rather than disgrace the first amendment. The first is called the Voter Freedom Act of 1997. It will prohibit states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to control federal elections, and I firmly believe that the more voices participating, the more likely it is that the entrenched, out-of-touch, Washington establishment will be swept to the side.
     Another part of this vital process is opening the debates. So the second piece of legislation I am putting forward is the Debate Freedom Act of 1997. As you probably know, candidates for president can chose to accept federal funds if they meet certain private-fundraising criteria. I believe it is completely unconstitutional for taxpayers to be forced to subsidize any candidates, and especially those with whom they disagree; but if the candidates are going to get our money, then I propose we be able to set some ground-rules to get a better range of debate on the issues. My legislation simply requires that if a candidate accepts the federal funding for his or her election, then that candidate can only participate in debates to which all candidates who qualify for federal funding–whether they take it or not–are invited to participate. This doesn’t force anyone to take taxpayer money, nor does it force them to give it up. If someone doesn’t like the strings that come with taking our money, then they don’t have to take it. But if a candidate does take the taxpayers’ money, then the candidate will either have to participate in debates open to everyone who qualifies, or be forced to give up their federal funding.
     In many ways, the bottom-line is this: if a person or group is going to voluntarily take the taxpayers’ money, then the recipient–whether a candidate running for president or a clinic handing out condoms–is going to have to be accountable and play by the rules the taxpayers set and deserve.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 September 1997 Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it
     The headlines around the nation last week served to further indicate the extent to which the Congress is truly out-of-touch with the people.
     In addition to passing the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, the Congress voted to pass the Treasury and Postal Operations Appropriations Act. This bill appropriated $1.3 billion more than the respective appropriation for the most recent fiscal year. In addition to funding the IRS at $7.6 billion, (that’s an 8% increase over last year’s funding), the bill also included 97 million dollars for the Treasury Department’s “Violent Crime Reduction Programs” despite the fact that criminal law enforcement is a matter reserved to state and local governments by the ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say, this is a bill I opposed for constitutional reasons. Additionally, I want the IRS eliminated, not given more taxpayer money with which to further harass taxpayers.
     It wasn’t, however, the IRS budget increase which caught the fancy of newspaper editors and American citizens. Rather, it was the failure by Congress to follow its recent trend of invalidating its automatic cost-of-living pay-raise increase of 2.3 percent.
     Under reforms passed by Congress in 1989, Congress was automatically given a cost-of-living adjustment, at a rate ½ of one percent below all other federal employees. Every year since 1989, Congress has voted to disallow its COLA pay increase. This year, the leadership of both parties evidently decided Congress should get this pay raise so the appropriation came to the House floor for a vote under a rule forbidding an amendment to stop the “automatic” increase could be offered. This situation further strengthened my justifications for voting against the entire measure in the first place. Congressmen currently are paid $133,600 annually with a massive, lucrative taxpayer funded pension program, in which I do not participate.
     Unfortunately for the taxpayer, many members of Congress evidently believed the IRS was deserving of even more of your money and the House passed this appropriations bill. The bill will also be considered by the Senate where there is some opposition to the de facto pay raise.
     Sadly, though, there seems to be no real opposition in the Senate to increasing the IRS budget. There is a lot of talk about IRS reform, yet Congress increases its budget while the media diverts our attention. Unfortunately we are not on the verge of true IRS reform.
     This week Congress will be considering several pieces of legislation, including HR 901, a measure I have co-sponsored. Entitled “The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act,” HR 901 takes a laudable step toward reaffirmation of the constitutional tenet that only Congress has the authority to make rules and regulations regarding federally-owned land, and not the powerful independent agencies. And now we even have to be concerned about the international government bodies like the UN.
     The federal government has no authority to erode United States sovereignty. According to the Constitution, all sovereignty, all authority, other than those delegated in the carefully delineated enumerated powers, remains vested with the people, not the federal government, and certainly not with the United Nations.
     A lot of politicians in Washington worry about the public’s perception of their performance. The politicians need to realize that only by cutting agencies like the IRS, not giving themselves sneaky pay raises, and actually passing constitutional legislation, will the public ever do more than shake their heads in disgust at the day-to-day operations of Congress.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 September 1997 Corporate welfare must be stopped; troops in Bosnia unconstitutional Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
     Last week Congress continued to consider the various appropriations bills to fund the agencies and departments of the federal government.
     Included in the bills considered by the House last week was the conference report on the Defense Department appropriation for the coming year. In addition to spending more than $5 billion more than the last fiscal year, this budget continues funding for the UN mission in Bosnia. Sure, the appropriation bill contained a sentence or two asking, in a very soft way, that our troops be pulled out by mid-1998–but even this weak request provides loopholes so that the president may continue US involvement in the UN Bosnia operation. We’ve been hearing promises of extracting our troops “in six months” for two years now, and yet American soldiers are still in the middle of a dangerous conflict in which we do not have a legitimate basis for intervening.
     It’s almost criminal that we’re spreading thin our troops around the globe, putting them dangerously in harms’ way, for no national security reasons. Our nation is made weaker by letting the UN commandeer our troops. We need to get our troops back under our command, withdraw them from these regional conflicts, and concentrate on protecting our borders and not policing the world.
     Also this past week there was an amendment to the State Department appropriation which would have cut $54 million from the payment to the United Nations, because the UN owes the US for non-reimbursed expenses. While the big government advocates won, the measure did receive 165 votes.
     I’ve started to think that if I cannot have my way and see the UN go the way of the dinosaur, then I think we need to see the UN funded completely by the voluntary contributions of individuals. And ironically, it was Ted Turner who, having made his fortunes in broadcasting, led the way this week by committing $1 billion to the anti-capitalism UN. If the UN must exist, then at the very least the American public shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the organization which is diametrically opposed to US interests at every turn.
     This week the Congress has a full plate, including legislation re-authorizing the Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im. The Ex-Im is one of the mechanisms by which politicians are able to use your tax money to subsidize the actions of big, multinational corporations. Besides being unconstitutional, the Ex-Im Bank runs contrary to free market economics. It is unreasonable that taxpayers should be forced to foot the bill for funding risky ventures by big business. The Ex-Im Bank is the welfare engine for corporate America, paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer. The supporters of Ex-Im readily admit taxpayers have subsidized more than $100 billion of big-business deals in this decade alone.
     Under existing law, if the Ex-Im Bank is not re-authorized by midnight, September 30, it will vanish. If it is re-authorized, we’ll have to continue putting up with the corporate welfare of Ex-Im until 2001. Rest assured I will be voting “no.”
     It’s time we stopped corporate welfare, and while my position is not very popular on Capitol Hill, I have been committed for many, many years to leading the charge against this immoral fraud, and I will continue to do so.
     Whether the issue is subsidizing the socialists at the United Nations and their stupid wars, or covering the tail of corporate America, the US Congress needs to stop using your federal tax money on programs and activities–no matter how well intentioned or how long they have been in effect–which are not authorized by the Constitution. Just as sending our troops to fight in the undeclared wars of the UN is unconstitutional, so is forcing you to work hard to pay taxes that go to pad the pockets of corporate America as they ships jobs overseas.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 October 1997 US shouldn’t cast stones with Religious Persecution
     For a long time I have advocated getting rid of the Export-Import Bank. It is unconstitutional for the federal government, using your money, to be subsidizing the risky business ventures of corporations. And often, these ventures involve giving large sums of money and aid to oppressive foreign governments, like China.
     So I suppose I could say I have good news and bad news this week. The good news is, the Ex-Im Bank no longer exists. The bad news is, Congress just changed its name–but the unconstitutional functions remain, despite the fact the bank is now technically out of “authorization.” According to the legislation which created the corporate welfare mechanism we know as the Ex-Im Bank, the organization had to be re-authorized by midnight, September 30. But because of partisan wrangling over who is the bigger violator of campaign finance laws, the re-authorizing legislation was not considered. So while Congress will likely vote the bank back into official existence this week, for at least a couple days we are technically without Ex-Im.
     The Congress did vote, as an amendment to the Export-Import re-authorization, to rename the organization the “United States Export Bank,” or USEX. Subsidizing big corporations is unconstitutional and violative of the laws of free-market economics, no matter what Congress calls the mechanism. Those who are addicted to corporate welfare have no need to worry; USEX will be doing the same thing as Ex-Im.
     For several weeks there has been a lot of talk about a piece of legislation entitled the “Freedom from Religious Persecution Act.” And while it is not yet coming to the floor for a vote, it is worthy of discussion at this time as some are referring to this legislation as a panacea to the problems faced by Christians and others living under totalitarian regimes. On its face, the legislation is innocuous enough; after all, who can be against stopping religious persecution? After reading the legislation as it is being proposed, I cannot help but wonder who is persecuting whom. This legislation calls for a whole new bureaucracy to be created at the White House, giving the president broad new powers to determine what is and is not persecution, and to impose sanctions against those countries he finds offending.
     The legislation cites for its justification not the Constitution, but various international agreements. It then authorizes the president to take action, without the approval of Congress, against countries he thinks are violating rights to religious freedom.
     In addition, the legislation prohibits federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting goods to citizens within countries whose governments either engage in or tolerate “religious persecution.” There is great concern from many in the religious community that these kinds of restrictions would prohibit American missionaries from taking Bibles and humanitarian items into those named countries–the opposite of what needs to occur if we seriously want to see positive changes in the nations persecuting their citizens for religious reasons. Several issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant discussion and debate, including constitutional authority and the morality of rights “swapping.”
     Religious persecution in any form is reprehensible, but especially when it takes on a violent face. It was for this reason our Founding Fathers insisted upon a Bill of Rights which prohibited our federal government from interfering with religious exercise by persons within the United States. The Constitution, however, does not provide the federal government the authority to police the world at taxpayer expense.
     Neither, of course, does the Constitution allow us to subsidize foreign governments through such taxpayer-supported entities as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, Ex-Im/USEX or any number of other vehicles through which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries (including those who engage in religious persecution). It is time we stopped both policing the world, and funding the totalitarian thugs of planet.
     As to the effectiveness of trade sanctions reforming human rights records, the trade embargo imposed on Cuba for the past thirty years serves as a good example of the lack of the effectiveness of such a policy. According to Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who recently discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries operating in offending countries actual favor economic relationships over isolation, and see engagement as the policy most likely to bring about positive change.
     While basic human rights must include free religious exercise, those rights must also include the right to associate with others. To prohibit individuals from the U.S. from meeting and trading with the individual citizens of foreign countries–in the name of “protecting” human rights–is inconsistent with the goal we all hope to achieve. It is only by changing the hearts of those nations’ leaders that religious persecution will end. And it is only by allowing our missionaries and businessmen unfettered access to those countries that we will see those leaders influenced for the better.
     Perhaps the most important flaw to this legislation is the basic presumption that the US government should be meddling in the affairs of other governments. Under our Constitution, we as individuals have the right, and I would argue even a moral obligation, to right wrongs in the world around us;, but our government, under the Constitution, has no such authority. What if England had had a law like this in place in 1993 during the Waco debacle? How would we as Americans have reacted when the British government banned all our goods from being sold in the United kingdom because of the actions of our federal government against a religious minority? We would have been outraged. Can we expect less from anyone else? I think we should be very careful about casting stones.
     It is ironic that the same federal government which killed innocent children at Waco for their parents “odd” religious beliefs, now proclaims itself ready to judge the world’s nations on their religious tolerance.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 October 1997 FDA bill was no reform Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same
     A lot of people ask me if I believe Congress has overcome the late-night, no-warning legislative maneuverings which for so long characterized both the House and the Senate. I would really like to say it has, but events of the past week prove otherwise.
     Out of nowhere last week came the stealth “Prescription Drug User Fee Re-authorization and Drug Regulatory Modernization Act.” This bill was passed not only without opportunity for responsible debate, but even without a recorded vote.
     According to its supporters, this FDA-strengthening bill was more than three years in the making–a so-called compromise between industry, the Clinton Administration, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress, we are told. Yet, despite the fact the legislation encompassed 177 pages of text, making broad changes to an administrative agency and its powers, the House leadership did not see fit to warn Members of Congress that this bill was coming to the House Floor for a vote.
     When I decided to try to draw attention to the broad-sweeping nature of the bill–and the process by which it had come up for consideration–I was told by the bill’s proponents that “there is no time available to speak about the bill.” Instead, Congress and C-SPAN viewers were treated to a “love-fest” during which each of the bill’s drafters and advocates commended one another for doing a fine job of bestowing on the American citizenry yet one more blow to liberty in favor of corporatism and internationalism.
     When a 177-page bill comes to floor with practically nothing more than one-hour notice, one can very safely assume that buried not-to-deeply in those pages are oppressive, freedom-depriving regulations about to be forced upon the citizens. And sure enough, this measure was no different.
     This now-passed FDA bill requires that the US, through various international agreements, “harmonize regulation . . . and seek appropriate reciprocal arrangements” with foreign regulatory agencies. Opponents of this harmonization language correctly argue this “internationalizing” is very likely to limit the availability of food supplements by requiring prescriptions for dispensation as is the case in certain parts of Europe. Now remember, much of what the FDA does is already an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights, now this measure allows foreign governments to usurp the rights of American consumers.
     Perhaps with such “harmonization,” we will not only have a federal war on drugs, but a federal war on riboflavin, folic acid, and bee pollen. Soon, all Americans will be safe because we will have a federal police force dedicated to ending the use of alfalfa!
     Food supplement availability may be the least of concerns among those who still revere states’ rights and acknowledge the continued existence of the tenth amendment, but one section of the legislation, “prohibits states and subdivisions from regulating food, drugs, or cosmetics . . .” The bill permits the FDA to set national standards for cosmetics but it does permit states to issue warning labels and take defective products of the shelves.
     To the dismay of medical privacy advocates, the bill goes so far as to authorize the FDA to track patients who use certain medical devices for up to 36 months, and even to conduct post-market surveillance of these patients. Just think, a formerly overweight patient may be followed by an FDA agent to make sure they don’t regain the weight a few years later.
     The bill also limits the speech of manufacturers who claim health benefits on their product labels without the “approval” of a “scientific agency of the federal government.” Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do this? Nowhere. And remember, it has been the federal government which has conducted bizarre experiments on the health of men and women in this century, but now they are going to be the ones approving medical procedures? The bill makes provisions for such “Scientific Advisory Panels,” saying they are to be made up of “persons who are qualified by training and experience… and who, to the extent feasible, possess skill in the use of, or experience in, the development, manufacture, or utilization of… drugs or biological products.” In English, this means the politically well-connected corporations which contribute to the campaigns of lawmakers will be able to fill these a panels with their corporate cheerleaders. They will be able to stifle competing innovative new products brought forward by less-politically-connected inventors; all done in the name of the federal government protecting the people.
     A bill making major changes to the Food and Drug Administration, and with such serious implications for individual liberties and for states’ ability to effectuate their constitutionally-ordained police powers, warrants something more than the stealth procedure by which this regulatory “bomb” was been brought to the house floor.
     Unfortunately, the names and faces of the leadership may have changed in Congress, but there is no reason to think the way Congress operates has really changed at all. Until we have Members of Congress dedicated to preserving liberty and following the Constitution, we can expect more of these shenanigans to occur.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 October 1997 Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats! Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same
     A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry.
     Even an “FBI” style of federal agency, limited only to being a resource for investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the federal government’s misdirected and misapplied war on drugs, the hysteria surrounding radical environmentalism, and the aggressive dictates of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the states. This buildup is the direct result of the sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local control by many Americans.
     The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats–the intruders upon liberty–to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse.
     Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, the surge in the number of armed federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new federal agents were authorized to carry firearms. This brings the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these increases were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
     According to Farah, even the Bureau of Land Management wants to be armed. Farah logically asks, “When will the (National Endowment for the Arts) have its armed art cops?” This is a dangerous, and ironic, trend. Ironic in that the proliferation of guns for bureaucrats is being so firmly–though admittedly stealthily–pushed by the same antigun politicians who publicly work to disarm every law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety. Which begs the question, “Safety for whom?”
     On one level I agree whole-heartily with the anti-gun activists. We desperately need gun control: we need to control the bureaucrats, disarm them, and then abolish their agencies. There is no constitutional basis for the EPA, and certainly no constitutional reason for allowing EPA agents to pack pistols as they declare every inch of your property a protected “wetland.”
     Force and intimidation are the preferred tools of tyrants, though not just intimidation with government guns. The threat of imprisonment and fear of harassment by government agents strikes terror into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit against the president, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for their 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current “year” for which the IRS is conducting audits of returns, the government claim that the action is unrelated to the suit is suspect, to say the least.
     Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the federal government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970’s both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment. Though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power, and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty.
     I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution’s Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk.
     A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it’s a shame our generation has ignored it
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 October 1997 By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
     Taxes took the forefront last week on Capitol Hill, as Congress again voted to increase them, while I introduced legislation to cut taxes and signed a pledge to abolish the IRS.
     A short time watching Congress makes it clear that the favorite scam on Capitol Hill is “bait-and-switch.” Last week, they baited America with meager education reform, and switched it out with a tax increase.
     For a long time I have supported getting the federal government completely out of the education system. Not only is there no constitutional role for the federal government in our schools, but we have very clear evidence that the federal government has decimated and crippled our system of academics.
     I prefer to let parents have the control in deciding what education options are best for their kids. I introduced HR1816, which will let moms and dads claim up to $3,000 per year per child in tax credits to pay for their kids education and education-related expenses.
     While my legislation is still working its way through the committee process, I signed on as an original cosponsor to a bill to let parents create special education savings accounts with tax-free interest. While this legislation was not as strong as I would have liked, I favor anything that gives parents more control over education.
     But in the process of bringing the bill to the floor, the House leadership altered the legislation, adding language which, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will increase taxes by more than a billion dollars over the next two years. The bill increases taxes by overturning a taxpayer-friendly tax court ruling on how businesses are taxed on pay-outs for employee vacation time. In short, the employer pays more taxes, the employee gets less money, and we all pay the cost in the prices at the cash register.
     When I found out about this scam, I immediately took to the House floor to decry the measure and the process. When I finished speaking, another congressman, without blinking, proclaimed that this was “not a tax increase” but rather an increase in “government revenue.” Calling a tax increase a method of increasing government revenue may be soothing to the politicians, but it does nothing to help the taxpayer who shoulder the burden no matter what it is called. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, a tax, by any other name, still costs the taxpayers their living.
     Sadly, the revised measure passed, and while there might be a few people who benefit from the barely-positive portion of the bill, Congress managed to raise taxes by over a billion dollars over the next two years. And that will hurt us all.
     While Congress was voting to increase taxes, I took it upon myself to draft and introduce legislation to repeal the Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits. Back in 1993, President Clinton and his willing allies in Congress increased the taxes senior citizens pay on Social Security benefits. Republicans correctly balked and even made repealing this measure a popular part of their 1994 Contract with America. But the repeal never got off the ground.
     So now, some four years after saddling seniors with this oppressive tax, I introduced the Social Security Beneficiaries Tax Reduction Act. My legislation very simply repeals the Clinton tax increase. The Clinton is bad in many ways, but especially when you realize that they force us to pay into the Social Security system, which the politicians mismanage, they dictate to us when we can retire and utilize those funds, and finally they tax those very benefits. It is essentially taxation on our taxes.
     But I’m not content to stop there. I want to give all Americans big tax relief by cutting taxes significantly and across-the-board. I signed a pledge this past week to vote to abolish the IRS and the income tax. Abolishing the IRS and income tax must be immediate priorities, and I am committed to slaying these two beasts. Our people and our economy need not only a much lower level of taxation, but a lower level of government spending. If we only abolish the income tax and do nothing to cut government spending, in the long run nothing will have been gained.
     While I pledge to vote to abolish the IRS and income tax at the first opportunity, I also pledge that at every step along the way, with every vote I cast, to cut government spending.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 November 1997 IRS reform is big news, but “fast-track” bill attacks the Constitution
     When Congress convenes this week, two items are sure to get a lot of attention. One represents a further blow to our constitutional government, while the second is a token, symbolic wave at the IRS.
     I strongly oppose HR 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act, also known as “fast-track.” Constitutionally, treaties are the responsibility of the President to negotiate and the Senate to ratify by a two-thirds majority. During the constitutionally proscribed process, the Senate can make changes to sections it finds offensive or improper. As such, the role of the House of Representatives in the treaty process should be a relatively meager one. They try to get around this by claiming that these “agreements” are somehow different from constitutionally described treaties; but that is only so much fast-talk. In practice, a treaty and these agreements are the same thing.
     Under “fast-track,” the president still negotiates measures with foreign governments, then, if he has declared it necessary for trade, the agreement goes before the entire Congress, both the House and Senate. However, there are strict limits on debate–and therefore opposition–and there is no opportunity for Congress to make any changes. Further, this legislation forces the trade agreements to be placed as the highest priority on Congress’ schedule.
     Fast-track is the process by which our nation was saddled with the harmful North American Free Trade Agreement. I favor the notion of removing trade barriers, and the quickening of the process by which these barriers can be eradicated. But free trade does not require massive NAFTA-like documents which impose extensive government regulatory burdens upon citizens of signatory countries. Free trade agreements should be far less complex, bilateral, and not require formation of international bodies for their enforcement.
     The second piece of legislation which is going to be making headlines this week will be HR 2292, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act.
     I think there are few issues more important than ridding our nation of the income tax and the IRS. The basic premise of the income tax is that government has first claim on everything we as individuals do, a complete contradiction to our national heritage. From that premise comes the IRS, which has been publicly unveiled as perhaps the most oppressive agency operating in our government today. The IRS can seize people’s homes, bank accounts and property, all under mere suspicion or wrong-doing, without proof. Using the complex intricacies of the tax code, the IRS can justify penalizing anyone, for anything, for it is almost impossible for anyone to be in complete and total compliance with the endless laws and bureaucratic rules.
     And so when someone comes forward with a proposal to reform and restructure the IRS, attention must be paid. I’m hopeful this legislation will be more than just symbolism, the people want real change.
     Last week a high school junior from Fayetteville, located in the center of my district, was in Washington for a youth conference. He stopped by the office and we had the opportunity to visit about his plans and questions. At one point I asked him what he thought the biggest concerns were in the minds of his parents. Without hesitation, or even a moment of thought, he responded with a single word: taxes.
     He went on to explain that even he, as a 16-year-old working at a summer job, had come to see taxes as one of the biggest problems Americans face. He said that while he was making about $6 an hour working in a machinist shop, he would be horrified when he got his paycheck and saw that more than a hundred dollars would be removed each week to pay for the multitude of federal taxes.
     When I told him that most people work half the year just to pay taxes, he wasn’t even phased. He had seen what the politicians in Washington refuse to see: government is taking too much of our money.
     Until Congress addresses the problem of how much money they are taking from us–and therefore addressing how much money the federal government is spending–any tinkering with the structure of the IRS, or adjustments to the way taxes are collected, are just window-dressing.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 November 1997 Communist China shouldn’t be financed by US Congress takes steps towards implementing Paul’s China policy
     Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way.
     Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largess of the Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US taxpayers cash into Beijing’s coffers.
     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.
     But this past week, Congress took a few, very small, baby-steps in the direction I have long advocated.
     Of the numerous measures which came before the House of Representatives late in the week, perhaps the best was one discussed and voted upon Thursday night. While it was not as strong as the measure I introduced, by passing overwhelmingly, it signals a changing attitude in Congress. Simply, the measure calls on the United States’ representatives on the World Bank and other international governmental bodies to begin voting against giving China loans and subsidies. At present, China receives more than $4 billion from those organizations, which are themselves financed heavily by the United States.
     There is no constitutional authority for the United States to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith.
     In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about the conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to go in and point a gun at the Chinese leaders, and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn’t work that way. I tend to believe that by Americans engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogues, and by seeking to change the hearts of the people of China, we will soon see that regime collapse. The laws of economics dictates that a communist system cannot stand for long. But in the same way, I firmly believe, there is a higher law which dictates that when people are exposed to the principles of liberty, they will not for long allow themselves to a shackled to an oppressive government.
     So while the Constitution does not allow the federal government to send America’s sons into battle over the living conditions in China, there is also no constitutional basis for sending our tax dollars over to support the very dictatorship we rightly despise.
     The measure passed by the House of Representatives last week is a small step toward denying the Beijing communists access to the easy money which has propped up their country for last several decades. It’s just a step, but we had to start somewhere.

     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.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 November 1997 Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead Serious debate on presidential power derided, principle of free-trade weakened
     An American wit once said that every man’s life or property is in danger when Congress is in session. If that’s true, then America is safe at least until the end of January because Congress finished its legislative business for the year last week. But all is not closed on the issue of trade.
     Besides the closure of the session, last week also saw the process known as “fast-track” derailed as it was pulled from consideration even though leaders on both sides of the political aisle–from the president and speaker of the House on down–claimed fast-track is the most important, “bi-partisan” legislation of 1997. But is fast-track dead? Hardly.
     This 25-year-old process is ingrained in the political process and will not soon disappear. The imperial presidency is alive and well as Congress continues the process of ceding power to the executive branch through such processes as the Line Item Veto, administrative law, the War Powers Act, executive orders and trade negotiations. As Congress–and especially the House–reneges on its responsibilities under the concept of separation of powers, the people suffer by loosing their most important conduit to the federal government.
     Members of Congress opposed Fast-Track for various reasons: some sensible, some less so. Serious proponents of fast-track claimed their support came from a dedication to free trade. Less serious supporters were swayed by political deals, threats and even pressure from financial supporters. This process is nothing new, but record offers were made to persuade Members of Congress to change their vote and support the fast-track authority–regardless of party affiliation. Making up the bulk of opposition to the authority were congressmen supporting the unions and the protectionists, really concerned only about their particular niches.
     And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, proponents of individual liberty and low-tariffs, positions held by a scant few. We opposed the fast-track authority for what it is: an unconstitutional shift of power designed to promote managed trade to benefit the politically connected. But the arguments of principled free-traders were cavalierly dismissed by the supporters of fast-track; thoughtful opposition is not allowed when it comes to violating the Constitution.
     In fact, those offering reasonable arguments against fast-track were often ridiculed by proponents as “hiding behind the Constitution.” Discussions of concern about damage to American sovereignty were labeled as “nutty” and derided as being tinged with “black helicopter” fever. So much for serious debate on public policy!
     There are two points of interest worth noting. First, most members of the pro-fast-track movement have, in the past promoted ceding war-making authority to the UN, used taxpayer-money to bail-out big corporations, and sent ever-increasing sums of your money overseas in foreign aid to dictators. With all that, is it any wonder there has been a populist backlash, led by the very different likes of Ralph Nadar and Pat Buchanan?
     Second, the fast-track backers claimed to be the defenders of free-trade, yet they have no history of ever promoting free market economics and sound money. Instead they prefer to manage a welfare state and use the mechanisms of the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, foreign aid, and the federal reserve system to benefit their corporate friends.
     So why the sudden rhetoric of free-trade to prop-up fast-track? Could it be that fast-track, the process which gave us NAFTA, has, in reality, nothing to do with free trade? Could it be that the real protectionists–the protectors of the big corporations–have realized that fast-track serves their interests by promoting a managed trade system that benefits the existing players at the expense of upstart competitors? Certainly. The ready willingness to grant exemptions to various industries and commodities during the negotiations suggests less than a principled effort to promote free and unhampered trade.
     Fast-track is the solution to a non-existent problem. There is no reason why free trade–if that is really the desired goal–cannot be accomplished without existing structure. Agreements can be easily drawn up between nations in a simple, efficient fashion–with Congress’ full participation. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length, it’s only when protections for various industries, bonuses for certain corporations, are added in fine print that the agreements turn into novels.
     The whole debate over fast-track, slow-track and trade barriers completely ignores a very simple reality: countries that impose high tariffs on the people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export products to them.
     The fast-track deliberation has had the effect, either by design or by consequence, to obscure the real need and processes for freedom in trade. While it is fortunate that for the many, varied reasons, fast-track was placed on the political shelf for the season, the set-back to those who would limit trade is only temporary. Expect them, and their rhetoric, to be back in full-force when Congress resumes legislative activity in 1998.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 November 1997 Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace US foreign policy is senseless, derived from propaganda and ignores fact
     In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs.
     Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.
     Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce.
     There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can’t afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region’s huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.
     The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a “cheap” war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the “price” innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers.
     During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II. Yet instability remains and hatred of America increases. Many years of experience should demonstrate that further hostilities toward Iraq benefits Hussein as his people rally more strongly around him with each increase in sanctions.
     Current American policy has fractured the weak alliance that was bought in the Persian Gulf War: Russia, France, China, Egypt and others have urged that no military force be used at all.
     According to a recent Associated Press news story, Kuwait’s leaders and citizens are opposed to US interference with Iraq; remember, this is the same nation we went to war for after Iraq invaded them six years ago. If the people most vulnerable to Iraqi aggression are not anxious to see military might used against Hussein, they are sending a strong message to us about the wisdom of using force at this time.
     A popular conservative talk show host has suggested that the solution to the dilemma might be an alliance with Iran, for the purpose of destroying Iraq. This reflects the senselessness of foreign policy in the region. In the early 1980’s, when Iraq was using poison gases against Iran, we were Iraq’s allies. In essence, we subsidized the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing.
     Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey’s policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who’s controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians.
     The main goal of American policy appears to be to kill Hussein. If there was a clear understanding of this region, one would realize that this would probably lead to more chaos, more hatred toward America, and most likely cause a greater threat of terrorism here in the United States.
     Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.
     A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 December 1997 Congress ’97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government New budget is the biggest ever for federal government spending
     With Congress’ 1997 legislative year behind us, I sat down to compile a list of the achievements of this Congress. The results were not encouraging.
     Perhaps a front-page article in the Washington Post from last week best sums up why I see the Republican Revolution has turned out to be one consisting more of style than substance.
     When I last served in Congress, more than 10 years ago, it was as a member of the Republican minority. Back then we spoke passionately about cutting taxes and ending the federal stranglehold on our schools, economy and property. When I was re-elected to the House in November 1996, I looked forward to serving in a House controlled by the party which has at least paid lip service to the important issues of cutting taxes and limiting the size of the federal government to those areas outlined by the Constitution.
     Like many Americans, of course, I have been disappointed by politicians who can talk the tax-cutting talk, but who walk the big-government walk. Perhaps a little too optimistically, I hoped 1997 would be different. I actually looked forward to being able to report to the people of the 14th District that Congress has finally come around to doing what the American people have wanted for a long time: cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting the size of government.
     But what mark has this Republican Congress of 1997 left on history? The answer was to be found very early on, just after the new Congress convened in January. The very first “domestic” action made by Congress was to raise taxes. Over the opposition of only a handful of us, Congress voted to increase taxes on the sales of airline tickets.
     If it had stopped there, maybe it would not have been so bad. But at every turn, this Congress has voted, directly or indirectly, to increase taxes. Of course, it was often sold–if mentioned at all–as “revenue generation” for government, or, as “closing a loophole.” But the bottom line is this: Americans are going to be paying more taxes this year than last year, to finance a bigger government with more unconstitutional programs.
     Has this Congress, in 1997–three years after the so-called “Conservative revolution”–done anything to cut the spending and cut the number of unconstitutional agencies? No, not a one. Perhaps it would not have been so bad if Congress only had moved to stop the growth of these agencies, if it was not going to all-out abolish them. But this Congress has increased the funding for almost all of the federal boondoggles; the pornographic National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of (mis)Education, and the bureaucrats at the EPA, all saw budget increases.
     Even worse, Congress gave more money to the IRS–the most corrupt and hated of the federal agencies–than that organization has ever received. Americans say they want to get rid of the IRS, but the Republican Congress has given the IRS money to do more of their same old tricks. In fact, the Congress gave the IRS more than $700 million over last year! Sure, there have been some gentle slaps at the agency with legislation, but nothing extraordinary.
     If that were not bad enough, Congress has seen fit to not just escalate the funding of already-existing unconstitutional programs, but to actually add new agencies and programs which serve to benefit special interests at the expense of hard-working Americans.
     Last week, the left-leaning Washington Post ran a front-page story headlined “Budget Pact’s 1st Bottom Line: A Surge in Domestic Spending.” The story details, in glowing terms, how this new budget is “the largest amount of overall government spending ever.” Ever! And remember, this was the supposed “conservative” Republican budget. The spending items brought forward by the Republican leadership and approved by the House–over my objections–was more than what even the president had asked.
     But for as discouraging as 1997 was for those of us who seek to cut taxes, cut spending and cut the unconstitutional programs, there is still reason for some optimism. We should be optimistic because for the first time in many, many years, at least the rhetoric is on our side. Even the statists, those who love government intervention, are couching their big-government ideology in quasi-constitutional phraseology.
     While having a bunch of politicians talking about cutting taxes is not the same thing as actually having that money in your wallet, it is a sign that politicians are getting the message that the American public is tired of high taxes, big spending and intervention in matters outside the federal government’s constitutional jurisdiction.
     In this battle over federal priorities, those of us fighting on the side of constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets must not give up. The fact that the 1998 budget is bigger than any before it should spur us not into retreat, but more resolutely into action. Now is not the time for us raise our hands in surrender to the big-government advocates who mouth the rhetoric of our beliefs, but rather for us to speak more forcefully, work harder, for lower spending.
     History will unfortunately record that 1997 was the year Congress passed the biggest-spending budget ever. But if we work hard and wisely, then perhaps 1998 will be recorded as the first time in history the level of federal taxes and spending actually began to shrink.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 December 1997 Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity “Command economy” stifling liberty, freedoms of American heritage
     We do not live in a free society, all the puffy rhetoric aside. In fact, it is accurate to say that we live in what economists correctly call a “command society.” But all is not lost, and there is reason for hope.
     In a free society, social and economic problems are solved through voluntary and free market solutions. Compassion is real and charity honest in a free society, where no one is compelled to assist another.
     But today, whether the problem is food for the poor, homes for the homeless, or medical care for the sick, our society endlessly calls upon government to redistribute resources contrary to the needs of the market and producers of prosperity. In fact, in government’s rush to distribute welfare, there is a total disregard for the conditions required to produce the wealth. So as they rob resources to pay for these supposedly humanitarian concerns, the government “do-gooders” not only harm those who work and save for their own families, the government hurts all of society by violating the tenets of a moral, free nation; finally, it rubs salt in the wound by crippling the very system needed to produce more wealth.
      Further, in this misdirected humanitarianism, great harm is done to the very people who are supposed to be helped by the government welfare: the direct recipients, who become trapped in a perpetual degrading dependency, and the working poor, who bear the greatest burden of taxes and inflation. In a command society, the government continuously says, “do this,” “do that,” and we must obey–“Or else,” hangs the threat.
      We are endlessly compelled to be licensed for all that we do, so as to provide government more funding for our trouble. Rules and regulations are all around us, from morning to night, cradle to grave. Government taxes life, taxes death, taxes success and taxes savings. We suffer from double and triple taxation.
      We run into government regulations, rules and paperwork everywhere we go. We cannot walk, talk, pray, or own a gun without a government sanction and permit, payable at the check-out window. We cannot drive a car without bells and buzzers and horns and belts and bags, all serving as a reminder that Big Brother is watching, just waiting for one misstep. Meanwhile, the rapists and murderers go unpunished. We are intimidated by political correctness to the point that innocent humor is a crime, and the law is laughable.
      Our businesses are subject to invasion at will by government bureaucracy without warning, to save us from ourselves, while destroying our freedoms. As the bureaucracy thrives, the command society expands.
      I see no evidence, sadly, of a reversal of this trend. We continue to tinker with the bureaucracy and talk of the benefits of block grants, yet we never are allowed to discuss in polite society the philosophic and moral principles which permit the command society to exist. In order for a command society to exist, individuals must concede to government the completely arbitrary use of force to mold personal behavior. For a command society to operate, the government’s threat and use of force–economic or physical–is essential.
      All decisions and systems of government have a distinct moral base. When we grant government the right to be charitable for us, we also grant government the right to force us to be charitable when we otherwise would not. And the use of force to compel an act of charity is, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, “sinful and tyrannical.”
      The command society is the epitome of sin and tyranny, though in our age it often hides behind the mask of compassion. We must not be fooled by the masks, and we must commit ourselves to work for freedom and liberty. In a command society, all are beaten to the lowest denominator, while in a free society all have the opportunity to soar. It is only in a free society in which the hungry are fed, the homeless housed and the illiterate educated. And it is only in a free society in which the creative are rewarded, the producers encouraged and the industrious promoted.
      Without a change in our philosophic and moral approach to government, we will find that all the adjustments, tinkering, reinventing and revamping of the “command society” will not and cannot bring us freedom. It would be easy to fall into pessimism and think all hope is lost for the nation, but that is not the case. While the politicians in Washington, DC, have accepted the “command society” point of view, the people have not. As I travel the 14th District, I am encouraged that the people are not being fooled. And as the Washington politicians start to hear the voices of those calling for liberty, there will be changes!
      After all, just as no man achieves political freedom after being forced into slavery, no nation can tax and regulate its people into prosperity and liberty. Eventually, the arguments for liberty and freedom will carry the day.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 December 1997 Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda Environmentalism has become refuge for those opposing liberty and American goals
     In blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the United States, the well-being of American families, and even reasonable science, the Clinton administration last week sounded the trumpet blast of victory in signing on with an international treaty dealing with environmental issues.
     In Kyoto, Japan, delegates from more than 150 nations gathered to set new, international guidelines for reducing the so-called “greenhouse” gases. As one might imagine, the villain in the eyes of the participants were the “greedy Americans,” and as such we will bear the brunt of the treaty’s wrath, while communist China and the world’s other oppressive regimes can pollute all they want. Those on the radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference, have been using questionable “science” to raise the fear that some environmental collapse is just around the corner unless immediate, radical action is taken.
     We’ve only been able to accurately study the levels of atmospheric gases for some 25 years. To definitively claim today’s weather patterns are the result of naturally-occurring cycles, or part of a long chain of natural events, or something man alone is creating, is unsound simply because more data is needed. In the respectable scientific community, there is considerable debate over how to interpret the global climate data. Therefore, urgings for radical action based on claims that the earth is about to boil are wrong-headed. In fact, all available evidence points to the contrary, that the temperatures are getting cooler, on average.
     To be fair, many in the environmental movement are honestly concerned about man’s impact on our land, air and water, and are sincere in wanting only to do what is right. At a basic level, we all should be concerned about those things. But sadly many in the movement are more guided by a complete, unabashed hatred of free-markets, capitalism and the American way of life, as well as a complete disregard for the well-being of their fellow man.
     Using the shrill scare-line of impending natural disaster, the world’s opponents to liberty have become the world’s radical environmentalists… And the leaders of the international environmental movement. So while science is at best uncertain about “evidence” for eminent global environmental disaster, the radical fringe has not let facts stand in their way. And so we have the Kyoto treaty as a result; after all, no political leader wants to be seen as “anti-clean air,” no matter what the science says about the provability of the environmentalists’ claims.
     Under the terms of this treaty, the US would be required to make big cuts in emissions over the next 15 years, while Communist China–the world’s biggest polluter–is not required to do a thing, nor are the hundreds of other polluting Third-World nations.
     This treaty will wreck havoc on the US economy if it becomes law. This will force many industries to close their doors here and move to China (or a similar nation) to escape the new regulations, throwing thousands of Americans out of work. Further, limiting the use of coal, gas and related sources will increase energy prices not only for businesses, but the individual consumer as well. So not only will many families be tossed into unemployment lines by these environmental radicals, but many more people will face a reduced standard of living just to heat their homes.
     Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats. Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows.
     Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an “environmental” treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command.
     Perhaps the bottom-line of this treaty is not that polluting is bad, or that we are facing a massive environmental threat. The bottom-line, apparently, is that Americans are bad, and that the notions of free-markets, individual liberty and capitalism are a threat to the radical agenda of the international liberal-left. The treaty makes it clear that anyone can pollute, as long as they are an oppressive regime, a communist dictatorship, or have the approval of the international bureaucrats, though perhaps that is redundant.
     Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources. This treaty is bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy. This treaty is nothing more than anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism, and it must be stopped.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 December 1997 Congress must bring American troops home President pledges indefinite Bosnian involvement, despite reason and Constitution
     While many Americans are observing Christmas this week, our troops in Bosnia found out last week that the present they are getting from the President is an indefinite stay in that war-torn region. Of course, taxpayers get to partake in the present; after all, we are footing the over-$7 billion bill.
     What makes this latest announcement by the president unique is that he is finally coming clean with what many, including myself, have viewed as his real objective: to keep troops in Bosnia indefinitely, despite the constitutional and moral reasons against any involvement whatsoever.
     For hundreds of years the Serbs and Croats have been fighting, trying to get the upper hand on the other. When the Communists took over the region more than 50 years ago, an artificial peace was set in place; a “peace” brought on by the heavy hand of tyranny. When the communist regime crumbled, the old enemies were allowed to once again take aim at each other, which they did with a horrific zeal.
     It was in November 1995 when President Clinton ordered US troops into the region to police it and force everyone to get along. While there was, correctly, strong opposition to this foreign imperialism in the Congress and among the people, the President moved forward, promising that at the most, the troops would remain twelve months, and not a day longer, he promised. But in a sober address, he told the American people a few months later that the troops would need to remain in place until mid-1997, and no longer.
     Like so many of his other promises, though, the promise to bring our troops back was conveniently forgotten 10 days after winning re-election in 1996. He announced the troops would have to remain in place until June 1998, more than eighteen months longer than he originally, categorically, promised.
     The mission in Bosnia has been an unqualified failure by any standard save one. If the goal is to weaken domestic defense and inspire anti-American sentiment abroad by spreading US troops around the globe in pointless missions with high risk, then the goal has been reached. But if the goal was to bring peace, it has obviously not occurred. The hatred lives on, and skirmishes are part of daily life for the people in that region.
     If the goal was to reign in the bad-guys, that has not happened simply because in a conflict hundreds of years old, there really is no way to say who is and is not “wrong” by any standard that has meaning. The Serbian leaders have committed atrocities, as have the Croatians. Can we dictate who is morally superior?
     If the goal in the region has been to promote an image of helpful-Americans to all sides, then we have failed even at that. By aligning ourselves with the Muslim/Croatian alliance, we have alienated the Serbs. Using our standard of justice, we have arrested Serbian “war criminals,” but yet almost ignored the Croatians. How can the US claim to be “keeping the peace” when our troops have been used to take-over the television and radio stations which were pro-Serb?
     US intervention is only heightening animosities between the sides, a far cry from the stated “mission.”
     This week the President declared he would keep the troops in Bosnia until there is a firm foundation for a lasting peace and no more violence. Talk about arrogance! How exactly will we do this? By force? Perhaps, for there is really no other way. But is that the proper role for our troops? Absolutely not.
     This president, like so many of his predecessors, has engaged in reckless foreign adventurism with a complete disregard for the Constitution, the philosophy which founded this nation and the security of our nation. Our founding fathers opposed imperialism in all its forms, and rejected the notion of “foreign entanglements” except when the US was directly threatened.
     To counter the threat of foreign policy being dictated by special interests, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, power to engage our nation in war. Only after a congressional declaration of war is the president authorized to place troops in battle. Yet presidents of the later half of this century have felt no need to follow the Constitution as they have sent our troops into senseless battles without congressional approval; remember Vietnam?
     Yet Congress refuses to act in opposition, for fear of being labeled the politically-deadly “anti-troop.” Sadly, it is anything but “anti-troop” to want our soldiers out of harms way when the situation does not involve us. In fact, those who put our troops in the line of fire for the sake of modern imperialism are the ones who are “anti-troop.” They are the ones who are getting our soldiers injured, maimed and killed. By removing our troops from the situation–or, better yet, not putting them there in the first place–we are protecting their lives.
     Perhaps more importantly, we could better protect the security of our nation by bringing our soldiers home. With thousands of troops in Bosnia and other “hot-spots” of civil unrest around the world, our borders are less secure, our defense less than ideal.
     Now the ball is squarely in the court of Congress, with the question being a simple one: Will we allow the President to permanently place US troops in harms way in a region where no US interests or security is threatened for the sake of playing the role of global cops? When Congress returns to session in January, we will doubtless have the opportunity to cut funding for this latest maneuver by the president. Until now Congress has merely acquiesced and let the president continue placing our soldiers in a perilous, ridiculous situation. But the time has come for Congress to act. We must reign in the president and bring our troops home before the situation deteriorates.
     American involvement in Bosnia is a dangerous policy, which defies both logic and the Constitution. Our president may be eager for a war record, but getting it at the expense of endless involvement in Bosnia is a price which must not be borne by our soldiers’ blood, or the taxpayers’ money. The time has come to end this presidential charade, to call his bluff, and prove that this Congress is pro-troop and pro-Constitution.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 December 1997 President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors Latest move done without congressional approval, gives Korea a free ride
     Using the old reliable excuse that it was in the interest of “national security,” President Clinton last week opted to obligate the money of the American taxpayers to bailout the troubled South Korean economy and the legions of wealthy investors who had made a mistake in sinking their cash into a bad market.
     Just a few weeks ago, the president and the Secretary of the Treasury announced that no taxpayer cash would go to the bailout, except as a last resort. Backing off from another promise, though, the Clinton Administration announced on Christmas Eve that it would go ahead and send almost $2 billion from the Treasury’s Emergency Stabilization Fund.
     This kind of frivolous use of taxpayers’ money is a sham. Under our Constitution, this fund should not exist in the first place, given the Article 1, Section 7, powers and restrictions on raising and spending money. Brought online by the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s, the fund was set-up to stabilize a volatile US dollar, not prop-up foreign currencies and markets. So even if this fund were constitutional–which it clearly is not–to use the money to cover the bad investments of Wall Street bankers and save the hides of Korean government officials is against the premise under which the fund was established.
     Further, the same section of the Constitution requires that Congress allocate taxpayer funds for expenditure, not the President, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Prime Minister of South Korea.
     But the stage was set for this kind of bail-out funding several years ago, during the so-called “Mexican Peso Crises.” Then, the US raided the Stabilization fund to pay-off another bad set of investments in a risky foreign economy. At least then the US was given collateral for the loan in the form of oil production revenues.
     This latest bail-out loan, however, is being given to the Korean government without so much as a cheap used car as collateral. If you or I tried going to the local bank and asked for a $1.7 billion loan without so much as presenting a trinket for collateral, we’d be laughed out the door.
     Apparently, though, if you are a nation with a bad credit problem and a history of making stupid economic decisions, you can come to Uncle Sam and get the cash without any question. Or, as apparently in this case, not even any real requirement to change your mode of behavior.
     Of course, Mexico and South Korea do have something special which makes their case easier for the politically minded controllers of the taxpayer purse-strings. Both countries had a lot of American investors wanting to cash in on lucrative deals abroad with the possibility of big payoffs. Of course, as anyone who invests knows, the bigger the potential payoff, the bigger the risk. But many investors today are eager to embrace the philosophy of free-market economics when it comes to making money and keeping their profits, but at the first sign of those investments going sour, they want the government to socialize their losses at the expense of the taxpayers.
     And since these investors have also heavily “invested” in American politics, it is easy for the politicians to use your money to help them out. After all, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money.
     This bailout policy flies in the face of sound economics, of constitutional principles, and even old-fashioned common sense. But even worse, this policy immorally exposes the taxpayers to a tremendous risk. If Korea doesn’t pay back the cash, then the only way for the government to make up the shortfall is to come knocking on your door again and reaching further into your pocket. After all, neither this president nor a majority of the Congress has any desire to cut spending to cover their improper uses of your money.
     And while $1.7 billion may not seem like a lot to the quasi-socialist nations like Korea, it represents a significant amount of money to most Americans. By giving away almost $2 billion to a foreign government at a time when we face a continually growing national debt, proposals to cut benefits to senior citizens and veterans, and an tax rate of over 50 percent, it seems our national security and well-being is weakened by this maneuver, not mystically increased as the president would have us all believe.
     But then, worrying about real national security, the risk to the taxpayers, and the viability of our own economy, is something upon which most politicians prefer not to dwell.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. He may be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington DC 20515, or on the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 5 January 1998 1998 is a new chance to change government for better Paul vows to continue working to push his popular legislation
     For many people, the dawning of a new year represents fresh opportunities. As I recently sat down to examine last year and explore the possibilities for 1998, I knew that there was only one resolution I could make in good conscience.
     Having already been blessed with a wonderful, expanding family of children and grandchildren, a beautiful wife of more than 40 years, and good health, I knew my resolution for 1998 should focus on the office with which I have been entrusted by the people of the 14th District of Texas. My focus in Congress for 1998 will be on providing an alternative to the Washington status quo, and remaining true to my Oath of Office. That Oath was administered a year ago this week and stated:
     “I, Ron Paul, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
     This Oath clearly that as a Member of Congress, I can only do those things outlined in the Constitution. And so I must “bear true allegiance” to the law of the land, and support only the special interest of constitutional government and individual liberty, not the failed ideologies of big-government, command economics and central control.
     But it is not enough–either by my Oath of Office before God, or my conscience as your employee–that I simply speak against those opposing our form government and values. Instead, I must work actively to introduce those values into the national debate and into the law books. As such, I will be spending a great deal of time arguing on behalf of passage for the legislation I have introduced.
     All too often the failed ideology of the past has been focused on taking power from people and giving it in ever growing portions to the government bureaucrats. I propose a different route, with legislation such as HR 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This measure would allow parents to take tax credits of up to $3,000 per child per year, so they can provide for their child’s education, whether that be in a public, private, church or home school environment. The future of education is found not in some form of government control, but in parental empowerment. While I will be fighting to end the stranglehold the federal government has on our schools, I have brought forward this legislation to make sure parents have the chance to provide for their kids now.
     And legislation like HR 2868, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act. This legislation would allow individuals the opportunity to decide for themselves what to believe about dietary supplements, health foods and herbs. Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years had demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers extensive regulation by the FDA, which is based more on protecting the interests of big pharmaceutical companies than sound science and good health. As a physician, I want to make sure individuals can examine the truthful claims of all sides about the positive and negative benefits of products sold over-the-counter in grocery and health food stores.
     I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government–including the President, the Congress and the courts–is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths–from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia–our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened.
     In all, I am pleased to be sponsoring more than a dozen pieces of legislation, each designed to promote the interests of individual empowerment, constitutional government and much lower taxation. Further, I will be working hard for the more than 100 pieces of legislation I have cosponsored, all of which reflect the deeply-held morals, views and attitudes of the people of the 14th District, and our Founding Fathers.
     With 1998 comes a fresh opportunity to work for the future, to work for a society which respects the principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic liberty. With this new year we have a new opportunity to usher in a future for ourselves and our children which is brighter than any previous generation has imagined.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 January 1998 Emotion should never dictate policy When liberty is sacrificed for safety, both are lost
     This past week our nation lost a decent man, in the death of Representative Sonny Bono in a snow skiing accident. By now, everyone has heard the eulogies of Mr. Bono, to which I can only add that I am very appreciative for even the brief time I had to know him.
     Despite the sorrow, we must be cautious with how we proceed. Already there is grumbling of groups wanting the government to step in and regulate snow skiing, to prevent further tragedies. Those desires are fueled by the fact that this was the second celebrity death on skis in as many weeks, the first being the death of Michael Kennedy.
     But tragedies, and the emotions which surround them, should never dictate public policy. To allow emotion to overwhelm reason, to allow sorrow to trump reasonableness, is dangerous and can only lead to bag legislation.
     Accidents happen and cannot be foreseen. That is, perhaps, the single most true statement one can make. By the very definition of an accident, it is an unforeseen, undesired incident in an otherwise routine activity. It is incumbent upon us to take precautions against accidents, whether it is driving a motor vehicle, working around the house, riding a bicycle or skiing. But how does the government “outlaw” accidents, which is what some obviously propose Congress do when they ask for legislation to “stop” accidents from happening.
     The only way to completely prevent an accident from occurring during a particular activity is to cease the activity, or to make participation in the activity so onerous, so burdensome, that the activity might as well have been banned.
     In the emotion of the moment, people often say and do reckless things. For the individual, that can have deep ramifications. But when it is a single individual acting unreasonably in the throws of emotion in the face of sorrow, then the consequences are borne by only that person and his family. But when the government behaves recklessly in response to a tragedy, the consequences can be felt by everyone. This is especially true when politicians get in on the act.
     We can think back no further than July of 1996, when a plane carrying several hundred people suddenly and mysteriously crashed off the coast of Long Island. Within days, Congress had passed emergency legislation calling for costly new security measures, including a controversial “screening” method which calls for airlines to arbitrarily detain passengers just because the person meets certain criteria which border on racist and xenophobic.
     The politicians got to feel warm inside because they had responded to a tragedy. But now, there are complaints from airline passengers as they wait in longer lines. And, of course, the real tragedy is that not a single security measure could have prevented the explosion of that plane. It was an accident.
     Benjamin Franklin once addressed this issue by saying that anyone who would “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” As we grieve an accidental death, we must make sure that in our sorrow we do not create a larger tragedy by allowing government to improperly take on powers and responsibilities it should not have, or to unnecessarily expand those that it does.
     When the government does this great harm is inevitably done in the name of “protecting” people. The scariest words in modern lexicon are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Government cannot protect us from accidents any more than it can tax us into prosperity.
     Our Constitution purposefully specifies the manner in which laws can take effect, to minimize the threat of rule by emotion of the moment. But then, our Constitution also specifically limits the powers the federal government, yet that has not stopped our federal leaders from passing laws which have no constitutional base.
     As our nation grieves the loss of a man of considerable and varied talent, let us not rush to remember him in a way which discounts the rule of law, which dishonors the notions of individual responsibility, and which ignores our system of government. It’s easy to look for a quick fix from government. But it is also very dangerous.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 January 1998 Government prescription for health is bad medicine
     No one thing is perhaps more important to the individual than their health. Our health affects literally every aspect of our lives; whether it is our jobs, our families or our recreational pursuits, our level of basic health is a determining factor in what we can and cannot do.
     But oddly, our health is perhaps the one aspect of our life over which we often have the least amount of say; a fact which should be troubling to us all, but particularly to those of us concerned about encroachments on liberty.
     As a physician, I often recommend to my patients that they never just pursue any one plan for fitness and nutrition; intelligent study, moderation and variety are, indeed, the spice of life and health. But there is an unfortunate trend toward restricting the access people have to factual information about alternatives to commonly accepted nutritional programs.
     In fact, there is a move to have the federal government regulate vitamins and minerals, to the extent that it is possible an individual could be required to have a prescription before purchasing Vitamin C. Or, if the producers of bananas continue to state, correctly I believe, that that fruit is among the healthiest things we can eat, the federal government will begin to regulate bananas as drugs. Sound crazy? Yes, it is. Once again, it is a case of the people inside the Washington beltway assuming they know better how to care for us than we do ourselves.
     Of course, it is done in the name of protecting people from… whatever; pick the horror of the day. But it undermines the basic, commonsense notion that people have a greater stake in providing for their own health and well-being than some bureaucrat living a thousand miles away. It also points to the ever growing disconnect between corporate concerns for the bottomline, and the desires of the individual.
     I will never make the case against the great scientific and technological advances we have made in fighting cancer and the ravages of age. But those methods are not always the most effective in a particular circumstance, and there is a great deal of scientific proof–growing daily–that following various regimes of nutrition and exercise actually cure some diseases and prevent others. I have a friend who specializes in chemical and radiation therapy for cancer patients, but recently he began using one day a week of practice to study and work with nutritional supplements to those therapies. While he is quick to point out his experience is not conclusive and that every patient’s case is different, he has been surprised at how many of his patients respond as well or better with the added nutritional therapies as others do in the course of more widely accepted, conventional treatments.
     We should not be surprised that the government would want to control this area which is so basic to our very lives. It is just one more example of government control. But unlike so many other areas where government regulation amounts to economic restrictions and time inconveniences, this growing trend can have serious and immediate repercussions in people’s lives.
     As the population gets older, and people seek ways to cut costs, they will want to look more closely at the benefits of healthy living and nutritional balance. But those who make their living from people using the expensive “mainstream” programs are not excited about that; after all, if someone can achieve good health simply by fortifying their diet with some commonly available vitamins, minerals and herbs, the pharmaceutical companies lose out. So aligning themselves with government, these corporations are trying to shore-up their profits by actually supporting new regulatory burdens in the hopes it keeps new ideas and philosophies out of the public market, prohibiting consumers from getting information on alternative health programs.
     It is for this reason I have introduced HR 2868, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act. This legislation will allow consumers to get factual information about the health benefits of natural foods, vitamins and herbs without the sellers of those natural products suffering costly regulatory burdens. Individual consumers should be allowed to weigh for themselves, preferably in consultation with the doctor of their choice, what is best for their particular situation. But for as reasonable as this may sound, and for as much in line with our national heritage of individual liberty it may be, this legislation run exactly contrary to the current direction of regulatory dictates.
     As individuals begin to consider ways to live healthier lives to be productive longer, it is imperative that they are able to provide for themselves and their families in the ways which best suit them. And if we have learned anything about federal involvement in just about everything–from education to crime to the environment–we know Washington is the last place we should be looking. Moreover, recent FDA reforms also challenge our national sovereignty by attempting to “harmonize” US regulations with the restrictive policies of other nation’s. Fortunately we were able to remove the application of harmonization language to dietary supplements but we still have a long way to go to achieve health freedom.
     Decisions about nutrition and treatment for living a healthy life need to be made in the home and in the examining room, not in Washington, DC, or in a pharmaceutical company’s board room.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 January 1998 Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
     On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations.
     Recently, there have been attempts to tie the bare-minimum pro-life “Mexico City” Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. But those attempts are now coming back to haunt those of us who believe in both the sanctity of human life and the inviolability of US sovereignty. I expect that very early in this second session of the 105th Congress, which begins Tuesday, January 27, we will see a “grand deal” struck which will see liberals “back down” from their opposition to a revised Mexico City Policy in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations and IMF.
     The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because it is a bare minimum requirement, although, as I say, I consider it ineffective in stopping tax money from funding abortions.
     I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aide for international “family planning” programs. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
     In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy prohibits funding of some abortions, it does not prohibit funding of all abortions, and creates large loopholes.
     Meanwhile, the United Nations and IMF are two international organizations which frequently act in a manner contrary to the sovereignty interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of both of these organizations.
     Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony “back dues” which we supposedly “owe” this organization. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett’s legislation. I expect that these funding issues will be rushed to the forefront by Congressional Leaders within the next several weeks.
     We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.
     This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a “deal” has become apparent, a deal which will harm the sovereignty of our nation and weaken the pro-life cause.
     The plan which is now being discussed has the Republican Congress voting to approve both new IMF funding and the payment of the phony UN debt, with the President agreeing to watered-down Mexico City language. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion
     Worse still, it now appears that conservative congressmen are willing to water the Mexico City policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Thus we have Congressional leadership again backing down from President Clinton, giving in to his demand for unrestricted public funding of abortion even while compromising America’s sovereignty by providing further taxpayer funds to organizations such as IMF and the United Nations.
     Fortunately many conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I will vocally oppose any effort to pay even one more penny of US taxpayer dollars to the United Nations or IMF. Although I believe that this “grand deal” has already been struck between the leadership of Congress and the White House I believe it is incumbent upon men and women of conscience to contact their representatives and speak out against this scheme.
     To date we who support the cause of life have compromised too much; it is time to stand firm. It is unconstitutional and immoral to use taxpayer dollars to fund even one abortion, whether it is foreign or domestic. And it is unconscionable that elected officials of the United States would consider using unborn children in foreign lands as pawns in a game that further undermines the best interests of the United States.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 February 1998 Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base
     It appears the Clinton Administration is now ready to bomb Iraq.
     The stated reason, of course, is to force UN inspectors into every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction: an impossible and implausible task. While some will try to claim that the President’s personal problems may influence this decision (which should not be completely discounted), the real problem is the flawed foreign policy which underlies all our activities abroad.
     Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all posses weapons of mass destruction, and at least three are hostile to American policies. It makes no sense that a petty dictator without weapons is the target of hostilities while big dictators with massive armaments are the recipients of US aid.
     There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by the Congress. War is something to be feared, and thoughts of which should never be entertained lightly. It is for this reason that our Constitution specifically states that declarations of war, the initial commitment of military personal in armed situations, is to be made only by Congress.
     Today, tragically, decisions to place our troops in harm’s way are done at the whim of the presidents, though often at the urging of some congressional leaders without a vote of the entire Congress. As repugnant as it may be to our sensibilities, the UN Security Council and the leaders of our “ally” countries often have more say in whether or not our troops go to battle than the elected representative constitutionally charged with this decision.
     Trying to appease the military industrial complex and appear tough for campaign ads, many congressmen will make strong public statements goading the president to battle, going so far as to draft meaningless resolutions supporting bombings and military action. But they refuse to claim their proper constitutional role and take responsibility for sending America’s youth to die in the sands of a foreign desert.
     Poll after poll shows Americans are not anxious for war, and few constituents I meet offer any advice other than that we get out of the situation before it gets bloody. But even internationally the President is getting little support, in fact a lot of resistance, from our allies for his aggressive talk. Indeed, it is surprising to find that our allies in the Middle East, who are most likely to suffer if Hussein indeed develops weapons of mass destruction, are the least inclined to go to war.
     Several years ago we fought a war for the people of Kuwait after Hussein invaded their land. Today, the Kuwaitis are opposed to seeing US troops destabilize the region with war.
     A Kuwaiti professor was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States’ continued military presence in the Middle East.
     And a Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.”
     Other Kuwaitis have even suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival. Not a bad theory when we remember that the US supported Hussein as recently as nine years ago, and had until then for a decade supplied him with money and weapons, turning a blind eye to his policies and aggression.
     Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein and unify the Islamic Fundamentalists against the United States. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit so he can further stir hatred and blame toward America for the pain he has inflicted on his people. Indeed, at every turn in this “crises,” Hussein has gone before his people and blamed the US for their problems. And the Iraqi people believe it.
     So no we are faced with the possibility of going to war, alone, for… what reason? To protect a region which says publicly that it does not need to be protected? Even now the groundwork is being laid for a war as senseless as the one in Vietnam, in Somalia and in Bosnia.
     I, too, worry about a biological or nuclear threat. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our aggressive, hostile policies, than if we were friends with all, enjoying economic relationships and open dialogue. The way we usually get dragged into a war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy took the bait. Once hostilities begin, debating the policy which created the mess is off limits; the thinking goes that everybody must support the troops by blindly and dumbly supporting irrational and irresponsible policies.
     But the best way to support our troops is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation and bloodshed. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.
     Unfortunately, we cannot expect such common sense to prevail in the current political climate.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 February 1998 National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved Washington is big part of the academic problem, not the solution
     As I cast my vote for a measure to stop the Clinton Administration from instituting national testing, I did so with a degree of reluctance. Not because I like national testing, but because the measure–like so many introduced in Washington–had less to do with principle than with politics.
     If we are to be a nation which follows the law, the federal government has absolutely no role in education. In fact, the federal government is completely excluded from having a role in education under our nation’s highest law. Our Constitution clearly defines what the federal government can and cannot do, reserving all powers and authorities not specifically discussed in the document to the state and local governments, and to the people.
     Since the federal government began interfering in education, we have seen a dramatic decrease in our nation’s level of academic excellence. Not because our teachers are worse, or because our students are dumber, but because the policies which affect the classroom make no sense. Our teachers have become mired in the muck of federal regulations which hamstring everyone involved in education. For example, in order to qualify for the taxpayer-funded lunch program for lower-income students, schools must accept a variety of rules and regulations. These rules have nothing to do with food preparation and everything to do with inflicting strange ideas and methods on our kids.
     Further, the federal stranglehold on education has all but removed parents from being active participants in their child’s education. Not because the parents want it that way, or because the teachers want it that way, but because East Coast college professors, who have more degree than experience in the elementary classroom, see parental involvement as an obstacle and impediment to their political power and agenda.
     In fact, federal involvement in education is less about any real desires to educate kids as it is about ensuring a power-base for the Washington politicians. Decisions that affect our teachers and students are made on the basis of promoting the interests and securing the livelihood of bureaucrats, rather than sound science and years of hands-on experience.
     That the federal government would want to now implement a nationwide test is hardly surprising. Such testing would only complete the big-government advocates real agenda of striping all power and authority from the parents, local school boards and teachers. With everything riding on the performance on these tests, teachers would be required to instruct their students not in the areas most important to them and to their future, but rather teach “to the test.”
     Even worse, “teaching a test” leads to a far inferior education, for the simple reason that uniformity of process and results requires sacrifice and compromise to the exclusion of all else, including excellence.
     So when legislation came up to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing these national tests, I was ready to cast a vote for the Constitution and for American education. But as the process advanced it became abundantly clear that the real motivation of those pushing the legislation had less to do with a philosophic opposition to the federal stranglehold on education and testing, but rather a partisan desire to oppose a test created by this president. The legislation which passed Congress prevents a president from arbitrarily instituting a national standards test. The president can get a national test if he really wants one, he just has to get the approval of Congress first.
     There is no doubt that American schools are facing hard times. But the solutions to the problems are found not in Washington, but in the home and local schools. In fact, not only is Washington not part of the solution to our academic malaise, it is the root of the problem. While we averted adding to the problem in the near future, the best thing we can do in the long-run for our schools and our children is to follow the Constitution and get the federal government out of the equation.
     Sadly, the entrenched advocates of unconstitutional big-government have little reason to fear losing their power anytime soon: the attitude in Washington, DC, is still firmly against local control and parental power, regardless of the rhetoric.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 February 1998 US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq
     It has been the accepted political notion in this half-century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissent.
     Yet no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.
     The president has been beating the drums of war, and many congressional leaders have been goading him along. However, there has been no serious discussion of the Congress claiming its constitutional role in these matters.
     One example speaks loudly. As the legislative week came to close on Thursday, February 12, the Congress was told the day would conclude early. The final debate was heard in early afternoon and congressmen began to leave town. But I and my staff noticed something was up. Sure enough, a few minutes after 4 pm, we inquired and learned that the House Leadership, Democrats and Republicans, were taking the floor to show uniform and complete support for any decision the president may make–and especially for sending our troops to battle. I managed to get time to oppose this one-sided maneuver, and as I took up the time, other Members of Congress of both parties who still happened to be around, came to the floor in a rush, ready to make the case I was making: That full debate was constitutionally mandated, and that Congress, not the president, should commit our troops to battle.
     Earlier that day, I introduced HR 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those banging for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
     There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US.
     Even worse, the President and others promoting this war are arguing for military objectives which are vague and, according to experts, completely unrealistic. The basic flaw in our foreign policy since World War II has been a lack of objectives, mainly because none of the wars have been to protect our nation. Our troops went into battle for political or industrial purposes, rather than to achieve military victory in the face of a real threat. As a result, we saw years of war in Korea and Vietnam drag on, costing thousands of lives with no real success.
     Why does the American soldier and taxpayer have to bear the burden of enforcing UN dictates? It is simply immoral for the US to enter into a war which has no objectives other than to kill people with whom we disagree for the sake of looking tough on the world stage. The only moral war is a defensive war to preserve our national security.
     But while the politicians are talking about sending our troops to battle, the American people are becoming more concerned with the unforeseen, or, rather, undiscussed, consequences. Up to now, no one has been able to show that Iraq has either the ability or the intentions to attack the United States. Foolish actions against that nation will only make it more likely that American citizens and cities could be targeted for terrorist or military attacks. In fact, Saddam Hussein is hoping to provoke the very actions now being contemplated on Capitol Hill. By attacking the Republic of Iraq, and killing Iraqi nationals with our bombs, Hussein will have the political leverage to gain even more support, and the imperative from his people and supporters to strike back from the position of an underdog. Further, there is discussion of possible anti-West alliances being forged in the Middle East which actions against Iraq could further provoke.
     Finally, before committing our troops to this action and opening our people and cities to the possibility of retaliatory attack, we must focus on the consistency of our priorities. According to February 12 stories by the Reuters News Service, from 1985 to 1989 the United States and England provided Hussein with biological weapons–the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing, according to American and British intelligence documents.
     Further, we know that at least 20 nations are developing weapons of mass destruction, and there are numerous nations that already possess them. Does that mean we must attack them all, for fear of their possible use?
     According to the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. My legislation prohibits Defense Department funds from being used for offensive actions against Iraq without Congress legally declaring a war.
     It is a sad indictment of our government that it takes legislation is required to force the President and the Congress to follow the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, especially when dealing with issues of life and death for our troops and our people.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 23 February 1998 Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district Constituents demand less taxes, less regulation, and more liberty
     Four offices with full-time staffs working ten hour-days is all the proof I need that Americans have far too much federal government on their backs.
     Our Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew how often Americans have to deal with the various bureaus and agencies of the government based in the federal city. In fact, when they framed our national government, there were no such things as agencies or bureaus, and certainly no plans for legions of bureaucrats who spread out and harass the people for such things as whether they have the lid on their typewriter correction fluid screwed on tightly, or they are growing too much or too little of a particular crop, or making sure they are teaching kids about sex in kindergarten. It was simply unimaginable to the people who founded our nation that we would inherit a land as regulated and as taxed as the one we face in these closing days of this century.
     But the fact that as a representative I have to maintain four offices–at the expense of the taxpayers–to handle nothing but helping constituents deal with the federal government is proof that the unimaginable is reality.
     Whether its OSHA agents banging on the counters of small business owners, or EPA enforcers inspecting the dirt of the farmer, or the IRS threatening single mothers and retired veterans, the American people have constant contact with federal agencies. There are some in our nation who like the current arrangement, and even believe the federal government should take on even bigger roles in our lives and business. Often the excuse for these ever expanding roles for the federal government is that we need to help people, or that some wrong can be put right only by some collectivist activity.
     Nothing could be more wrong.
     The American people need and want, they demand, less government, not more. The American people want fewer bureaucrats breathing down their necks, not more. The American people want to keep more of what they earn, not less. The American people want the federal government to get out of their wallets, off their land, out of their schools, and out of the way. As I travel the district I hear people telling me they are tired of the imperious attitude of politicians who dare to say they are coming in to “partner” with farmers and small businessmen through new programs, bigger agencies and, of course, more taxes. But when politicians and federal bureaucrats talk about “partnering,” it becomes a one-sided relationship with the government calling the shots and taking the rewards, while the farmer and small businessman get stuck with the work and the costs.
     Daily my offices in the district are flooded with calls from people who have reached their wit’s end in dealing with the vast myriad of agencies and bureaucrats, running in to the brick walls erected by the advocates of government intervention. To date the staff has been very successful. I think of the gentleman in the southern part of the district who recently attended a town hall meeting and told me how the IRS had been hounding his family for years over perceived mistakes. He had reached the end of his rope when he came to our attention, but my staff–using the bully position of the congressional office–was able to fight the red tape and the bureaucrats. His voice was strained as he told me that without my staff’s intervention, he and his wife “would have been kicked out of our house and living under a bridge.” His story is too commonplace for this statement to have been an emotional exaggeration. Daily we see similar situations with people of all backgrounds from all over the district.
     But there are those who either refuse to acknowledge the suffering brought on by the failed ideology of government intervention, or they think it is justifiable. And they want more of it. Just this past year, in the midst of the major hearings on abuses by the Internal Revenue Service, that Gestapo of American life, Congress sneaked in over $700 million dollar budget increase for the IRS. I caught wind of the increase and voted against it. We need less of the IRS, much less.
     Of course, those whose political ideology supports massive government will try to use the vote against me. And that is as it should be: the last thing I want is to make big government advocates happy.
     The people of the 14th District of Texas, indeed the people of the United States, are tired of people harassed by federal agents who are enforcing unconstitutional regulations promulgated by an unfair tax burden. I’m proud to be fighting the foes of constitutional government and liberty. But I’m even more pleased that so many people are part of the fight. History has shown that big governments collapse under their own weight, and that those who favor government intervention scurry to insignificance in the light of liberty.
     The federal government is far too big, and as I fight it on the ideological level in Washington, my staff and I are willing and eager to join you in fighting it on the ground.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 2 March 1998 Never sacrifice liberty for campaign reform Freedom and democracy should be enhanced by campaign reform
     ‘Reform’ is a word used rather carelessly in Washington, DC; a buzz-word used to give legitimacy to action, any action, regardless of its impact on our society. More damage has been done to our nation under the auspices of ‘reform’ than any other excuse.
     Despite the rhetoric, the proposed “campaign finance reforms” have little to do with liberty, freedom and democracy, and much to do with narrowing the choices available to the American people and limiting their ability to participate in the free exchange of ideas. And above all else, these “reforms” are designed to preserve the status quo and protect those in power. To maintain their authority, many in Congress are willing to limit the choices of Americans and trample First Amendment rights.
     I recently asked to come before the House Oversight Committee to discuss campaign finance reform as part of a panel. Congressman after congressman presented their ideas to restrict the American people and limit participation in the political process. They offered proposals requiring that the American taxpayer bear the burden of funding the campaigns of all federal candidates (of course, not all candidates would be federally funded, it was quickly added, only those who are deemed “viable” by the government).
     The problem, according to these congressmen, is the big-money interests trying to influence the outcomes of elections. But none wanted to address the root of the problem, of why groups are willing to spend so much money trying to affect an election. Groups do so because of the overwhelming power the federal government has over every aspect of life.
     Extensive power–the ability to confer financial and legislative favors–is now concentrated in the hands of relatively few lawmakers. If we remove that power, we remove the incentive to influence how the power is wielded. I wouldn’t mind getting the big PAC money, but it doesn’t come my way because I’m not considered a “good investment” for those seeking handouts or special attention at taxpayer expense; they know I just won’t go along. Big money flows to non-ideological candidates who have no problem tinkering with the markets to give advantages–or disadvantages–as they wish.
     The only meritorious reform is legislation to strike down barriers which serve to quash opposition to the big-government political factions. For this reason, under authority of Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution relating to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding federal elections, I have introduced HR 2477, the Voter Freedom Act, and HR 2478, the Debate Freedom Act. Rather than trampling individual rights, these bills actually enhance fundamental liberties and expand the exchange of ideas. These bills embrace, rather than disgrace, the First Amendment.
     The Voter Freedom Act prohibits states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office, while the Debate Freedom Act prohibits recipients of taxpayer-funded campaign matching funds from participating in debates to which everyone qualifying for such funds are not invited.
     If corporations conspired to lock their competitors out of economic markets the way Republicans and Democrats have locked competitors out of the political market, CEOs would be prosecuted under anti-trust laws. And the many of us are correctly calling for more parental choice in education, to improve academics. But Republicans and Democrats defend the status quo -protection racket by claiming we must limit the number of candidates down to avoid “voter confusion.” So while the American people can sort out the myriad of choices available to them for foods, entertainment, banks, schools and doctors, politicians seem to think voters are not smart enough to decide between more than two candidates (especially as there is often no substantive difference between candidates of the two major parties).
     That 90 million Americans of voting age refused to vote in the 1996 election indicates that a high number of Americans have little faith in the federal government, or at least the ability of either party to represent them. Over 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as neither Democrats or Republicans, and they demand their views be represented. It is unconscionable to continue to exclude from debates candidates who represent the views of 40% of the people, especially as the current system of financing forces taxpayers to subsidize presidential candidates with whom they disagree.
     As this issue remains in the forefront, there will be the opportunity to make major changes. The changes we make will affect the electoral process, which will affect the government which taxes and regulates so much in our nation. If we choose poorly, people will become more disinterested and the special interests will gain even more power. But if we choose wisely, we will present to the future a system more democratic and responsive to the notions of liberty so cherished by the American people.
     Choice and competition are good in our lives, imperative for a healthy economy, and an absolute necessity in free elections.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 9 March 1998 Block grants are not the answer While rhetorically popular, they fail to address real problem
     Block grants have become a popular rhetorical device, holding out the promise of restoring local control to lessen the Federal bureaucracy.
     Recent legislation marking the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding paid for with federal taxes, even while holding out that the block grant system was devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made in the early 1970s under Nixon called “revenue-sharing.” It did not work and was dropped.
     This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in Washington or in the state capitols, it will not change the dynamics of public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, cannot replace the benefits of private ownership.
     Further, the block grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to the various state entities. Collection and distribution which has nothing to do with the reality and everything to do with redistributing wealth to the benefit of politicians and special interests. Wealthy states, like Texas, will never get their money back, even if every program is block granted.
     And of course, strings will always be attached, no matter how many safeguards are written into the block-grant law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the federal government–or even the state governments, for that matter–ought to be involved in providing housing.
     The high hopes that this process will alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after many more years of failures and dollars spent.
     There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If funding for the obscene, wasteful and wholly-unconstitutional NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government could we expect to be?
     The devolution approach is not the first choice of proponents of big government, but it is acceptable to them. Why? The calls for more spending are usually satisfied as the supposed advocates for smaller government agree to more money so as to get the symbolic block grants passed into law. In the end, all the politicians, in spite of the rhetoric, are content, because they can sing both sing pleasant tunes to their special-interests. But the taxpayer loses because the money is still taken, at ever increasing rates, from their wallets.
     Devolution is said to be a return to States Rights, since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States Rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
     At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the federal government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights.
     This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State. Time is against the advocates of big-government, but unfortunately, in the meantime it is also against the wallets and well-being of the taxpayers.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 March 1998 US should stop meddling in foreign wars Faulty foreign policy often puts US in bad situations
     Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians?
     Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. It is telling that while Congress cannot find a way to make serious tax cuts or reforms to the IRS, reduce spending or erase the bureaucratic red tape, our national leaders can daily find new hot-spots around the world send our military and our money.
     Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova “without question a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists? Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, `All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.’ What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.
     All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions.
     The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.
     Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.
     But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
     Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.
     This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world’s natural resources?
     Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.
     Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.
     Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 23 March 1998 Security of the people’s liberty at risk Recent vote suggests elected official more interested in politics than morality
     It’s not often that Members of Congress have the opportunity to take a vote which clearly states the intent of the Congress to either follow or not follow the Constitution. A vote which is not tethered to pork-barrel spending, special-interest giveaways or political land mines. Such a vote came up last week.
     Of course, when one sees the results of such a vote–when it finally comes around–it is enough to make a decent American blush, and then get very angry at the immorality of our elected officials.
     Casting votes on the basis of constitutionality is not about a political ideology, it is about basic morality. The moral choice is between following the rule of law or the whims of man. The rule of law gives us liberty, freedom and civilized society, while the whims of man gives us holocausts, confiscatory economic policies and pointless wars.
     Sadly, though, our representatives and senators, and our presidents, seem intent on following something other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism, behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing the “will of the people.” But the rule of law is about doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob–even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind it–might desire at the moment.
     Of course, the law–the Constitution–is inconvenient for those who want to use taxpayer dollars to expand their pet causes or political ambitions. The politics of unconstitutionality knows no partisan boundaries in Washington, which accounts for the continuing upward trend of taxes, regulations, spending and, of course, pork.
     And so last week there came before Congress legislation stating that Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war and commit troops into situations of hostility–as defined and clearly stated in the Constitution. It further stated that if troops are to remain in Bosnia, then Congress should take a vote declaring a state of war. Absent a declaration of war, according to this legislation if it had passed, the troops should be home in 60 days.
     This was a vote on whether or not this Congress, was going to vote in support of what the Constitution specifically mandates on the issue of military action and commit of American troops to hostile environments. No policies would change, just a statement of principle upholding the Constitution.
     The Constitution is very clear on this and every other subject. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, defines what the federal government, and the three branches of the federal government, can and cannot do. Everything else, according to the law, the Constitution, is “reserved” to the states and the people.
     At the core, every vote is a constitutional vote. US Representative and, later, Texas Alamo hero David Crockett, once quoted a constituent, saying, “The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions… The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution… It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”
     Sadly, 225 Members of Congress chose to ignore the Constitution and forfeit their constitutional-required role in foreign affairs. They had the opportunity to vote in accordance with the most basic, most clearly defined section of the Constitution to which they pledged an oath to uphold, and yet 225 of the 435 representatives chose to not follow the rule of law, but to allow the whims of man to prevail.
     When Congress so clearly votes against the Constitution a dangerous precedent is indeed set, and as Mr. Crockett warned, nothing is safe from the grasp of the politicians.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 30 March 1998 Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation Major bills pass with no recorded vote to protect the perpetrators
     Often, the methods by which Congress operates is as bad as the legislation it passes. Take, for example, last week, when the $14 billion Foreign Affairs appropriations bill was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. This legislation was the result of work by a conference committee of congressmen and senators to resolve the difference between legislation passed by the two Houses of Congress.
     For weeks arms have been twisted on Capitol Hill because the votes simply were not available to pass the legislation: there was plenty to offend everyone, but especially those of us concerned about the Constitution, national sovereignty and the dignity of life.
     With very little warning, however, the legislation came up on the House floor, and the measure was allowed to pass on a “voice vote,” without a record of who supported or opposed it. This surprised some of us who wanted to be on-record against this monstrosity, and it pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue. There were many in Congress–and in Washington–who wanted this measure passed into law, but did not want to be held accountable, on the record, for actually supporting it when the extent of damage it causes is later revealed.
     What was in the legislation? It contained nearly a billion dollars for the controversial “back-dues” which the United Nations claims we owe them, and which many of us believe is false. Further, it forgave the very real debt the UN owes our nation for the subsidization of various UN military actions around the world.
     Further, it was argued by some conservative “right-to-life” advocates that the legislation was worth passing–despite so many flaws and shortcomings–because it contained anti-abortion language purported to be “stronger than ever” and would finally be codified. Unfortunately, the reality is that the meager “abortion” language was weaker than ever before with a convenient, gaping loophole to allow the president to continue taxpayer-funding of countries and groups that actually perform and promote abortion: this is language which is now to be codified. That’s no pro-life victory; in fact, one could barely describe it as a compromise.
     The way Washington works is as if everything is merely a game; a game of who has power, and a game of once one posses any degree of power to hold on it by trying to fool as many people as possible. And the passage of this legislation is only one more move in this “game.” Sadly, sincere groups were willingly played like a fiddle, in the hopes that by supporting what is actually very bad legislation, they would have the honor of being “Washington insiders.” But it is that very “insider” status which breeds the distrust of the American people, who have to foot the bill for this dangerous game. And it is a process which unfortunately only adds to the cynicism many Americans already hold for the US Congress.
     The events surrounding the passage of the Foreign Affairs appropriations should not make any of in Congress proud, for it certainly shames America. The process, as well as the legislation, stinks.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 April 1998 Congressional action weakens national defense America’s taxpayers, airports sacrificed for “world cop” policy
     Last week Congress passed more legislation which weakens our national defense and further funds the unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible and dangerous practice of policing the world. And it was all done at the expense of America’s airports and public housing.
     The legislation was HR 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. When I learned that this legislation continued the “police the world” programs, I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund those aspects of the legislation. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee sidetracked the amendments, preventing them from getting a full floor vote.
     One of the truly positive aspects of HR 3579 was Section 3002, stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to HR 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq.
     As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
     Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in this so-called Emergency Appropriations Act. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport maintenance and safety programs, to be spent on our “police-the-world” program.
     While I am not overly excited about the federal government dictating the priorities of airport construction and modernization, at least it is tax money being spent here, to the benefit of the taxpayers, rather than elsewhere in the world with our troops being exposed to risk..
     It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, in the Constitution we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.
     There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.
     So as Congress robs from America’s taxpayers and airports, I suppose we can all rest secure, knowing that our troops are being scattered around the world, placed in the way of needless harm.
     Then again, perhaps we shouldn’t rest so secure.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 13 April 1998 Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility In a free society, individuals must bear the cost of their choices
     An easy target these days is the tobacco industry; it is under attack by nearly everyone.
     It is true they profit from selling a dangerous product, but so do the manufacturers of automobile, airplane, guns, plastic bags and compressed oxygen, as well as food producers, drug companies and coffee farmers. It is indisputable fact that anything can be dangerous when used incorrectly or excessively. Even oxygen, the very gas which gives us life, can be deadly when used incorrectly.
     Tobacco company executives have come to symbolize much of what is wrong with corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, favoritism, and interventionism. For decades, big tobacco lobbied for, and gladly accepted, subsidies, while anyone with a grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely affected some people’s health.
     But there were specific gains to be realized from the charade that surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit made it easier to collect benefits from the nonsmoking taxpayers. And the alternative, arguing for personal responsibility for risk, has hardly been in vogue for the last several decades.
     Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk has slowly shifted from the individual to the nanny-state. And the tobacco industry has been a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility, in the name of getting taxpayer subsidies. The reality is that big tobacco put the welcome mat out for big government, and now they are having to face the music.
     Fundamentally, though, the question is this: who has responsibility for our well-being? Who should make decisions regarding risk-taking and personal habits, the Government or the individual?
     During the Clinton health care debate, tobacco and nearly every other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was government’s responsibility to provide care for everyone; which means, of course, that it is the obligation of the government to force one person to pay for the treatment of the bad habits of another.
     When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to reflect the cost of habits like smoking, sky diving, overeating, and medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance goes out the window and everybody gets everything paid for, regardless of their behavior. This, of course, explains why people in socialized nations, like England, continue to smoke in increasing numbers. Socializing the cost of the consequences increases participation in risky behavior.
     Persons who have harmed their health by smoking have learned they can coerce those with good health into paying for the consequence of their bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, believe they have a right to be taken care of by someone else. This includes not only those who smoke, but those who drink excessively, or perform sexual acts which increase their chance of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, or who refuse a proper diet to treat diabetes or heart conditions. To the extent one can lower the cost of a risky habit by having someone else pay for it, the less likely one is to worry about consequences.
     It is this abdication of personal responsibility that drives contradictory drug laws; we say a particular drug is illegal, which inspires the use of dirty needles, and then serves to further the spread AIDS and hepatitis. In the name of compassion, the government then forces non-users to pay for free needles so the addicts can keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.
     Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to sell a risky product, without fraud or coercion, to an informed consumer. In a free society, the user must be held responsible–absent fraud–for the risk he assumes, not the seller of any given product.
     Yes, the leaders of the tobacco industry deserve sharp criticism. Once precedent is set in this matter, it will be only a matter of time before the manufacturers of automobiles will be liable for all accidents, even if the drivers are speeding and intoxicated. Chocolate addicts will sue Hershey Candies, while people with high cholesterol can bankrupt cattle ranchers. The whole notion is absurd.
     The proposed tobacco deal does great harm because it further undermines the principle of individual responsibility. Undermining this principle not only drives up the costs of medical treatment and the products involved, it actually encourages dangerous behavior. After all, the typical response to future generations will be, `If I’m unfortunate and become ill or injured engaging in a particular activity, the seller or the Government will be made to take care of me.’
     If this attitude toward consumer risk and personal responsibility is not changed, the chances for a free market and prosperous society will dissipate like so much cigarette smoke blown by a breeze.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 April 1998 Giving power to parents is truly pro-education Federal ‘solutions’ are biggest obstacles to academic achievement
     Everyone, it seems, wants to wear the “pro-education” label, yet the direction of academics in our nation is dreadfully off course.
     The ever-growing Department of Education–for whose existence there is no constitutional, economic, moral or rational justification–continues to promote a “one-size fits all” mode of education as it imposes more and more rules and regulations on our local schools which further removes parents and teachers from deciding what is best for the children, while giving more authority to bureaucrats in Washington.
     Of course, everyone now uses the token rhetoric of “local control.” However, when one examines the specifics of the plans being proposed–if such specifics are available–one has to wonder if the politicians think “local” refers to either Capitol Hill, or, at best, mandates coming down from the federal government to be implemented locally.
     But when it comes to “control” in education, rarely are parents, the truly responsible party given any thought or credence. In fact, parents are often seen as an inconvenience or obstacle to “education” by many in the edu-cracy. A dangerous attitude, at best.
     The reality, though, is that parents–not “well-meaning” politicians–know what options are best for their kids’ education. Unfortunately, America has been saddled with a tax system which limits the ability of parents to pursue the academic options best suited for their children’s individual situations. With combined taxes taking almost 50 percent of the average family’s income, there is little left over for low- and middle-class parents to even consider other educational opportunities.
     I have sponsored one piece of legislation, and cosponsored a second, which addresses this issue. My legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 a year per child in tax credits for their educational expenses, such as private, church and home school settings, as well as tutors, books and similar necessities. The credit applies even if the kids are in public schools. The other legislation is similar to Individual Retirement Accounts, but are for educational purposes. Parents would be allowed to set aside money in special savings accounts, the interest on which would not be taxed unless the money is used for non-educational purposes.
     By making sure parents get to keep more of their own money, they will be able to provide in the ways best suited for their children and their children’s specifics needs and abilities.
     But even when we see education programs working well, the federal government still manages to find ways to endanger them. A prime example is agricultural education programs, such as those run through the 4-H and Future Farmers of America. When a young person enters those programs, wanting to gain hands-on experience and education in raising livestock, a part of that process involves “shows” and auctions. The proceeds from such shows and auctions are the money the kids use to participate in Ag programs the following years, or provide money for college.
     Does the federal government stand back and applaud these young people bettering themselves academically, learning a skill and preparing for the future? No, Uncle Sam steps in and taxes the cash, meaning the kids lose precious money for school (making them more dependent on government aid) or the ability to participate in such programs the next year.
     To combat this, I have introduced the Agriculture Education Freedom Act, which will exempt from taxes the income a youth receives while participating in these programs.
     The more we can do to free people from the chains of government programs and mandates, and allow them to provide for themselves, the better off our society will be. But more importantly, as we free the resources of parents to provide for their children–and allow children to participate in programs that prepare them for adulthood–the higher we will see academic achievement reach.
     Beware the government program labeled “pro-education.” The only truly pro-education approach is to get the federal government out of education, and allow parents to provide for their own children.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 April 1998 No such thing as a free (government) needle
     Free needles, like free lunches, do not exist. Needles cost something–and there are some who believe taxpayers should foot the bill.
     After all, the advocates of government-funded “needle exchange” programs say, the pennies each needle costs to distribute to drug users is small change relative to the costs of health care for those druggies who become infected with AIDS, hepatitis, or any other communicable disease.
     As a physician, I can say with no uncertainty that it is far better for a person to use a sterile needle rather than a dirty one. Of course, it is also medically much better for someone to avoid putting harmful or addictive substances into their blood stream, or engage in risky sexual behavior.
     I can also say, without a doubt, that the policy of distributing needles at taxpayer expense is both dangerous and immoral.
     The argument for needle distribution is, of course, a very caring and pragmatic one. The proponents of needle distribution programs point–correctly–to the fact that using a clean needle will prevent the transfer of contagious disease and, therefore, the future health care costs to government will be reduced.
     While factually this argument is true, it rests upon a huge but false premise.
     Those making the relative cost argument in favor of these programs assume that the taxpayer has some obligation to pay one or both rather than neither. Unfortunately, this will be the focus of the debate. It is much easier politically to lambaste the “drug user” as opposed to the federal health care beneficiary, despite the fact that if one accepts the premise that the federal government has a duty to provide health care, the provision of needles is the fiscally logical choice.
     Implicit in this assumption is the notion that the government should compel you, the non-user, to pay for the habit as well as the consequences of drug use. And while I would not stop you from using your own private funds to provide sterile needles to those in your community, it would be immoral for the government to use government force to compel someone to pay for this program.
     Of course, this socialistic approach to sharing health care costs is completely at odds with a society which values freedom. There is a casual disregard for risks when an individual knows they will not have to bear the costs associated with the consequences of their actions. Therefore, they respond to this incentive and pursue activities–bad habits, sexual behavior, and on–with riskier consequences than they otherwise would.
     This is the socialist’s dream. As government assumes the responsibility of paying the costs associated with irresponsible behavior, the more legitimately government can justify its involvement in dictating the behavior. As economist Ludwig von Mises argued, intervention begets more intervention. The only choice is individualism or collectivism because some collectivism always leads to more collectivism, and eventually pure collectivism.
     It is unrealistic to expect those who favor government (read “taxpayers”) footing the bill for medical costs not to expect the government to then regulate everything a person does which might affect their health. Case in point, the tobacco settlement, and even the helmet and seat-belt laws.
     There is a final argument against the distribution of needles at taxpayer expense, and it is an argument which goes more towards the consistency of the entire situation as it relates to the Constitution. Under our current laws, use and possession of particular substances is illegal. Yet needle exchanges would provide services to assist people in breaking the law. This is ridiculous. Our government has become so big, and has stepped so completely outside the limited, enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, that contradictions such as these are the practical result.
     When we allow the federal government to do things it is not constitutionally authorized to do, when we endorse the concept of federal intervention in what is constitutionally state and local matters, we are bound to see government tripping over itself to use its over-reaching powers in ways to satisfy everyone. Again, case in point, the subsidization of both tobacco interests and cancer research.
     We must be extremely wary when people advocate the use of governmental force in the name of “free” provision for some. It always costs the taxpayers in the end. We should be even more cautious when the government proposes a way to “help” others, because, invariably, the help not only subsidizes negative behavior or results, but, at the same time, becomes the justification for more intervention.
     Such is the nature of collectivism.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 May 1998 Liberty must be our goal Liberty Amendment abolishes income and death taxes
     May is an important month. This is the time of year when the average American stops working to pay their federal taxes.
     Around the latter half of the month, the average American marks “Freedom from Federal Tax Day,” which does not mean any of us are yet working for ourselves. Far from it. In fact, once we stop working to pay off our federal taxes, we start working to pay for the cost of federal regulations and state and local taxes. It is not until early July that the people of the 14th District of Texas begin working for themselves.
     That is disgraceful, which is why I wanted to come to Congress in the first place. For someone to work six months out of the year only to pay the tax-bill is ridiculous. Think about what you get for your money: EPA agents to grab your land if they think there are endangered weeds on it, OSHA inspectors to shut down your business for “improper” labeling of liquid paper, and IRS inspectors to seize your bank accounts if you use the wrong color of ink on the tax form.
     For some, the issue is merely “how do we collect the taxes?” and proceed to debate the merits of a flat tax, a sales tax, a modified graduated tax, and on. But rarely is the real issue discussed by the Washington-insider policy-makers. The real issue is this: Why does government need so much of our money?
     The answer is not complex; government wants money because it wants power; politicians want your money so they can make decisions that benefit them politically and force you to do what they want, being molded into their images. And so government grows. And grows. As they take more of our money, the more we are forced to rely on them, and the more money they “need” to “provide.” It’s a hideous cycle.
     Despite what they regard as an inconvenience of the Constitution, the federal government continues to usurp more and more power and privileges which are more correctly left to the individual and the states.
     Make no doubts about it, the income tax is horrible, aggressive and must go. At the same time, we must end the appetite the government has for the fruits of your labor. To this end I have introduced House Joint Resolution 116, an amendment to the Constitution, called the Liberty Amendment. The Liberty Amendment has a long history, dating back almost 40 years, with more than a dozen supporters in Congress of its various forms, including several current members.
     The Liberty Amendment, if ratified, will repeal the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax.
     But the Liberty Amendment would do more. It would also prohibit the federal government from taxing estates and gifts, and at the same time require that the federal government withdraw itself, within three years of enactment, from all activities not specified as an enumerated power of the federal government.
     It is true that liberty is not free, nor is it easy. But tyranny–even varying degrees of it–is much more difficult, and much more expensive. The time has come to rein in the federal government, put it on a crash diet, and let the people keep their money and their liberty.
     Perhaps we will celebrate freedom from federal tax day in January, and “Cost of Government” day in February. It may not happen soon, but we must have a goal.
     Our founding fathers agreed that liberty was a worthwhile goal. So should we.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 May 1998 Is it freedom from religious persecution? Proposed legislation doesn’t pass constitutional, economic or moral muster
     In the name of making the world safe from religious persecution, Congress will consider legislation which the politicians hope will make the planet safe for religion around the globe, at the American taxpayer’s expense. The legislation is the “Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997.”
     The “Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997” proposes that a new office be created within the Clinton Administration, with the stated purpose to “provide for the imposition of economic sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution.” Numerous issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant elaboration, discussion, and debate: constitutional authority, effectiveness of trade sanctions, rights “swapping,” and the practicality of such an approach.
     Religious persecution is a reprehensible form of force when committed by anyone. However reprehensible, though, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to police the world at taxpayer expense. The Constitution’s framers argued for friendly commercial dealings with all nations and entangling alliances with none. Today, the opposite seems to be the order of the day. Of course, “friendly commercial dealings” was never intended to include the subsidization of foreign governments–including those engaged in zealous religious persecution–at taxpayer-expense.
     Constitutional considerations temporarily set aside, it would be commendable if the legislation could at least be justified based upon some proven or demonstrated effectiveness of trade sanctions. The effectiveness of trade sanctions for reforming human rights records is, at best, unscientific and empirically unjustified. Harsh economic sanctions against Cuba for more than thirty years have done nothing to alter that nation’s record on human rights or political bent.
     While the right to free religious exercise absent interference from the state is an important right, it is not the only right. Any list of individual rights must also include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. Removing trade barriers benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available from those who have a comparative advantage in the respective good. Those individuals who choose, for moral or religious reasons, not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are, of course, not threatened by removing barriers for those who, for whatever reasons, choose to do so. Further, the right of United States citizens to travel freely, at their own expense, is also infringed upon by the portion of the bills limiting the availability of commercial flights.
     One provision of the bill attempts to provide the President a kind of “Ultra-Fast-Track” authority to enter into multilateral international sanctions and legislative functions contrary to constitutionally-mandated processes. The Constitution, of course, requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate and reserves legislative powers to the Congress. In recent history, Presidents have avoided the two-thirds Senate majority hurdle by semantically re-labeling Treaties as agreements and passing some of them by with narrower margins of approval through both houses of Congress.
     Obliterating religious persecution around the world is a noble and, I believe, well-intended pursuit. However, circumventing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as choosing an economically-unproven means of doing so, is never an advisable method.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 May 1998 Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
     Last week, Congress moved our nation closer to a national police state by further expanding the already-unconstitutional litany of federal crimes.
     Of course, it is much easier to ride the popular wave of federalizing every misdeed, than to uphold a Constitutional Oath which prescribes protection from what is perhaps the worst evil imaginable: totalitarianism.
     What Member of Congress, especially in an election year, wants to be portrayed as soft on crime or deadbeat parents, irrespective of the transgressions against individual liberties and a trampling of our Constitution?
     The federal government was designed to be limited in power. In fact, there is a strict enumeration of the spheres in which Congress is allowed to act. For every other issue, only the state governments or the people, in their private market actions, enjoy constitutionally protected right to those powers. The tenth amendment is brutally clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
     But rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress recently passed two pieces of legislation–neither containing a shred of constitutional authority–which, of course, were “non-controversial” despite moving us further from the notion of a limited government. One piece of legislation pledged that the Congress will “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence.” Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably with alcohol in the 1920s, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” Whether any governmental entity should be protecting individuals from themselves and their own stupidity is certainly debatable; whether the federal government is constitutionally empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
     The second legislative fiasco was the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill expands federal criminal law by imposing more sanctions on those who fail to meet child support obligations imposed by individual states. Further, the bills shifts some burden of proof from the federal government to the accused, a radical departure from the American notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” Even worse, this legislation seems to reintroduce the notion of federal “debtor prisons,” a vestige of the past best left in the past.
     Perhaps more dangerous than either of these items individually is what they represent collectively: a move towards a federal police force. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
     The argument is that states are less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with individuals who flee one state for another to avoid prosecution. The Constitution preserves the integrity of states, and provides the means for them to exact penalties from those who violate their laws, and the Constitution provides for the return of fugitives from one state to another. There is, of course, an inconvenience imposed upon states in working with one another, rather than relying on a national police force. But there is a greater cost to individual liberty from a centralized police power.
     There is a simple, sound reason to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions–it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the liberty of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
     When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet, moving to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one state has a high income tax which the residents feel is inappropriate, they can move to Texas (as many have done) to keep more of their earnings. But as government becomes more centralized, it becomes more difficult to vote with one’s feet. There must be ample opportunity for citizen mobility: to proper governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
     And the federalization of every problem takes us further and further from the Constitution, and liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 May 1998 Asian economic crisis result of suppressed liberty Answer is fundamental change, not status quo quick fixes
     Along with the Berlin Wall, the communist system came crashing down in 1989. But in the same year, the Japanese “economic miracle” of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its `guaranteed’ safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed.
     The root of the problem is found in the flawed premise upon which economic systems around the world have been based for the last century. For us to escape the economic malaise being experienced in Asia, we must address those fundamental problems not look for quick-fixes.
     Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by a “central bank” credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the fountain of youth. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-run give an illusion of wealth, is actually destructive to prosperity on the long-run.
     The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, the day’s realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizenry’s reaction to the escalating events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome, as well. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of economic malaise, but it cannot prevent the inevitable collapse, as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
     But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesian economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all “crony capitalism.”
     One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation is its unpredictable nature because reactions of the individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict how and when the bubble will burst–though burst it must. Likewise, the duration of a collapse is not scientifically ascertainable.
     “Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble; inflationism and political corruption are the culprits, for they allow ‘crony capitalism’ to exist. In fact, there is nothing “capitalistic” (in a free market sense) about crony capitalism–it is simply a mild form of fascism.
     Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. It should be no surprise to see blood in the streets of Jakarta. But instead of these circumstances leading to freedom, many are inviting marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability–with all the dangers that go with increased restrictions on liberty. Sadly, errors in economic thinking often prompts demands for more government programs to `take care’ of the rapidly growing number of poor.
     Further, international efforts to prop-up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has popped prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Restoration of free markets, including the establishment of a sound monetary policy, has not yet been considered though those are the only real solutions. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads.
     For the United States, the most important thing Congress can do is recognize that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
     The philosophy of the free market holds the solution to the exploding East Asian crisis, yet few are willing to consider the philosophy of liberty.
     Concern for liberty is not a subject associated with economic crisis and is in fact an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for the philosophy of liberty–whether it is the “personal liberty” of the individual or freedom in the marketplace–is required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the Indonesian crisis.
     Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 June 1998 Constituent service is most important function For many individuals, congressional services directly affect their lives
     No other responsibility of a congressman so directly affects the lives of the average person as that of “constituent service.” Constituent services take on a wide variety of forms and this column is devoted to describing some of those activities and opportunities.
     Perhaps the single most important is that of handling “casework.” Put simply, casework is when I, or one of my staff acting in my behalf, intervenes directly on behalf of a constituent or group of constituents before a federal agency, board or commission.
     This is sometimes involves making a phone call, perhaps asking that the Veterans Administration send the proper forms to the widow of a veteran, or writing a letter, for example, asking for a delay of improper hearings before an IRS administrative court. But some casework can also involve having myself or a staff member make appearances at hearings, such as when I recently sent my Chief of Staff to Maryland to speak against the closing of a weather station in the district, which is an important issue to a great many people in the 14^th District.
     Generally, casework involving constituents dealing with federal agencies is handled out of one of my three district offices, in Victoria (512-576-1231), Freeport (409-230-0000) or San Marcos (512-396-1400). The offices will accept collect calls.
     But the three traditional offices are not the only means by which constituents can have access to my congressional staff, such as my Mobile Office. This office, a specially converted blue van, travels to the rural parts of the district, offering congressional services to people who might not be able to travel (for health or work reasons) to one of the three traditional offices, but want to meet with someone in person. The Mobile Office’s schedule is published in local papers, and is parked in visible places in the community, with constituents actually meeting with my staff in the office itself. The Mobile Office can be contacted at (512) 753-5553.
     Further, my staff and I are available to come to schools or community groups to discuss topics ranging from the current events going in Washington to the process by which laws are made.
     Constituent services are not limited to solely to the geographic confines of the 14^th District.
     Constituents of the 14^th District can contact my Washington office (202-225-2831) and request that US flags be flown over the Capitol to commemorate special occasions or events (there is a nominal cost involved).
     And for constituents visiting Washington, DC, there are even more services available. Perhaps the most popular are special VIP tours of the Capitol by my staff; constituents can be taken onto the Floor of the House and Senate when Congress is not in session, as well into other parts of the Capitol not generally accessible to the public. Further, with enough notice, my staff can obtain special passes for constituents to tour the White House, the FBI Headquarters and even the Treasury’s printing operations. All of these tours are offered at no cost to the constituent.
     Finally, there are two important information services available to constituents of the 14^th District. The first is my toll-free Legislative Update line. By calling (888) 322-1414, you can hear an update on legislation before Congress as well as information on items of general interest and debate. The second information service is my official congressional web site (www.house.gov/paul/). At this site visitors can find an archive of all my speeches, press releases and even the text of legislation I have sponsored, as well as leave electronic messages for me.
     I am most pleased with the high level of constituent service my office has been able to provide, and my staff and I are always willing to take suggestions for further improvements.
     No other responsibility of the congressional office is as important, or as rewarding, as the opportunity to assist constituents–whether dealing with federal agencies, providing commemorative flags, or making a trip to Washington more memorable.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 8 June 1998 Religious freedom found in following Constitution Simply meddling with Bill of Rights will not correct problems
     There is no doubt hostility exists–and is growing–against people of religious convictions, especially against those who consider themselves “conservative” or “fundamentalist.” The hostility and discrimination is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.
     And despite the claims of those who attack religious values, these actions are not motivated by a defense of constitutional liberty.
     The politically correct religion of our nation has become Secular Humanism; although equivalent to a religion, it is incorrectly passed off by our courts and schools as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs and is often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
     This is indeed a problem deserving our close, careful, thoughtful attention. So it was with great sadness recently as I saw the debate unfold for a constitutional amendment which made claims of protecting religious freedoms, yet went sadly awry. While an original cosponsor of the Religious Freedom Amendment, I was forced to vote against it because of changes made in recent weeks. The measure did not pass the House.
     Our basic problem is not a lack of constitutional direction regarding the right of Americans to freely practice their religious beliefs; for the First Amendment is very clear. In reality, the problem has been that our courts are filled with judges who have no understanding, appreciation, or concern for the original intent of our Founding Fathers, or for the constitutional Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, or of property rights. And as long as this disgraceful condition exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will only be similarly abused. How can we expect judges, or even Members of Congress, to follow new constitutional amendments when they do not now follow anything currently existing in the Constitution?
     Those who supported the amendment correctly argue that the rapidly growing government has tried to replace the church, and actually encourages discrimination and hostility against people of faith. An argument which I believe to be absolutely true. However, the proper solution should be to shrink the size of the federal government–not further enlarge the federal government or impose upon states rules by which they must manage their school districts and property.
     Unfortunately, the final version of the so-called Religious Freedom Amendment further enabled the federal government to do more mischief by expanding their powers.
     The proposed amendment encouraged a government solution to the problem by allowing the federal government and federal courts to instruct states and local school districts on the use of their property–in direct contrast to the original intent of Constitutional framers to protect against a strong central government and in support of state and local government.
     Further, and perhaps worst of all, the amendment would have forbade state and local governments from denying benefits to religious organizations. This would have had the chilling effect of forcing people to subsidize almost any bizarre practice or ritual B or at least the advancement of that activity–which its practitioners could claim to be part of a religious exercise. Thomas Jefferson once said that to “compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
     The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, our existing First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression will be protected more strongly than any effort at federal meddling.
     Until our judges and our Congress embraces the Constitution, and willingly follows it, new Constitutional amendments will do little to help and will almost certainly make things worse by weakening the already-existing bill of rights.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 June 1998 Campaign reform should encourage choice Current debate focuses on limiting freedom and liberty
     Echoing through the halls of the House of Representatives right now is perhaps one of the most important debates of the decades. So important because it goes to the heart of the First Amendment and, indeed, our very form of government.
     The debate, of course, is over a package of legislation referred to as “campaign finance reform.” There is a correct recognition of a serious problem in our nation: the undue influence of “big money” special interests attempting to buy–or at least rent–politicians.
     Unfortunately, the vast majority of the legislation being considered takes exactly the wrong course of action. Many of the politicians assume that restricting the right of people to be involved in the political process can cure what is wrong with the system. Limiting freedom, however, is not the answer, for the problem is not that we have too much freedom, but that government has too much power.
     The real origin of the campaign finance problem is the expanded role of the federal government. The simple truth is that people are willing to spend a lot of money to influence the outcome of elections because the federal government has so much power. With that in mind, it is obvious that the proper solution to the issue is to greatly reduce the role of government. By drastically reducing the power lawmakers maintain over virtually every aspect of citizen’s lives, the influence enjoyed by campaign contributors, lobbyists and political action committees would quickly dissipate.
     We are fooling ourselves if we think that real reform will ever take place, given the narrowness of the current range of ideological debate. After all, in Washington it is often political pragmatism, not devotion to principle, which guides the decisions of people of both parties. And they have found it is not only easier to blame those who donate to campaigns for the problem with the system, but it also allows them to keep all the power they have amassed.
     The rights of eligible citizens to seek office, volunteer for the campaigns of the candidates they like, vote for candidates of their choice, and even the right to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental to a free society. But more and more, people find the choice of candidates from the two major parties to be akin to choosing between the lesser of two evils, and feel increasingly unrepresented in the democratic process, not knowing that there may well be candidates out there who more closely match their own political philosophy.
     I have introduced two pieces of legislation which will be included in the debate on this issue. My legislation, rather than disgracing our First Amendment rights, embraces them by enhancing electoral free speech.
     The Debate Freedom Act of 1997 expands the opportunity for political debate and discourse by requiring recipients of federal matching campaign funds (currently available only for Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns) to agree in writing not to participate in debates to which every other candidate for that office whom either qualifies for federal funds or is on the ballot in a minimum of 40 states, are not invited. If the candidate violates the agreement, they lose the federal matching funds.
     A lack of differing views in the debates is not the only problem; there is also a lack of choice at the ballot box.
     Undue restrictions on access to the ballot impair the ability of citizens to exercise their rights, and has a direct and damaging effect on citizens’ participation in the electoral process. Many states unduly restrict access to the ballot by means of such devices as excessive petition signature requirements, insufficient petitioning periods, unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition signature distribution criteria, and limitations on eligibility to circulate and sign petitions.
     The Voter Freedom Act will establish fair and uniform standards regulating access to the ballot by eligible citizens who desire to seek election to Federal office and political parties, bodies, and groups which desire to take part in elections for Federal office; and to maximize the participation of eligible citizens in elections for Federal office.
     Congress has strict constitutional authority to regulate, protect and promote the exercise of the voting rights, as well as set the specifications on how federal elections are to be conducted.
     It would be ironic if in our zeal to promote freedom and correct what is wrong with our system of campaigns and elections, we instituted new laws and regulations that trample our most precious rights. The answer to our electoral problems is found not in restricting freedom or limiting access, but rather in following the Constitution and allowing maximum individual liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 June 1998 Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy Experience shows that embargoes only hurt Americans, help dictators
     Even actions taken with the best-motivated of intentions can go astray, and what seems politically pragmatic can often have dire, unintended economic consequences.
     Nowhere is that more evident than in our nation’s trade policy. All who embrace the philosophy of liberty and have a love for freedom have a strong desire for others to break free from the shackles of oppressive regimes. And while we want to see dictators and tyrants fall, we hate to see innocents injured by our action–or our inaction.
     There has been a growing recognition that oppressive sanctions do not work, that engagement is the best policy, as it allows the people living under oppressive regimes to see the fruits of freedom and develop meaningful relationships with outsiders.
     But there has been an entire level of victims to our nation’s policy of economic sanctions who have been completely ignored: Americans.
     Recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s publication, Farm Bureau News, did a remarkable job of highlighting how trade sanctions on foreign countries actually do a great deal of damage to Americans without effectively changing the status quo in the country we are ostensibly trying to “help.”
     Illinois Farm Bureau president Ron Warfield is quoted as saying that he and the Farm Bureau “strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts. We believe that opening trade systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability.”
     He is entirely correct. If we cut off contact with people in oppressive regimes, two things happen. First, they are not exposed to different ideas and beliefs, leaving only the nonsense being touted by their government. And second, it allows a carte blanche power for the oppressive government to blame any problems in his country (real or imagined) on Americans, rather than his own failed programs and ideology.
     In fact, as we have seen with embargoes on Iraq and Cuba, the dictator grows stronger when there are heavy sanctions, not weaker. But in our country, those sanctions are devastating. Mr. Warfield told a congressional panel recently that when the United States placed an embargo on US grain against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, $2.3 billion was lost in farm exports.
     Again quoting Mr. Warfield from the American Farm Bureau publication, “The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade. Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change–not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors.”
     And that is a position supported by many in the Christian community as well. Father Paul Sirico, a Catholic priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that sanctions hurt only the people we are trying to help, not the leaders of evil governments.
     And there is another dynamic in place as we look toward engagement rather than isolation, and that is the issue of aid. For years the American taxpayer has been forced to subsidize hundreds of governments around the world, including those of some of the most vicious dictators in history, in the name of either “promoting human rights” in that country, or in the interest of “national security.” Often times, tax dollars are being used to prop up these dictators, while at the same time trade sanctions prevent US farmers and small businessmen from selling their products in that market.
     So while the farmer or small businessman is losing money by being forbidden to enter a potentially lucrative market, he is being taxed at higher rates to pay for subsidies to those same foreign governments.
     A more sensible–constitutionally, morally and economically–alternative to our current foreign policy is one of engagement by individuals in trade, and an end to the imperious system of foreign aid. Unless a nation represents a clear and present danger to our national security, we should allow, even encourage, our best ambassadors–who are our businessmen, our farmers, our ranchers–to engage in mutually beneficial trade with people of all nations and regions. As goods are traded, so are ideas. And just as American products are the finest in the world, so too is the philosophy of liberty.
     Of course, this policy still leaves open the chance for Americans of conscience to boycott products made in other nations, or to choose not to do business with Americans who enter into trade with countries of which they disapprove.
     Our nation should adopt a policy of free and open trade, not immoral and forced aid, in our relations with foreign countries, to the benefit of their people and ours.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 June 1998 After 222 years liberty must still be our goal Americans must be vigilant, vocal in demanding freedom
     Liberty, freedom, self-determination. It was 222 years ago this week that a handful of colonists stood and demanded that these rights, inalienable be virtue of being endowed by the Creator, be recognized by the imperial Crown of England.
     A bloody conflict ensued. But it is not the date that peace was declared and our nation organized which we recognize as pivotal to our history. No, the day we celebrate was the day our forefathers boldly proclaimed to the world that liberty was their goal, a desire for a life to be spent in pursuit of individual freedom.
     Those who signed the Declaration of Independence envisioned a nation rising on this continent which was based on the Rule of Law and respected, unequivocally, the rights of the individual to live their lives free from oppression. To a degree perhaps unimaginable to that band of radical idealists, their vision has come to pass over these two centuries.
     To a degree.
     Each age has had its problems in the United States. The nineteenth century held slavery. The twentieth, the growth of socialism and its sister, fascism.
     But rather than focus on where we have failed, our gaze should rest on the ideal. The freedoms we enjoy today are the direct result of the commitment of men and women who refused to compromise their ideals. Certainly they failed at times, even compromised when they should have stayed the course, the problems and deficiencies we see in society is proof that no one is perfect, and that we fall short of our ideal. But we mustn’t be deterred from striving for the goal, for liberty.
     It has been said that when one reaches for the highest of goals, he may not reach his destination but he will come far closer than the man who set his sights on a much lower standard. Our standard must be freedom and liberty. Unequivocally, and without compromise.
     There can absolutely be no compromises between liberty and oppression, for one is the anti-thesis of the other. If we claim to strive for individual liberty, yet we agree to compromise with the forces of oppression, the loser will always be liberty, and the winner oppression. A little oppression is morally the same as the complete absence of liberty.
     It is appropriate that this week be not only the observation of the Declaration of Independence, but also the time of year we as individuals–on average–become free of the cost of government.
     For more than half of the year the average American toils not for his family, for his needs, or for his future. No, for the first six months of the year, the average American works to pay the cost of federal, state and local taxes and regulations. Imagine that, between January 1 and sometime around July 4, we were working to pay for government, not feed our kids, pay the rent or save for retirement. We were paying for government.
     That is unconscionable. Our Founding Fathers would no doubt be embarrassed at our squandering of their vision. After all, they revolted at a comparable tax rate in the single digits or less. And yet we willingly suffer an effective tax rate of 50%, and much more in many cases.
     We are not slaves, but many feel as if they are indentured servants to government. And by and large it has happened with our willing consent. We have allowed ourselves to compromise sacred liberty for temporary promises of security or false prosperity.
     But it does not have to be so. We can reclaim our heritage of freedom, not with a gun but with our voice. We can reject the creep of statism, and encourage the blessings of liberty for our land. It will require work, and it will require commitment, and it will require a willingness to stand firm for our beliefs, refusing to compromise with those who would continue to push for more taxes, more spending and more government solutions.
     It can be done.
     Liberty, freedom and self-determination. Those goals are as worthy of our attention today as they were 222 years ago in a hot convention hall in Philadelphia. And just as a devotion to those goals brought forth this great nation then, so can a renewed adherence to those principles move our nation to heights never before achieved.
     Our Founding Fathers felt those principles were worth their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” Do we?
     For the sake of our future, I must believe that the answer is yes.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 July 1998 Respect for property rights necessary for freedom Often Congress’ laws are not about environment, but power and control
     It is the most basic of all our rights. In a society which has the proper focus, many of the problems we face today become non-issues. Over the last half-century, there has been a declared war on these most fundamental of rights: property rights.
     Some try to make this an issue of simply pro-property rights versus pro-environmentalism. In reality, the issue is much, much deeper. In fact, how we look at property rights is a most basic foundation of our liberty.
     When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land–barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land–up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors.
     So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse.
     But the issue is so much more broad than simply concerns over the protection of the environment. Much has been done in the name of “environmentalism” which in reality has little to do with clean air and water, and everything to do with power and control.
     For the degree of freedom we enjoy on our own property–whether it is a thousand-acre farm or a single-family dwelling lot in a town or city–is a strong measure of the liberty in a society.
     Our respect for private property goes to the root of our other freedoms: freedom of speech, of religion, to own weapons, to gather peaceably, and on. Much is made that one should not “yell fire in a crowded theater.” And while that is true in a moral sense, it is equally true that the property owner should have the right to disallow people from saying or doing anything in their theater, or even being there in the first place. But today the government dictates not only how we can use the land, but in many cases forces us to allow others to use our property in ways to which we object.
     Freedom only exists where there is complete respect for rights of property ownership. When we go to another person’s land, or home, or business, we should expect to be bound by their rules of conduct. And they should be free to protect their property and family as they see fit.
     Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly “environmental” in nature, others reflect a desire for “fairness,” while still others make claims of simply being “good for everyone.” While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
     Perhaps the most egregious assault occurs, though, at the death of a property owner. Instead of being able to leave the family estate to his heirs, the owner’s survivors must instead sit down with the government and negotiate how to divide up the property. The family farm is an endangered species, not for a lack of profitability or interest, but because the taxes assessed by government at our death forces the family to sell off land just to pay the levy.
     Our freedoms and liberties are only as secure as our property rights. This was the underlying assumption of our Founding Fathers, and a foundation we are in danger of cracking. Without a firm respect for property ownership, all our other rights are only so much talk.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 July 1998 Paul legislation will stop national ID card Current law requires national ID before getting job, medical care, in 2000

     Just prior to my being elected to Congress, a piece of legislation was passed which was intended to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into our nation. While the goals were laudable, even the best of legislative intentions can produce results which are reprehensible.
     Such is the case with an obscure section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This section authorizes the federal Department of Transportation to establish national requirements for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. The provision, a small part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents an unprecedented power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would essentially transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
     Under the current state of the law, the citizens of states which have drivers’ licenses that do not conform to the federal standards by October 1, 2000, will find themselves essentially stripped of their ability to participate in life as we know it. On that date, Americans will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight, unless they can produce a state-issued ID that conforms to the federal specifications. Further, under the terms of the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care law, Americans may be forced to present this federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting a physician for medical treatment!
     This situation is decidedly un-American, contrary to our heritage of individual liberty and states’ rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction, such as opening a bank account, seeking employment, or especially seeing a doctor.
     The establishment of a “national” drivers’ license and birth certificate makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is “forced” to accept the federal standards, is it unlikely they will refuse to comply when such action would mean none of their residents could get a job, receive Social Security, leave the state by plane, or have access to medical care. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.
     It is for this reason that I am introducing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, with Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia as a cosponsor. As the law stands now, the government is in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
     What would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to future generations would have grown to such a size that it claims power to demand all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID before getting a job? They would no doubt be disappointed.
     But if the disapproval of the founders is not sufficient to cause Congress to repeal the requirements, then perhaps the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to open a bank account or see the doctor will turn the tide. Already congressional offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card; imagine the public’s surprise when they realize that not only is a national ID movement underway, but will be a reality by October 1, 2000.
     Despite pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national ID, followed surely by a national police force, is neither prudent nor constitutional. While it is easy to give in to the rhetoric of “protecting” children or some other defenseless group, we must be cautious that in a rush to provide protection in the short-term, we do not do permanent damage to our national heritage of liberty.
     As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.
     Where our security and liberty is concerned, we must remain constantly vigilant and uncompromisingly devoted.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 July 1998 Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained Issues of individual privacy, rights should not be so quickly dismissed
     Everywhere we turn, someone is asking for our Social Security Number: at the airport, the drivers’ license office, the store, everywhere, it seems. Yet the Social Security number was created solely as an accounting number in administering the Social Security system, and was never intended to be a universal identifier.
     In recent years, though, the Social Security Number has become just that, and unless the use of the number is restored to its original purpose, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.
     While I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which would stop a national identification card from taking effect, we need to be aware that those wanting to give government power to track us from cradle to grave already have the Social Security Number as their tool of choice. It is for this reason that several months ago I introduced the Privacy Protection Act, H.R. 3261.
     Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only look back to 1996. In that year, two major pieces of legislation passed leading this nation down the path toward the National ID. The first was the welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national database. The second was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which required that the Department of Transportation implement “standards” for state drivers’ licenses that must be followed or the citizens be punished.
     Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation’s founders.
     This is not an isolated incident; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. In many states–thanks to federal law–one cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just a couple months ago weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens.
     I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act to stop a national ID system from taking place, but we should not be fooled into thinking that the coming National ID is the only threat to our privacy. For America already has a de facto national identification number in the Social Security Number, which comes close to providing the federal government with the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave.
     The Social Security Number was created to administer the social security system, and nothing else. We must restore the integrity of the system by restoring the integrity of the accounts. That will only occur when we reign in the use of the account numbers and secure the privacy of the people. This is the purpose of the Privacy Protection Act.
     We must stop a national ID for many reasons, both moral and constitutional, and we need to stop it in all its forms. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act addresses the specific issue of a looming National ID, while the Privacy Protection Act addresses the broader issue which has been creeping up on us for many years.
     The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would one day have the ability to create a national ID system and demand that every newborn baby be assigned a number by the federal government. One wonders if the Founders would have fought for liberty if they knew how that precious right would be eroded by their political descendants.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 July 1998 Right to work must be free of coercion Most Americans say union membership should be voluntary
     Most Americans would accept the notion that individuals should be free to work for whom they want, and that individuals should be free to hire whom they want, without having an third party telling them otherwise.
     Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States, thanks to the federal government. Under federal law, Congress has prevented employees from finding a job on their own, and then holding the job by their own merit. Instead, federal law has allowed labor unions to step in and dictate to both employers and employees everything including who can be hired, the terms of the contracts, the availability of promotions, and even the conditions that someone can be fired.
     This is unconscionable. So much so, in fact, that polls report 80 percent of the American people believe these laws need to be changed. I’m one of those 80 percent who see the current state of the law as antithetical to a free society, and for that reason I am proud to be a cosponsor of the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.
     The National Right to Work Act simply repeals sections of federal law giving union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Further, Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Perhaps more importantly, though, Congress does not have the moral authority to grant a private third party the right to interfere in the employment agreements between two free people.
     Unions should be allowed to exist, as long as they are voluntary agreements between the people involved. In fact, we don’t need more regulations on the unions or the employers or the employees. In fact, we need fewer regulations on the kinds of employment agreements people can reach, and allow people to choose whom they wish as their representative, if they so choose.
     Unions can serve a beneficial service to employees and even employers. But never should unions have the benefit of the government force giving them power; that is intolerable.
     After all, no single organization can be expected to “speak” for everyone. This is why there is so much controversy over the political spending of the unions. The union leadership, for many years, has grown “out of step” with many of its members. Yet thanks to the government, members have no choice but to continue paying dues, which are then used to promote causes they oppose.
     A far better system is one of voluntary union membership. If a worker feels the union can represent them and they agree with the politics (or do not care), they are free to join the union. Likewise, an employee can choose to not join a union at all. In fact, a great market could open up, where several unions could exist, giving employees a choice of which union will best represent their interests with the dues they pay.
     But at every stage the agreements should be voluntary. Employees should be free to join or not join, and employers should be free to bargain with the unions, or not. The free market will sort out the details. The free and open market, not the heavy, restrictive hand of the government, will determine the best employment atmosphere, allowing for maximum freedom for the employees and the employers.
     Americans must have a right to work–and hire–as best suits their needs. A government bureaucrat cannot mandate the conditions, and no single organization can do everything. As always, the principle of liberty and freedom will provide the maximum number of opportunities and options.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 August 1998 Washington ‘solutions’ to voter frustration are dangerous Debate must instead focus on limited government and liberty
     Last week Congress began debate on what is referred to in Washington, DC, as “campaign reform.” I find it amazing they can call what was proposed “reform” with a straight face. In reality, most of what was put forward has little to do with the real problem.
     Most of the talk about campaign reform has been empty rhetoric, designed to seem worthwhile in a television sound bite, but not much else. For all the talk, the legislation being tossed about amounts to little more than protection of incumbents and the status quo.
     The politicians in Washington talk about the need to “reform” fundraising laws by reducing the ability of Americans to participate in the system, giving those in power more power, and those on the outside less of a voice. As those on the outside have correctly pointed out that the system is corrupt, the response from Washington has been to claim that money is root of the problem, and to ignore the regulations that obstruct competition in the process.
     But that is not the way I see it. The problem is power–i.e., too much of it in the hands of too few people. The problem with our system of elections is not that we have too few rules, regulations, agencies and commissions governing our lives–we have too many.
     Yet those in Washington see that the way to deal with the criticism is to create more red-tape and more restrictions on the way citizens participate in the political process. And therefore more frustrations.
     Consider this: Only 80 percent of the eligible citizens register to vote. Of this, 22 percent register as something other than a Democrat or Republican. Doing a little math demonstrates that of the total population of the eligible voters in the United States, more than 40 percent of the people are either an independent or “third party” voter, or they are simply so frustrated or annoyed with the system they no longer participate. That 40 percent block is far larger than the Democrats or the Republicans (around 30 percent larger).
     This means 40 percent of the people effectively have no representation in the political process.
     And the politicians in Washington are doing everything they can to make that number grow. With every new law, regulation, restriction, and set of bureaucracies, and with every new tax and fee, people are throwing their hands up in the air, mad that they feel their voice is not heard, and that they cannot make a difference.
     And so those in Washington answer the frustration by creating new levels of frustration by further restricting the abilities of the pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the unions and the right-to-workers, the fascists and the libertarians, the socialists and the capitalists, from being heard. Lawmakers say they abhor a monopoly in the marketplace, yet they entertain laws to ensure their duopoly power grows.
     Our system of elections will not dramatically change until our politicians attitude towards government is changed. As long as government has so much power over so much over lives, there will be people wanting to buy influence and create ways to keep others from doing the same. If our federal government did only those things authorized by the Constitution, there would be very little incentive for powerful “special interests” to try to influence congressmen.
     While it is easy for the politicians in Washington to try and blame our problems on too much freedom, the real problem is that our government has drifted from protecting liberty to managing a nanny state. Increasing the size of government and its influence over elections cannot help; defending and enhancing personal liberty can.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 August 1998 MSAs best option for better health care Americans should have greater say over medical treatment
     As a physician, I am painfully aware of the shortcomings of our medical system. But few are as dangerous as the rush towards managed care.
     Managed care is dangerous because it all but removes the two most important people from the decision-making process for medical care: the patient and the doctor. The managed care system is one which no one seems to want, yet no one can avoid.
     With health-care costs rising at ever-increasing rates, many of us feel we have no choice but to surrender to “the system.” The costs are rising for many reasons, most notably, of course, is government meddling in medicine in the first place, followed closely by frivolous lawsuits.
     But there is a better way, a way which has been gaining attention and even a growing degree of political respectability; the better way is the medical savings account, otherwise known as MSAs.
     MSAs are a terrific tool because they allows the individual to save money–tax-free–for use in paying routine medical costs. As consumers are able to set aside cash for their routine, or even emergency, medical expenses, they are able to increase control of their care. With their own cash to spend the way they like with whom they like, the patient is no longer held back by the cost concerns of a managed care organization.
     The MSA will help keep down the costs associated with routine medical care simply because the physicians and hospitals will now have an incentive to offer the best service at the best price. And as the patient is able to negotiate with the doctor, better arrangements best suited for that patient can be made.
     For most people, an MSA will not take care of all their lifetime medical-care expenses, and for that catastrophic health insurance policies can be purchased. But for routine medical expenses, MSAs can help everyone.
     But MSAs are still not a reality. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection Act; while an otherwise bad piece of legislation, it did move us closer to universally available tax-free MSAs. Essentially, the legislation removed restrictive caps on the MSAs and changed our tax laws so that either an employer or an employee could contribute to the accounts. Further, under current law, a person can only contribute one-twelfth of their annual allowable MSA total in a given month. The recently-passed legislation allows for single-time annual contributions.
     It is important to note that while the House has passed this legislation–with all its many faults–the Senate has not, and there is some indication that the president will veto it.
     If we are serious about reforming our system of health care, the key must be allowing for more choices and more freedom, not further restricting patients and doctors. The MSA is tool whose time has come.
     Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/).

Texas Straight Talk, 17 August 1998 Deceptive economic euphoria So-called ‘good times’ must end
     Congressional leaders are squabbling like never before; not over how to cut spending, reduce government and balance the budget, but over how to spend the so-called $1 trillion budget surplus expected over the next ten years.
     An interesting concept indeed! The national debt is rising at the rate of over $150 billion per year and our leaders never-the-less are euphoric over huge budget “surpluses” for “as far as the eye can see.” This has to be one of the craziest debates of all recorded economic history. I’m sure similar deceptions in budgetary history have been known but never to the extent of this $1 trillion “windfall.”
     It is true many Americans believe this nonsense and feel giddy about the prospects of sharing in a perpetual wealth machine. Of course, not much good can be expected to come from such accounting chicanery, but the debate is not all bad. Tax cuts are being considered as a way of “spending” some of the money coming in from–what else!–excessive tax revenues. But the myth prevails that allowing an individual to keep their earnings is recorded as a cost to government, and that is a concept which must be rejected.
     The debate over how to manage all this extra cash never includes any discussion about reducing the size and scope of government; while plenty of energy is spent on promoting new welfare and warfare spending.
     Is anyone asking serious questions about what is going on and how long will the good times roll? A few, but they are not inside the Capitol Building. Outside the beltway, it’s a different story. Many people I talk to are outright skeptical, or just don’t believe the propaganda, and many don’t even listen to the nonsense coming from our political leaders. They are struggling to pay their bills, believe taxes are way too high, that business and personal regulations are too numerous and overbearing, that inflation is alive and social security is broken. And this in spite of being at the peak of a grand economic “recovery” with the markets in the world awash in paper dollars and paper profits.
     It does not go unnoticed by people outside the Washington, DC, that the cost of living continues to rise despite the government’s rosey reports. Personal bankruptcies are at a record high level, and the 18% interest on consumer debt is a lot different from interest earned on savings accounts.
     But among members of Congress and their staffs, there is unrestrained euphoria. Sadly, it has more to do with politics than reality.
     First, we’re not doing as well as claimed and most Americans know it. Second, we’re doing well because we benefit, as all countries do for a limited periods of time, from central bank credit creation–i.e., free money flowing into the banking system keeping interest rates artificially low. A $5.6 trillion debt and growing allows government expenditures to continue despite the nonsense about a balanced budget all the Washington pundits are bragging about.
     But most importantly, our trade deficit, and the willingness of foreigners and foreign central banks to take our inflated dollars and hold them gives us a free ride for now and for as long as they see fit to accept our greatest export: our inflation and debt.
     But all good things must end when they are built on a fiction. A fiction is precisely what fiat money is–the economic equivalent of the philosopher’s stone, which was hoped to turn lead into gold.
     That it must end points to the bigger problem of dealing with an economic crises when it hits. There is no way to know when such a crises will come–but the laws of economics are as unyielding as those of physics. A crises will come, but how we will deal with it is the most important question of all, simply because our response will determine how future generations of Americans live. Will they have more or less liberty? More or less prosperity? More or less peace?
     The solution is not complex if we as a nation reject the notion that the role of government is to use coercive powers to promote welfare and warfare, and instead accept the principle that the role of government is to protect liberty. Only under that system will the euphoria of the politicians be justified.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 August 1998 Wagging imperialism as bad as the Dog Inconsistent foreign policy is part of the problem
     Many Americans believe President Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was nothing more than a scene from the recent movie “Wag the Dog.” I have been asked by the media if I agreed. My answer has been simple: I really don’t know.
     But then, I’m not sure if even Bill Clinton himself knows. I’m certain it would be easy for him to subconsciously rationalize anything that distracts us from the Monica Lewinsky affair.
     However, there is a much more important issue at stake, and that is an inconsistent and dangerous foreign policy that we have for years followed in the Middle East.
     The natural tendency for all Americans is to want to quickly retaliate against anyone who would dare try to kill American citizens. And that is, of course, understandable. But if this in reality makes things much worse and doesn’t come close to punishing those responsible, then it may well be a serious mistake on our part.
     A few facts to remember:
     First, prior to the terrorist attacks on Tanzania and Kenya, two prominent Arabic newspapers, printed in London, reported that an extremist Islamic Jihad vowed revenge against the United States for capturing three Islamic fundamentalists who were promoting Albanian separatism in Kosovo. Why we did this should prompt a serious discussion regarding our policy in that region.
     Next, Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan “Freedom Fighters.” Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States.
     Finally, the region’s Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America’s presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims–and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular–see American policy as identical to Israel’s policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans.
     Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it’s the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice–terror.
     The excuse for the U.S. to strike back, given by the President, was to “protect U.S. sovereignty” and to “spread democracy” throughout the world. Prior to last week, though, how many Americans were lying awake at night worrying about an attack by the Sudanese, let alone from our old friends the Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan? Until last week, not one American in 10 million had ever heard of this week’s “Hitler”–Osama bin Laden.
     Our current policy in the Middle East is indeed a threat to our security, for it puts more Americans in increased danger. Protecting our so-called interests, i.e., controlling Arab oil, is not worth the danger of giving the Islamic extremist the ammunition and the incentive to unite an entire region–a region which quite possibly has access to nuclear weapons–against all American citizens around the world.
     “Wag the Dog” or not, “wagging” a foreign policy flawed from the start is indeed a great danger to our national security, and we should soon start talking seriously about a policy designed for truly preserving American interests–freedom and prosperity here at home. Let us soon end the on-going Persian Gulf War. It is not winnable.
     Let us hear no more of our “obligation” to spread democracy around the world in the name of preserving our national security. We’re not doing a very good job of respecting individual liberty or the Rule of Law here at home, and it is unlikely we can simply bully others into our mode of thinking.
     When liberty is perfectly protected here at home, others throughout the world will emulate us and our message will spread without the need for imperialism, the threat of terrorism or the dangers of retaliatory bombing.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 August 1998 Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens Popular causes often used to hide unconstitutional spending programs
     For years American citizens had complained to Congress about the policy of providing welfare and other benefits to non-citizens, so it was with great ceremony in 1996 that Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act. Among other things, this measure repealed the nonsensical programs giving taxpayer cash to non-citizens.
     Public support for the provision was so strong, even President Clinton had to bow to the pressure and sign the legislation into law. What we in the public missed was what had to be a big wink between Congress and the president, as both crossed their fingers knowing the arrangement was temporary.
     In fact, the law had barely taken effect when Congress this year took up legislation, the Agriculture Appropriations for 1999, which had buried in it a return to the old policy of handing out cash to aliens.
     What does an ostensibly agriculture-related measure have to do with giving handouts to aliens? Nothing, of course, except it is a way to make it harder for those who oppose giving taxpayer cash to any non-citizen with their hand out to vote against the legislation. Especially in an election year.
     In fact, when the books are examined closely, one finds that the benefits aliens receive under this new legislation–and the precedent set by its passage–are far bigger than any positives for American farmers and ranchers. As a note, the Agriculture Appropriations process has long been the hiding place for the failed social programs loved by liberals; some estimates show that as much as 65-70 percent of the spending is on non-ag-related programs.
     The paying of benefits to non-citizens is offensive and reckless for many reasons. Most notably because it literally robs money from two groups of people: the people who paid into the system through taxes and are now expecting to get something for their trouble, and the people who are currently paying into the system (through taxes) and must bear a higher burden.
     The agreement we each make with the government when we pay taxes is that we are getting something in return: defense, infrastructure, and so on. In our age of welfarism, we also expect benefits from the government if we fall sick or unemployed.
     But when those who did not pay into the system get benefits, two things happen. First, the resources available to pay benefits (tax dollars) are spread even thinner. This means that those who paid into the system (especially our senior citizens, and even our veterans) must get a lower return on their taxes and labor, in the form of reduced benefits.
     Second, because of the nature of our system, those aggrieved by the spreading-thin of benefits from the pool they created with their taxes will rightly complain. The only option available to Congress–in their warped sense–is to increase taxes on those currently working and paying taxes so that all the beneficiaries get 100 percent of what they were expecting.
     But these programs of giving away Americans’ tax dollars to non-citizens is not limited to welfare programs at home. We see it also with the subsidization of foreign corporations and foreign nationals through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organizations. Of course, supporters of these welfare programs like to claim that they “help” America’s small businessmen and farmers, but the proof simply doesn’t exist. In fact, much like the recent “farm legislation,” the pay-out to the foreign nationals and corporations is much larger than the small bones thrown to our people as a form of sick appeasement, to keep them paying into, and believing in, the system of redistribution.
     Why do politicians feel the need to send your tax dollars to non-citizens? First, almost by definition, non-citizens are ethnic minorities, thereby giving politicians the opportunity to show they ‘care“ about that particular ethnic group. Second, when the non-citizens reside here, it creates yet another dependent class for when they become citizens; if they get a government check from the moment they cross the border, it is likely they will continue to vote for those willing to provide ever more generous government checks. Third, for those outside the US, often wealthy individuals with ties to US corporations, it creates sources for campaign donations, or provides ways to ensure corporate donors here get lucrative deals overseas, reimbursing the industrialists’ donations with tax money.
     It is important to always look at the details of the legislation hidden behind the popular names and slogans. It is even more important to follow the money. Americans are tired of being forced to pay benefits to non-citizens, while politicians hide behind platitudes, polls and feel-good policies.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 September 1998 ‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ Hearings must be held for sake of nation
     “Impeach the president!” and “Clinton must resign!” are phrases which were once relegated to the back rooms of–to borrow a phrase from the First Lady–a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ Today, those statements are being boldly proclaimed in public by many, even by those who otherwise have strongly supported this president.
     Unfortunately, those calls are only now being made after our nation’s president has admitted to living a life more akin to an afternoon soap opera than the traditional values which so many in our nation hold dear. While there is a great deal of significance to the fact that the president has admitted to lying under oath in a judicial proceeding, I have not considered–nor do I now–this “scandal” worthy of the attention it has received in the light of so much else before us.
     It might be more pressing if this were the only impropriety involving President Clinton; lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and the litany of related crimes alleged, are certainly worthy of trial under our system of government.
     But allegations of bribery, treason and oppression of rights are far more serious.
     Almost a year ago, long before our national obsession with the Bill-said/Monica-said affair began, Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and I cosponsored legislation called an “Inquiry into Impeachment,” House Resolution 304.
     I did so because credible allegations have been raised that this president has abused the power of his office, domestically and abroad.
     Discussions of a powerful man using influence in an attempt to secure employment for his much-younger mistress, while disgraceful and shameful, pale in comparison to the abuse of power in accessing hundreds of confidential files on private citizens and political opponents. It is disturbing that under this president’s watch, at least 900 files from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, detailing the intimate details uncovered for security background checks, were found to have been illegally transferred to the White House.
     If this president used his powerful position to illegally secure information regarding political detractors, then this president must be impeached.
     The situation would be bad enough if the allegations were limited to internal, domestic politics. But even more frightening allegations exist.
     Far more pressing than the results of DNA tests on a cocktail dress are investigations into whether this president allowed highly-classified missile technology to be transferred to the communist Chinese government in exchange for campaign donations. The allegations and accompanying evidence are compelling, if not yet complete, to indicate that this has indeed been the case. Let us be clear about this: the government of China is not our ally, and in fact has nuclear missiles aimed at our cities. While we are “at peace,” we should be mindful that China is a foreign government with a system diametrically opposed to our own.
     If this president not only broke the law by accepting donations from a potentially hostile foreign government, but proceeded to trade our nation’s military secrets as a “quid pro quo,” then this president must be impeached.
     For far too long, Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility to independent prosecutors. This Congress should begin proceedings to hear the facts behind these allegations, as the Inquiry legislation would require.
     Congress must move forward now to secure the integrity of our system of justice, protect the liberties of our people, and to ensure our national security. But Congress must move forward with hearings for the sake of this president and the office he holds. If this president has done nothing meriting impeachment, public hearings will vindicate him and the sordid allegations–and purveyors of the falsehoods–will be revealed.
     If, however, the allegations bear the weight of the evidence, then the man entrusted with the highest office in our land must be impeached. Should this be the case, it will be a difficult time for our nation, but it is far worse to allow transgressions against our sovereignty and liberty to go unpunished.
     Impeach the president? For the sake of our nation, let us hold hearings and weigh the evidence; the allegations are simply too compelling.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 September 1998 Inconsistency must be addressed Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for drug dealers
     It is simply a fact that even in the best of circumstances and situations, our federal bureaucracies and regulations are maddeningly complex, and it is also a fact that all too often that complexity breeds inconsistency or worse.
     In perhaps no situation is that more apparent than our policies regarding narcotics trafficking and use, and federal housing.
     As a physician, I know all too well the wretched effects which reckless use of narcotic and mind-altering substances can have on people. I have seen the helpless children born to alcohol- and drug-addicted parents. And I have even witnessed the destruction of families in my community at the hands of those using these substances.
     For many years now, our federal government has waged a war on drug use. This “war” has been both figurative and literal. And yet at the same time, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize the very drug dealers and users who we are also trying to eliminate.
     When the federal government began the “housing” programs, it was with the intention of providing adequate shelter to low-income families. Today, federal housing projects are among the most dangerous sections of a town, and are rapidly becoming little more than shelters for scurrilous behavior.
     In fact, there are rules in place that make it almost impossible to oust those convicted of felonies involving drugs. Some argue that it isn’t “nice” to evict these law-scoffs. Others suggest that we just need to spend more money to make the projects nicer, in the hopes that a new coat of paint will convince the druggies to change their ways.
     The sad reality is that, in this case, taxpayers are the unwilling enablers of drug sellers and users. By refusing to evict those who break our laws, the federal government forces you and your family to literally subsidize the very lives of those engaging in illegal activity.
     This must change. And so this past week I introduced legislation (HR4551) in the House of Representatives–mirroring similar provisions introduced in the Senate by Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri–that would prohibit anyone from living in federal housing who has been convicted of drug charges.
     There will invariably be those who oppose this legislation, for many reasons. But they will ignore one important fact: this is the taxpayers’ property. As the landlords, we taxpayers have the right to set forth restrictions on who can and cannot live in the buildings we are being forced to pay for.
     And one thing is clear: those who would violate our communities’ laws should not expect to be subsidized by federal tax dollars. No matter what some bleeding hearts may say, public housing is a privilege provided by the taxpayers, not a right.
     While the American people are willing to offer a hand to those in need, no American should be forced to subsidize those who promote, produce or use illicit substances.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 September 1998 The problem is the currency World-wide crisis points to need for sound policies
     A financial crisis is griping the world. It may yet prove to be the worst in all of history, but the source of the problem is not a mystery. It is a currency induced crisis.
     Although taxes, spending, regulatory policies, and special interest cronyism compounds the problems, all nations of the world operate with a fiat monetary system and it has allowed the financial bubble to develop. Easy credit and artificially low interest rates starts a chain reaction that by its very nature guarantees a future correction. The later bad consequences of inflating a currency are certain, no matter how beneficial the earlier ones may seem.
     Beneficiaries of easy credit demand the policy continue. Creating money and credit out of thin air is perfect counterfeiting, legal and appearing helpful to all. It accommodates deficit spending on extravagant welfare programs and unwarranted international militarism. It seems everyone likes it until the artificial nature of the financial bubble becomes apparent, as it is now.
     The current crisis signals an end of an era and it does not bode well for anyone.
     The near anarchy in Russia, the food riots in Indonesia, and the growing recession in Japan are signs of conditions spreading across the globe. And unfortunately, there is no sign that correct policy will soon be instituted–anywhere.
     Markets inevitably devalue currencies that have been inflated by the monetary authorities. The degree depends on the amount of previous monetary inflation and political perceptions but, on the short run, countries frequently accelerate the devaluation in a competitive fashion in an effort to compete with their trading partners.
     Our concerns in the Congress should be for the dollar. We should not use dollars to prop up other currencies or economies, as bail-outs compound the problems and encourage others to mismanage their economies while expecting more cash from Uncle Sam. But most importantly, it actually undermines the value of the dollar.
     Foreign Central Banks for years have been willing holders of our dollars, helping to finance our big-spending ways, by buying more dollars than our own central bank. Foreign central banks, however, have begun dumping American dollars, and as this accelerates, pressure will increase on our economy.
     What can we expect from our Federal Reserve? Just as difficult as it is for an addict to cut back on drugs, economic planners refuse to cut back the credit creation to which they have become addicted. Long life may be dependent on sound medical advice and drug abstinence, but feeling good on the short run drives the addict. Likewise, an economy feels good by perpetuating for as long as possible the easy credit that brought good times, while the long life of the currency, the economy and the political system gets little concern.
     Let there be no doubt about it. The good times came with generous credit creation and low interest rates and the Fed will yield to the politicians’ pressure to continue the process. Turning off the money spigot, and allowing the market to work will never be seriously considered.
     But eventually, the markets will rule. Credit creation may lower rates for a time, but when confidence is undermined, an inflation premium will emerge and rates will rise regardless.
     It’s time to consider the fundamentals underlying our financial and economic system. The welfare state is unsustainable, as are our world-wide commitments to bail out everyone and to intervene in every fight.
     A limited government designed to protect liberty and provide a national offense is one that could easily be managed with minimal taxes, but it would also require that we follow the advise of the Founders who explicitly admonished us not “to emit bills of credit” that is, paper money and use only silver and gold as legal tender. We need to lay plans for our future because we are rapidly approaching a time of crisis and chaos.
     We surely do not want to leave the solution to presidential executive orders.
     Congress has an explicit responsibility in the area of money and finance and we must assume this responsibility. Manipulating the money supply with the pretense of helping ourselves is unacceptable and destructive. Before our economy is lost, we should work diligently to restore soundness to our monetary policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 September 1998 For sake of Rule of Law, Congress must proceed Only Clinton’s resignation should stop impeachment hearings
     Despite partisan rancor and political positioning, no American should rejoice in the events which now grip our nation. In fact, this is indeed a solemn time for our country.
     But at the same time, it is an opportunity–regardless of position, persuasion or party–for we as a nation to reassert that we are a nation built upon the Rule of Law, and not the whims of men. That all people are held to the same standards under the law, and that laws and correct procedures are followed.
     The president stands accused of several things, and what is on the forefront of public attention is the charge of perjury and obstruction of justice before a federal grand jury in regards to a civil case involving sexual harassment.
     Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives is charged with investigating allegations against a sitting president or judge. While some may talk about whether or not an offense is “impeachable,” that is only so much political rhetoric. The Constitution only specifies that Congress can impeach a president for “high crimes” and “misdemeanors,” but the definitions of those words are left to Congress to determine–anything a sufficient number of Members of Congress find offensive can be cause for impeachment.
     In recent weeks I have been asked many times what the timetable might be for impeachment. We now have a tentative outline.
     Currently, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives is looking into the report issued by the Office of the Independent Prosecutor on charges that the president lied under oath.
     According to Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), his committee will receive a full briefing on the evidence on October 1st or 2nd. Over the next three days, the full committee will debate the evidence. On either October 5 or 6, the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment hearing.
     The resolution would then go before the entire House for a vote within three days.
     A simple majority of the House of Representatives is all that will be required to initiate impeachment hearings. Those hearings could begin immediately, or be held until early November, after the elections.
     A big question will be whether or not the impeachment hearings will be limited solely to allegations that the president lied under oath, or if it will also include other charges. Those involve potentially treasonous activities in transferring advanced missile technology to the communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations, as well as violations of peoples rights in the abuse of more than 1,000 confidential FBI files for partisan purposes. (By comparison, a man went to prison in the early 1970s for misuse of one FBI file.)
     While one should never discount the importance of lying under oath, I am saddened that some congressional leaders have recently suggested hearings will not include these other, far more serious, allegations. Crimes against our Constitution must not be set aside for details of sexual escapades. I hope that after $40 million being spent on investigating these more serious charges of crimes against the Constitution, that the entirety of the hearings are not simply restricted to this matter of perjury.
     Under our Constitution, in accordance with the Rule of Law, the hearings must be held as long as the allegations remain and the president is in office. Since the allegations are not going to go away, the only constitutionally and morally correct way for hearings to be stopped would be for the president to resign if he has indeed committed these crimes; knowledge certainly the president possesses.
     Some claim this situation creates a “constitutional crisis” and an “embarrassment.” A crisis will develop only if we, as a nation, reject the Rule of Law, and embarrassment will result only if we forego constitutional hearings.
     It is in times of stress that the quality of metal is tested. The same is true for a nation.


Texas Straight Talk, 5 October 1998 Tax measure includes version of Paul legislation Parents should be able to provide for education without penalty
     With the passage of new tax legislation last week, Congress is proposing that the American people be able to keep more of what they earn by providing more than $80 billion in tax cuts over the next five years.
     While $80 billion is nothing to sneeze at, it should have been a lot more, and a lot deeper, but this is a very positive first step.
     One such positive detail is that parents, under this legislation if it becomes law, will see the prepaid, tax-deductible tuition programs expanded to include private institutions. This means a parent can save for their kids education by contributing to a future-tuition payment account up to $5,000 per year, which can then be deducted from their gross tax income.
     This is a version of legislation that my colleague Kay Granger of Fort Worth and I introduced last year. Our bill was called the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act, HR 2847.
     The bottom line is that parents should be allowed to provide for their children’s educational needs without suffering a tax burden, and in the manner they see fit.
     America’s biggest education-related problem is not what often grabs the headlines, they are symptoms. It’s not crime in the schools, not large classrooms, not a lack of books. The biggest problem is a basic lack of choice. Today, the average Texas family simply cannot choose what particular setting is best for their child. There are simply too many obstacles; the greatest of which is cost.
     Last year I brought forward the Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816, to address this issue. My legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 per year off their tax bill to pay for any of the education-related expenses of their children. The money could be used for private or religious school tuition, books, computers, field trips–anything which is part of the educational needs of a child, whether in elementary school or college.
     Government must stop limiting the choices available to parents, and instead work to free parents of the taxes and regulations which keep them providing for their children in the ways best suited for their family.
     The House of Representatives took a step in the right direction in the passage of the new tax-cut package, but we cannot stop there; more must be done. Our kids are counting on us.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 October 1998 Tax measure provides income averaging Farmers, ranchers get strong, common-sense tool
     Agriculture, by its very nature, is cyclical. To say that there are “good years” and “bad years” in agriculture is almost a redundancy; it is merely a fact of life. A fact which until very recently was generally understood by the public, but actually used against farmers by the government’s tax collectors.
     For people engaged in most other forms of commerce, a person’s income and wealth can be measured based on a single year. Not so for agriculture.
     Just as the actual processes of agriculture demands a long-term view, so too does understanding the income and wealth of those engaged in the business. The “really good” years cancel out the “really” bad, as the “good” do with the “bad,” finally resulting in an average.
     Those of us who have grown up in or been otherwise involved with agriculture, understand that income and wealth are viewed in the long-term, over a period of years, not simply on the basis of a single harvest. A good year only corrects the books for a bad year.
     But our federal government has seen fit to use the facts of agricultural life against farmers to get a few more dollars of revenue. This occurs by taxing agriculture at the extremely high-income rates in the good years because on paper the farmer made a lot of money. They leave out of the equation that the previous year may have been a disaster because of drought, flood, market fluctuations or other problems, resulting in perhaps literally no income for the farmer and his family.
     A much more sensible method of taxation for those in agriculture is one which would view the appropriate level of taxation the way farming as a whole is viewed: in the long-term.
     I have been a strong, long-time proponent of “income averaging.” This fairer process allows those in agriculture to be taxed at a rate based on an average of several years. Several years ago, income averaging was introduced into our tax system and has been greatly beneficial to agriculture. Unfortunately, that tool was set to expire at the end of 2000.
     I was pleased, however, to work on and vote for the recent $80 billion tax-cut plan. This plan does many things, but one of its best provisions is that it extends income averaging permanently. This is an unequivocal victory for those in agriculture.
     While Congress and the federal government cannot control the weather, they can ensure that hard working Americans are not unfairly punished under our tax law because the nature of their business is so tied with nature’s cycles.
     Government should exist not to tie the hands and feet of those working to improve their lives, but to allow people to engage unhindered in the “pursuit of happiness.”

Texas Straight Talk, 19 October 1998 Economic crisis looms Proper steps should be taken to correct situation now
     Although many countries are now suffering more than the United States, in time, I am afraid our problems will become much greater.
     A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twenty-seven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in the turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970s.
     Now, after another twenty-seven years, we are seeing the end of the post-Bretton Woods floating rate system with another bang as the financial asset inflation of the 1980s and 1990s collapses. A new system is now required.
     Just as the Bretton Woods system was never repaired due to its flaws, so too will it be impossible to rebuild the floating rate system of the past twenty-seven years. The sooner we admit to its total failure, the better.
     We must understand the serious flaw in the current system that is playing havoc with world markets. When license is given to central banks to inflate a currency, they eventually do so. Money can be inflated for only so long until serious problems arise.
     That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing, and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood. An attempt at credit stimulation with interest rates below one percent, is doing nothing for Japan’s economy and for a good reason: It is the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis.
     If the problem was merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the lucky few, benefits are received when governments inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.
     But in time the free ride comes to an end. Even the beneficiaries suffer the inevitable consequences of a philosophy that teaches wealth comes from money creation and that central banks are acceptable central economic planners–even in countries such as the United States where many pay lip service to free markets and free trade.
     The tragedy in the end is far more damaging to the innocent than any benefit that was supposed to be delivered to the people as a whole. There is no justifiable trade-off. The costs far exceed the benefits.
     A program to prevent this from happening is necessary.
     First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be a central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.
     Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins.
     Third, we must abandon the tradition of bailing out bad debtors, foreign and domestic. No International Monetary Fund and related institution funding to prop up bankrupt countries, and no Federal Reserve-orchestrated bailouts such as Long Term Capital Management LP. Liquidation of bad debt and investments must be permitted.
     Fourth, policies must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed.
     Following a policy of this sort could quickly restore growth and stability to any failing economy and soften the blow for all those about to experience the connections that have been put in place by previous years of mischief, mismanagement and monetary inflation.
     Nothing but a free market, sound money approach to our economics can guarantee personal liberty or offer greater potential for fiscal rewards.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 October 1998 The Ominous Budget Deal Measure lets foreign inspectors into US facilities, keeps troops in Bosnia
     More than 8,000 pages of small print governmentese make up the Omnibus spending package recently approved by the US Congress, over the objections of myself and numerous other conservatives from Texas and around the country. The devilish details hidden in the package will remain obscured for weeks or months, until Americans have the chance to scour through the pages.
     But one thing is clear, the omnibus package has ominous implications for those Americans concerned about our national security.
     Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this package is the implementation of the international Chemical Weapons Convention. Under the terms of this convention, and approved in the omnibus package, the US must now open our weapons manufacturing and military storage sites to international inspectors.
     For the first time, United Nations inspectors will be allowed to operate on US soil as if we were a rogue nation threatening international stability. That we are allowing foreign governments and inspectors to dictate how we protect ourselves is unconscionable.
     While most people would agree that the use of so-called “chemical weapons” is deplorable, we also do not like the thought of ever having to use force. Unfortunately, just as the use of force in self-defense is required and we must never limit the right of Americans to protect themselves, so should we as a nation jealously defend our right to use any means necessary to safeguard ourselves from potential adversaries.
     At the same time this omnibus package was allowing foreign inspectors on to American soil, it provided more than $225 million to keep American soldiers stuck in the middle of the Bosnian conflict. While many of us in Congress want to see our troops brought home from the president’s little police action, this legislative monstrosity continues funding this relic of Vietnam-style interventionism.
     Of course, that $225 million is only a drop in the foreign spending bucket, with approaching $50 billion of taxpayer cash being sent overseas.
     One of the most egregious expenditures is $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund. Conservatives have battled for the past year to stop more money from going to this corrupt organization that props-up the failed economies of two-bit dictators the world-over.
     It just isn’t a good trade-off: sending our troops to fight winless wars which have no impact on our security while funneling tax dollars to organizations which operate in direct conflict with US values, so at the same time foreign inspectors can come here to weaken our defense.
     While there are many possible explanations about how these heinous line-items entered the omnibus budget, the way they stayed was the sheer size of the document.
     If the devil is indeed in the details, then we should all prepare for what else is still buried in the lines of ink.
     The omnibus is an ominous package, indeed.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 November 1998 Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again Latest plan sets dangerous precedence with US intervention
     Not a year goes by, it seems, without yet another end being announced to the centuries old conflict in the Middle East.
     In the late 1970s, two men won the Noble Prize for securing a lasting peace in the region. Of course, the ink was barely dry on the deal before hostilities began anew. How many times since have we seen Muslim and Israeli leaders solemnly shaking hands in front of US president, with all sides proclaiming that a new age has come? Almost too many to count.
     But what is the point in counting them? They have all resulted in the same thing: more violence. Often the peace-talks and signing ceremonies last longer than the actual cease-fires.
     So these last weeks have been less than riveting as our president (one cynically might insert the phrase “diverting attention from his domestic problems”) met in yet another round of tense negotiations with the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian chairman. While all three were “cautiously optimistic” in their comments to the press, the people in the Middle East–on both sides–were disgusted. One Israeli Member of Parliament has drafted a measure for a “no confidence” vote in the Prime Minister, the kiss of political death in their system, while people violently demonstrated in the streets.
     The negotiations, and their product, became much more interesting as the details have been released. ‘Interesting’ may not be the right word; perhaps ‘scary’ works better.
     Once again the United States is acting out of its league in trying to induce Israel to trade their security for an almost certain temporary peace, while attempting to persuade Palestinians to accept only a fraction of what they want. While past meddling has resulted mostly in US commitments to sending more tax dollars as aid to both sides, this time the costs may be much greater. Costly in lives, costly in national security, and costly in precedence.
     One aspect of the recently brokered deal calls for the US Central Intelligence Agency to monitor both sides for compliance with the no-hostilities clauses. This raises numerous concerns, not the least of which is simply the mechanics of our CIA doing such a thing. How are they to make sure no one is harboring ill will in their hearts?
     This president acted far outside his bounds in agreeing to such a thing. After all, even if one can make the specious constitutional argument about the appropriateness for a civilian intelligence agency as opposed to a fully military version, it is impossible to justify using such an agency to monitor the good will between two other countries.
     Worse, though, is the possibility of the US being blamed for future problems because of our “monitoring.” If a terrorist bomb explodes, many will ask, why wasn’t the US doing its job? Worse, if a terrorist bomb planted by one group or the other is stopped by the US, what will keep that side from making their next target US citizens abroad? Or at home?
     We are then faced with an ever-increasing national security risk of protecting citizens abroad and at home from terrorists who blame us for interfering in their holy wars and causes.
     This latest peace deal is most damaging in the precedence it sets. The top demand of the Israelis was that the US must release convicted American spy Jonathon Pollard to their custody or face the prospect of that country walking out. Pollard was a US Navy intelligence officer who, in the mid-1980s, began selling US secrets to Israel. He was sent to jail for life for his treason, but the Israeli government wants him freed.
     During the Cold War the US would release Iron Curtain spies in exchange for Americans or our allies. At least in the Cold War there was a direct US interest at stake. Not now; our nation is being told that if we do not release to his controllers a man who sold-out our country, then Israel would rather stay at war with the Palestinians.
     How’s that for international blackmail? If the president does not agree to release this treacherous spy, then we get blamed for the peace process falling apart.
     Of course, if history is our guide, blaming the US will be simply an exercise in window dressing. The problems in the Middle East are not political ones, and therefore cannot be solved by American politicians and their soundbite platitudes. To think a deal signed by these three men will have any meaningfully positive effect is naïve.
     There are many reasons to believe that peace will never reign in the land of the Jordan River while both sides lay claim to the region. One thing is certain, however, the United States cannot stick its nose into that mess without expecting to get punched from both sides.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 November 1998 Privacy tops agenda Restoration of rights should lead in 106^th Congress
     With the 1998 election completed and there being several weeks before the start of the 106^th Congress, this is a prime opportunity to examine what will be my legislative priorities for the coming session. To paraphrase a conservative activist of the 1960s, a priority should be erasing the bad laws, not creating new ones.
     Perhaps the most pressing issue before our nation is that of personal privacy. The last several years have seen a dramatic rise–though certainly not discussed by the press or in politically polite company–in attempts by the government to claim greater privileges in violating the privacy of American citizens.
     For a Republican Member of Congress like me, it would perhaps be more comforting to claim that these incidents were all being perpetrated by the “liberal Democrats.” While accusing the Republicans of violating his privacy, President Clinton’s Administration has indeed been at the front of the charge to increase the government’s ability to pry into our personal affairs and monitor our movements, he has had many willing allies in the so-called “conservative” camp.
     From a national database containing the private medical history of every American to a national identification card and granting broad new authorities to the FBI in wiretapping, many on both sides of the political aisle have been working to erode our tradition of privacy.
     This past year saw several minor victories for those of us wanting to turn-back this trend toward a more intrusive government. We succeeded in forestalling implementation of the national medical database and the national ID for one calendar year.
     Under the guise of “preventing fraud,” the medical database would require that every aspect of an individual’s medical history be linked together and easily accessible to government officials and researchers. And what is accessible to government officials and researchers for “good” purposes is also accessible to computer hackers. Suddenly companies would pay for “illegal” information on your medical history, to determine the risk you pose to their benefits package. Or, a political opponent brings up an embarrassing tidbit from your medical past. Or ... the possibilities are endless, including the likelihood that patients will stop confiding in their doctors if it is possible that those remarks could be transcribed into a computer database. Of course, the ultimate solution is to exclude government from its unconstitutional role as a health care provider.
     A national ID poses no less serious a threat. Under the 1996 legislation authorizing the creation of this new monstrosity, no American can travel by air between the states or internationally without a national ID card after October 1, 2000. Further, doctors will be required to see the ID before offering care, and no one will be allowed to receive federal benefits without their card.
     A fundamental question that must be addressed is this: why does the government need to know our every move? Without fail, the answer is always “fighting crime.” But at what point does the “fighting” of crime become itself a crime?
     We were unsuccessful in stopping the Administration from implementing “roaming wiretaps.” It has been the case up until now that the FBI or other agency can only tap those phone lines that are approved by a court once probable cause has been shown. While some (including myself) believe that the courts have been too liberal in allowing taps, at least there has been a passing acknowledgement that violating privacy, even of someone suspected of engaging in criminal activity, is not a trivial matter. Now, however, these agencies want the power to tap any phone a suspected criminal may use.
     How would this work? If someone you know is suspected by the government of doing something criminal, and that friend comes over for dinner, the FBI wants the authority to tap your line without a court order–just in case the criminal uses your phone.
     How long would the tap be in place? What if they heard something they would not otherwise hear (say, you and your brother-in-law in another state making a casual $1 bet on a college football game)?
     Benjamin Franklin once wrote that those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. The application of this quote to the privacy issue is unmistakable. We have become so consumed as a nation with “fighting crime” that many are willing to give up their liberties, those precious gifts of our creator secured by the blood of soldiers, to secure the illusion of eliminating criminal behavior.
     Criminal law enforcement, of course, is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
     We as a nation must jealously guard our constitutional rights and American heritage of liberty. To assume we can at the same time be a nation of liberty and have a government which monitors our every move and word is foolishly inconsistent.
     The restoration and protection of personal privacy is, and will remain, a key issue for 1999, for the 106^th Congress, and for our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 November 1998 Wrong debate in House ‘leadership’ race Focus is on personality and form, rather than ideological substance
     Is leadership important? Of course it is, but current contests for House leadership positions won’t make much difference for our nation.
     The narrow margin between Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives will wreck havoc for whoever ends up in charge. However, the frustration and gridlock may not be all that bad for those of us who want to slow the growth of the federal government.
     The most-often-made claim of leadership candidates is that, if elected, they can best balance the demands of the competing special interest groups.
     One candidate, in seeking my vote for a leadership position, explained that he was more “telegenic” and could therefore better portray “the party” to the American public on TV. Another said he should be elected because he could, in a legislative sense “make the train run on time.”
     But are “on-time trains” such a good thing if they carry off more of our money and freedoms while delivering more regulations? It may be that our leaders should demand that we stop the trains entirely. In the last four years, very little legislation has actually been championed to shrink the size and scope of the federal government. A change of leadership probably will not significantly change this record.
     Too often the leadership debate is only over which version of government intervention we want. Those seeking high office often pay lip service to “less government,” but their voting records rarely show a consistent opposition to big government. So the debates are more over form than substance–TV performance, getting the growing budget passed on time, satisfying the multitude of demands from the countless groups that have come to believe they are entitled to taxpayer largesse.
     The clashes are over big-government details: the welfare poor versus the welfare rich; a foreign policy of propping up right-wing dictators versus left-wing dictators; a war on poverty or a war on drugs; “protecting” the environment or bailing out the IMF. But in the Halls of Congress, little said and less is done about getting the government out of our lives, out of our wallets and off our land.
     In 1994 the American people expressed a desire for leaders who push for less government. The lackadaisical effort, poor results and perceived sell-outs of the last four years have disillusioned those voters. So in 1998, voters were demoralized to the point of simply boycotting the polls, adding to the post-WWII trend of an understandable apathy.
     Both parties, unfortunately, endorse the use of government force to police the world, to redistribute wealth domestically and internationally, and to manipulate money and credit. Both allow government to invade our privacy as a trade-off for the government financing of education, medical care, and housing, arguing such invasion is necessary to run the system efficiently, and prevent waste and fraud. In the name of “public safety,” neither party resists the federal government’s takeover of local law enforcement.
     The leadership debate generated by Speaker Gingrich’s departure has been an exciting event for the inside-the-beltway crowd, but did not generate the true debate over philosophical leadership that will determine the course of our nation for years to come.
     The contest is not about choosing between big or small government, but merely endorsing the one version of Republican big government over another that can “best compete” with a Democrat version of big government. We should expect continued clashes over whose ox is getting gored and whose friends are receiving benefits, but not over questions of the appropriateness of government goring any ox or rewarding/harming political bedfellows.
     We should all hope for the day when choosing leaders means choosing between those who endorse big government and those who pursue the form of government prescribed by the Constitution.
     Eventually, we will need to be led away from the interventionist philosophy that so many leaders of the twentieth century have thrust upon us. The current jockeying for positions of power in Washington, while politically fascinating, will unfortunately not significantly change the direction of our country.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 November 1998 Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems Saber rattling covers serious flaws in approach to other nations
     Sabers are again being rattled by the Clinton Administration, with thousands of troops dispatched to a remote corner of the world to implement a United Nations policy which very few of the “Nations” support, and none are willing to bankroll. Who is the bad guy of the week?
     That trusty villain Saddam Hussein. Remember him? Trained by our government, supported with our tax dollars, encouraged by our leaders. He became the global miscreant after he–a thug, no doubt–invaded another country of thuggish status. But the country he invaded was run by thugs with whom we had a closer relationship than he, so Saddam’s Iraq became the new target of hatred and scorn–and misuse of American military might.
     Our relationship with the Republic of Iraq over the last two decades is a case study in all that is wrong with our national foreign policy. We prop-up immoral dictators, making them our friends and allies at the whim of one administration in keeping with the political correctness of the day, only to completely reverse our course a few years later for no logical reasons. When an individual behaves that way, clinicians refer to it as schizophrenia.
     We must either be engaged in a purely schizophrenic foreign policy, or we must admit to there being such a thing as “good thugs versus bad thugs.” Or, we have to say our policies are driven by the commercial interests of big business (to “protect” the availability of foreign oil, in the case of Iraq). It is hard to decide which of the three could be worse.
     In the end, though, it is our soldiers who bear the brunt of the policy, for they are used to clean up of the messes our vacillating positions create. The United States created Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, so when he became what he was created to become, we destroy him, but in the process put at risk the lives of soldiers and Americans abroad.
     But the use of the military is a great way to divert attention from our foreign policy failures. For when our kids go off to battle, no one dare oppose the action, for that is seen as opposing them. The blood of our nation’s youth, all too often, is spilt as if it can wipe away the policy sins of the Congress and the President.
     Of course, the decision to send troops out to mope up our mistakes is never presented in such a fashion. Instead we talk about needing to make the world safe. Exactly how and from what is obscured. For since we are often then ones who create these villians (such as Hussein) in the first place, perhaps the best way to make the world safe for the US to re-examine its basic foreign policy. In medicine, a doctor can either treat the symptom or the cause.
     Hussein and his ilk are in so many ways the symptoms of the disease of 20^th Century imperialism.
     The only constitutional–and therefore legal–use of our military is in the direct protection of US sovereignty. While we expend billions of dollars and countless lives to (unsuccessfully) oust third-rate dictators who have absolutely no ability to threaten our nation on the basis that they might attain “weapons to mass destruction,” we all but ignore real threats (such as the Chinese, North Koreans, military renegades in Russia, Syria, Pakistan, and others).
     We must make radical changes in our approach to foreign policy. (1) Trade and engagement encourage not only peace, but allows individuals currently living under despots to have intimate contact with free peoples, showing them a better way exists. (2) Understanding the history of a region prevents us from trying to step in and determine “winners” and “losers” by settling “peace” among peoples who have been waging war since before Columbus sailed the seas. And, (3) ending the give-away of tax dollars to various countries is not only more responsible for our people, but less likely to antagonize nations as they compare who is and is not on the American dole for how much. George Washington encouraged our nation to be friends with all and enemies with none.
     While we cannot control what attitudes of nations have toward the United States and her people, we can mitigate hostilities by not giving those nations more reasons to despise us.
     Sadly, though, until we engage in a more constructive foreign policy, we can expect the hear the rattling of sabers each time a president needs to divert attention from whatever problems, or the United States wants to wipe under the rug the interventionist mess created by our schizophrenia.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 November 1998 Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching New FDIC regs require banks to violate customers privacy
     “Big Bank is watching.” That’s the message the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Internal Revenue Service and an endless stream of federal government agencies are sending under proposed new regulations expected to be implemented within the next year.
     This massive new program–euphemistically called “Know Your Customer”–would convert our nation’s banks into wholly owned subsidiaries of the government-wide movement to invade every aspect of Americans’ privacy.
     The end-effect of the new regulations will be that law-abiding American citizens will be spending more of their time trying to prove themselves innocent of unnamed crimes before federal agents. For example, an individual decides to sell his car through a classified ad in the newspaper, and quickly finds a buyer, who hands over the cash. Now, our happy car-seller is still shopping around for the vehicle he wants, so he wisely deposits the large cash into his account. Unfortunately, that simple act could trigger an alarm within the bank’s computers, alerting to the fact that this customer never makes such large deposits. The bank will be required to notify a host of federal agencies, which will likely dispatch agents to question the man, assuming he must be a drug dealer, arms smuggler or terrorist.
     Sound loony? It is. But that is precisely what will be imposed on banks if these new regulations take effect.
     Under these regulations, banks will be required to first create a profile of all new and current customers. The profile will include such information as their credit history and other standard financial reviews, but will be expanded to include the customer’s deposit and withdrawal habits. This information will be gathered over the first few months of the account’s creation. After that, any account activity that deviates from the profile will be considered suspicious behavior.
     Not only will “unusual” deposits into your account trigger suspicion, but so too might large cash withdrawals. Let us return to our friend selling the car. Instead of selling his car, though, let us say he saved $100 each month for two years, so that he could by his teenage daughter a used car. On the teen’s birthday, so Dad goes heads off to by a vehicle, first stopping at the bank to withdraw the $2,400 he had carefully saved. Again, such an action would likely put this man in the position of having to defend himself against charges of buying drugs, laundering money, tax evasion or some other crime.
     The government regulators defend the new rules, saying that such measures are needed to “combat illicit activities.”
     But at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s privacy? And with the resources of private institutions? While such egregious violations of individual rights are common in totalitarian regimes (Hitler’s National Socialists elevated such abuses to a perverse art), they cannot be tolerated in a free society. The regulators say these new banking rules are required under existing banking laws. If that is the case, I will gladly relieve them of that burden by introducing, at the beginning of the 106^th Congress in January, legislation to repeal those laws. Somehow, though, I imagine such action will not stop them, only slow them down.
     That an innocent man may be presumed guilty lest he prove himself otherwise is a concept embraced more and more by our government regulators and lawmakers, though in absolute conflict with our national legal tradition.
     Despite the warm and fuzzy name, the federal regulators are not interested in the banks “getting to know their customers.” Their only interest is in monitoring and controlling every aspect of life, so they can create the illusion of phantom crimes, and therefore justify their existence. With complex laws and unimaginably obscure regulations, the cards are stacked against everyone, ensuring that at any moment, the IRS or other agency can nail anyone for something.
     In a society founded in freedom and liberty, individuals must be allowed to engage in life without fear of their actions being monitored and misinterpreted by zealous government agents. Sadly, that is not the burgeoning legacy of the 20^th Century. Big government, big banks, big… everything is watching and waiting.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 December 1998 Free speech is good medicine

Nanny State mentality must be rejected
     Free speech is the essence of our society. Without the ability to freely speak one’s mind and make claims of the correctness of one’s perspective, no other freedom is secure.
     In a society based upon the premise of liberty, free speech is restrained by free minds. Individuals are able to discern the important from the whimsical, the rational from the ludicrous. Under the precepts of liberty, while one is allowed to make their claims freely, no one is compelled to provide a forum or even listen.
     While much lip service is paid to this belief in respect to political dialogue, there is a trend to limit free speech in our medicinal dialogue.
     In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration has quietly begun limiting the speech rights of Americans. For as disturbing as this may be from an ideological perspective, it portends ominous possibilities for people’s very lives.
     Under the guise of “protecting” consumers, the FDA is moving to prevent sellers of natural vitamins and similar products from making claims of potential benefits. Even if one could constitutionally justify the FDA’s ability to limit free speech in the name of “protection,” it is clear that such restrictions only serve to harm consumers.
     This harm comes from limiting the information which consumers have before them. It foolish to think that any one doctor is aware of everything on the market which can help a patient maintain their good health, or recover from illness more rapidly. As a physician, I have always preferred working with an informed patient. They would sometimes be aware of new treatments, medicines or advances that I may have not yet studied. Sometimes that information would lead to new treatment for that patient, other times not, but the more information and choices available to the patient, the better.
     It is also foolish to think that the motives of the FDA are as pure as some would have us believe. As an entity run by politicians, the FDA is susceptible to the same political shenanigans as other government agencies. Friends of politicians get preferential treatment in military construction, tax-code revisions and highway projects.
     In the same way, the large pharmaceutical companies are also big campaign donors to both parties. Their goal? Not highway projects, but FDA rules designed to ensure they maintain large profits and keep upstart companies out. Even though reliable scientific data indicates a particular naturally occurring substance can safely be of benefit to some consumers, there is little incentive for the large companies to manufacture those because the profit margin is so narrow, especially compared to that of synthetic drugs.
     Opposition to the FDA’s unilateral control of our nation’s medicinal drug market is seen as heretical to the concept of government-knows-best.
     Even assigning the most innocent of motives to the FDA’s designs on free speech and commerce is disturbing, for it reflects the ever-growing Nanny State mentality of Washington, DC. Lawmakers and bureaucrats are convinced that they are smarter, better informed and care more about all Americans than do those Americans themselves.
     After all, goes the pro-FDA reasoning, how can consumers be protected from dangerous products by anyone but the government? Given how often the FDA grants approval then later revokes their endorsement after the item is found unsafe, the better question might be how to protect consumers from FDA-approved products.
     Should a manufacturer produce an unsafe product–whether it is a vehicle or a drug–then injured consumers can take their grievance to civil court for redress. And if false claims are made in an attempt to get sales, the charge of fraud can be levied by those aggrieved.
     Most Americans look for the seal of approval from the AAA, Good Housekeeping, U.L., Better Business Bureau and multitude of other private sources when shopping for goods and services.
     To think the conscientious American cannot also examine the claims of vitamin manufacturers and make informed decisions for personal use in consultation with her physician, family, friends and others is recklessly condescending.
     The growing Nanny State assumes Americans are mindless sheep in need of the omnipotent wisdom of the government in every aspect of their lives. In reality, what America need is less government and more individual responsibility.
     Project FREEDOM.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 December 1998 Medical costs can be cut with freedom Allowing consumers access to MSAs will improve health care
     An often-made claim is that it is expensive to be sick in America.
     That may be true, though no more so than any of the more socialist systems in the world perceived as “inexpensive” by those desiring similar government programs here. In those nations, the cost is hidden in individual tax-rates in excess of fifty percent, so the extremely high costs for care are still being paid by the patient, they just don’t write the check to the doctor, they write it to the tax collector.
     The reality is that for Americans major expense is not in major illnesses (insurance bears most of the brunt in typical cases), but in routine care.
     For many years, the federal government has taken an ever-expanding role in our nation’s medical care through regulatory and legislative activism. Of course, to oppose federal involvement is to be “anti-health care” or “anti-patient.” Never mind that routine health care is arguably less efficient and less accessible than in our recent past, with sick people receiving worse care at higher costs.
     What the politicians and their bureaucrats refuse to acknowledge is that the cost of routine health care is spiraling out of control precisely because of the federal involvement.
     Most obviously, there is the direct government meddling. Bureaucrats, under authority granted to them by years of irresponsible congressional action, now dictate how medical care is to be offered, in what timetables, quantities and situations. Of course, these directives have nothing to do with the realities of medicine or even the demands of the market, but are simply political directives issued for soundbite effectiveness. While sounding nice, these regulations increase costs by forcing the medical provider to expend greater resources to meet the regulations.
     Resources once devoted to assisting patients with their needs must be diverted to meeting bureaucratic regulations. Federal regulations imposed on state governments regarding medical care delivery, or on insurance providers, or employers, or directly on doctors and hospitals, all eventually come back to the consumer in the form of higher checkout costs.
     To deal with the ever-rising costs, consumers feel forced to relinquish more control to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). At the same time, doctors are forced into the systems so that the burden of regulatory paperwork can be lifted from them.
     The insurers and HMOs only make matters worse by further restricting the consumer’s choices and limiting the services a physician in their group can offer. The incentive to cut costs is lost, as physicians (now working essentially as low-level employees) seek to make as much as they can in the new corporate environment, will charge the maximum the HMOs allow.
     Consumer complaints about insurers and HMOs compel politicians to write new laws and more regulations to curry voter favor. More regulations breed more costs, limiting more choices, causing more anguish, and the cycle continues.
     There are several ways to break the cycle. The most obvious solution is to pull the plug on federal intervention. That, however, is tantamount to political suicide. Who wants to be depicted as wanting to stop “good” regulations and laws, and “hurt” patients?
     A more viable solution is to let the consumer and his doctors pull themselves out of the system, by means of medical savings accounts. While this does not solve the entire problem, it provides a larger degree of freedom for those who desire it.
     Under an MSA system, a consumer could save pre-tax dollars in a special account. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with the patient negotiating directly with the physician of their choice for the care they choose without regard to HMO rules or a bureaucrat’s decision. The incentive for the physician is getting paid in cash as the service is rendered, rather than waiting months for an HMO or insurance provider’s billing cycle.
     With the cash for the MSAs coming from pre-tax dollars, most Americans could afford deposits that would cover routine expenses families’ experience in a year. To cover larger expenses, major-medical insurance policies are readily available and fairly inexpensive.
     Medical care will always be expensive, regardless of the system. The real question is how much freedom will a patient have in determining the care they receive. It is only when the patient controls the purse strings of his own money that he will have that freedom.
     Project FREEDOM.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 December 1998 Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes Congress must reclaim from president power to declare war
     No proposition is more serious than placing in harms’ way the lives of our nation’s soldiers. Wars are instituted by governments, but it is the youth that pay the ultimate price.
     It is for this reason that the Constitution speaks clearly about where the power for engaging troops in battle must rest. In Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution gives the power to “declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” solely to the House of Representatives. The reason for this is clear; the House is the branch of the federal government closest to the people, standing for election the most often, and therefore the most accountable.
     When our young men in uniform were sent into battle last week by the president (regardless of whether for honorable or dishonorable reasons), it was in direct contradiction to the United States Constitution, in keeping with the history of the past half-century.
     Despite the thousands of Americans who have died in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and other locales, there has not been a declared war since World War II. Each of those actions occurred without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war. In reality many of our nation’s young men died in the pitch of battle and war, but in the coldness of the law, they fell–depending on the case–in “police actions,” “peacekeeping missions” or “support operations,” with the authority usually coming from the United Nations, rather than the US Congress.
     In what should be regarded as the gravest of all crimes, these citizens were sent to their deaths unconstitutionally. And, it should be noted, for actions we lost. We lost those wars simply because they were not matters of urgency in protecting our national security, but political battles waged to appease one interest group or another. Without the full resolve of Congress and a declaration of war to protect our security, our military must deal with such vague politically correct objectives as “reducing the ability” of a foreign leader to potentially do something. How does one define a “reduced ability,” let alone bring such an objective to fruition?
     It is commonly, but incorrectly, assumed that a president has the authority to send troops into battle, though under our Constitution, the highest law of the land, he does not.
     Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated–unconstitutionally–its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power.
     An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam fiascoes. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution. What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered.
     Under the War Powers Act, a president can send troops into battle to honor a UN request or to divert attention from personal problems.
     Often, of course, the military industrial complex and their allies in Congress push for meaningless resolutions supporting the action, even if the action is objectively wrong. Remember, these are not war declarations, but resolutions rubber stamping presidential actions. The rhetoric used, then , is that one must vote for these resolutions to “support the troops.”
     Never addressed, of course, is the absurdity of how one can “support” soldiers by sending them into unconstitutional battles where they will die for causes other than protecting our security interests.
     Most recently, the Congress interrupted the important impeachment debate to pass a two-part resolution. The first half simply offered support for our troops, and was unobjectionable. The second half, though, encouraged the president, praised his unconstitutional actions, and recommended that he engage in further unconstitutional actions by trying to topple the leadership of Iraq and replace it with what would amount to a US taxpayer supported puppet regime. Of course, voting against the second part is depicted as the fans of unconstitutional war as opposing our troops. Nevertheless, I voted against the resolution because I cannot sanction abuses of our Constitution.
     Congress should support the troops by taking them out of senseless danger, not encouraging a soon-to-be impeached president to risk further the lives of enlisted men.
     The gravest crime against our Constitution is the one never addressed: the senseless slaughter of our soldiers, our best and brightest. Perhaps one day Congress will reclaim its constitutionally mandated power of sole authority over matters of war. Until then, more young men will die senseless deaths.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 December 1998 Embargoes most destructive at home Reckless government tool simply does not work
     Few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the “embargo.”
     While such action has the sound of strong, punitive action, it is in reality a failed principle that the experience of the last four decades has proven doesn’t work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.
     For this discussion, though, it is important to make sure all the terms are understood. An embargo is a policy by which the president decides that US producers cannot sell their goods to the people of another country, in an attempt to punish those people’s leaders. Economic engagement, on the other hand, is allowing Americans to sell their products where they wish, to whom they wish.
     It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government taking Americans’ tax dollars to prop-up other nations.
     In the brief history of this reckless tool, not a single embargo has actually worked, though some will fruitlessly try to claim the case of South Africa as a victory. The embargoed nations still exist, with the hated leaders firmly in power. It is for several reasons that embargoes do not accomplish the tasks for which they are levied.
     First, embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or the other. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.
     It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine and other products to individuals actually benefit them. Embargo advocates will claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that the people’s hostilities are more firmly directed at America.
     Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations “strengthen people’s loyalties to each other and weaken government power.” To imagine that we can somehow spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
     One need look no further than Cuba. For more than thirty years we have embargoed the country in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. At last check, he was as powerful as ever. Or we can look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course, the Soviet Union has collapsed.
     Second, embargoes greatly harm our people. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology that reduces the cost of operation and increases the yield, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.
     Third, embargoes are more often levied for political points, rather than sound policy. In times of war, it is perhaps reasonable to expect government to prevent Americans from selling goods to our declared enemies. But in a time of peace, it is difficult to imagine the benefits to our people, or others, of an embargo. There was no consistency in having had economic relations with the Soviet Union, a nation that pointed nuclear missiles at our shores for decades, while refusing to allow American pharmaceutical companies to sell life-saving drugs to the people in Cuba, a poor island country with no weapons that could endanger us.
     If the policy of embargoes is to continue, then Congress should have final oversight of implementation and duration. But that is a big “if.”
     Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people will inevitably make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well being of Americans.
     Like no other form of government meddling, embargoes are destructive and should be ended without delay.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 January 1999 Federal government needs to step out of education Parents, students, teachers need more choices, fewer restrictions
     No single issue motivates elected officials like education. Addressing the educational woes of our nation is a task both political parties loudly claim as theirs, each claiming to hold the “best” solution.
     Sadly, though, the solutions often presented are nothing more than different sides of the same big-government coin. President Clinton says he wants to fund a hundred-thousand new teachers for the classrooms, though the specifics of the program mean billions of dollars with more federal control and more bureaucrats, but not many teachers.
     A lot of Republicans want to collect more federal taxes and then disperse the funds in form of grants to the states. But that involves more federal bureaucracy costing millions and giving us more bureaucrats to administer the grants.
     For twenty years, our nation’s schools have been in decline, but not because our kids are less intelligent or our teachers less capable. The problem has been the people running the programs; not the principals or superintendents, but the federal regulations that trickle down through various levels of various bureaucracies.
     Operating through existing grant programs and the so-called “free lunch” initiatives, the federal government has a stifling stranglehold on education that plays to the lowest common denominators.
     What’s needed to release this trend toward mediocrity is not more federal spending and programs, but rather less federal intervention and more real parental control. No one should oppose making sure kids get the best education possible. Of course, the vested interests in public education programs are the first to oppose parental choice, because any given parent might choose an option other than the government schools.
     Different problems exist in different places and that is precisely why centralized education policies do not work. The reality is that the challenges and problems faced by one locale is not an issue in another. The answer is not to deny this reality, but rather to aggressively promote an honest solution. In a word, that solution is defederalization. The federal government should reduce the federal tax burden so that states and localities, working closely with parents, can best provide for their own educational needs.
     I will continue to support initiatives that let parents keep their money and decide how best to educate their kids. One such initiative is my Family Education Freedom Act. This legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 per year per child for education-related expenses such as tutoring, field trips, computers, tuition and books, and would be equally accessible and useful for parents who place their children in public, private or home school settings.
     Another useful tool for parents is the Education Savings Account. This would allow parents to place pre-tax dollars in designated accounts to spend on their children’s education.
     Allowing parents the financial freedom to choose between more choices can be only beneficial.
     A very real concern in education is that while there a great number of people who would make fine teachers, they are unwilling to enter the field because the salary is simply not competitive with what they can make in other professions.
     With the seating of the new Congress, I plan on introducing legislation that would give significant tax breaks to classroom teachers of both public and private schools. Simply cutting federal taxes can amount to a significant increase in take-home pay and would go a long way in making the profession more attractive to a perspective teacher.
     If we are serious about wanting to improve the system of education in our nation, we should be willing–for the sake of our children’s future–to stop doing those things which simply do not work. Experience has proven that federal intervention in education doesn’t work.
     Parents know best the educational needs of their children. It’s time for the federal government to get out of the way.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 January 1999 Protecting integrity of Social Security
      Legislation protects fund from political abuse
     There has been much rhetoric in recent months about “saving Social Security”; empty rhetoric. Politicians have taken up those three words as a mantra, hoping a constant repetition of those words will draw America’s attention from the corrupt use of system funds, which continue to be abused by Washington.
     Almost immediately after being sworn in as a Member of the 106^th Congress on January 6, 1999, I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act, legislation to provide real protection of the trust fund. This legislation is identical to a bill 94 other Members and I cosponsored during the last Congress.
     Regardless of what one thinks of the public policy that gives us Social Security, there is no denying that the funds of the program have been mismanaged and abused by the government. At every paycheck, Americans see a portion of their pay reduced by taxes taken specifically for the Social Security Trust Fund. The understanding, of course, is that the taxes are held in trust for that worker’s retirement years. And because every American is issued a “Social Security” account number, the perception is further bolstered that the taxes are held in reserve for that specific person in an individual account.
     This was intended to be more than a matter of perception. The law enacting the Social Security system and trust fund envisioned as much.
     Reality, however, is much different.
     The Social Security Trust Fund has for decades become a slush fund for the big-government programs of Congress and the President. In fact, close to a half-a-trillion dollars have been taken from the trust fund over the year.
     In recent years, President Clinton and Congress have claimed to produce a balanced budget. This balancing act has only come as a result of numerous accounting shenanigans, including taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
     The trust fund has little actual money in it; it instead holds IOUs from the federal government, promising to eventually–someday, maybe–pay back the fund.
     It must be a top priority for this new Congress to restore the integrity of the Social Security trust system. The Social Security Preservation Act will do this by making it illegal for the government to use the trust funds for any purpose except administering the Social Security system.
     Restoring the integrity of the trust system is of critical importance. Billions of dollars are being diverted from their intended purposes, yet many in Washington chant the “save Social Security” mantra while taking more and more out of the fund. So when we hear that Congress might change the Social Security retirement age, or increase the Social Security tax, or we worry whether senior citizens’ Social Security checks will be secure, remember it is the federal government that is robbing our trust funds to pay for big-spending habits.
     It’s time for political rhetoric to turn into realist policy. Quick passage of the Social Security Preservation Act must be a top priority of the new Congress.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 January 1999 Stopping the Surveillance State New legislation halts privacy invasions
     It was once commonly held that an external force was the greatest threat to the liberty of American citizens. Reality has proven that the greatest threat comes from within, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the growing surveillance state.
     To challenge this, I recently introduced The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999 (H.R. 220), legislation forbidding the federal government from establishing national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of monitoring, overseeing, or regulating the private transactions between American citizens.
     Perhaps the most important section of the legislation is the prohibition against using the Social Security number as an identifier. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is now a national ID. The use of the Social Security number has become so widespread that most Americans must produce a Social Security number to get a fishing license, and members of Congress must show their Social Security number in order to vote on the House floor.
     One of the more disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the government is more in line with the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired the nation’s founders.
     Another section of the bill will stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier.” This identifier would logically lead to a national database containing the detailed medical history of all Americans. As a practicing OB/GYN for more than 30 years, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity and private nature of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient placing absolute trust in the doctor not to discuss with anyone her health problems. What will happen to that trust when patients know that all information given to their doctor must be placed in a government accessible database?
     Some claim the federal government needs these powers to prevent criminal activity or to “protect” us from fraud committed against government health care agencies. Of course, monitoring the movements of every American to catch those few involved in illegal activity is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure without warrants. The federal government does not have the right to treat Americans as criminals by spying on their relationships with doctors, employers and bankers. Likewise, since the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to operate health care agencies, the threat of fraud would evaporate with the end of these programs.
     Many in Congress sincerely suggest that citizens’ privacy could be protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, but the fact is that legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate. Recent history demonstrates that federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous officials from accessing supposedly protected information. Did laws stop the continuous violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment.
     The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason, and therefore doomed to failure is anything short of repealing laws that violate personal privacy.
     While most members of Congress are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act , they will consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward the government’s prying eyes. My office has been inundated with calls from around my district, state and, indeed, the nation, encouraging my efforts to thwart these attacks on our privacy. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a taxpayer who wants the government to further erode their privacy.
     Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state. National IDs and massive government databases are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 January 1999 A New Pandora’s Box Government invest in market must be opposed
     resident Clinton raised a number of bad ideas last week in his State of the Union address. His theme for the evening was “more,” as in more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxes and more violations of the Constitution.
     Perhaps the worst of his propositions is the proposal to allow the federal government to invest in the stock market. Under the Clinton plan, a quarter of the Social Security funds would be invested in the stock market.
     This is an unreasonable proposal for several reasons; it fails the critical tests of constitutionality, rational economics, and pragmatic planning.
     As it is, Social Security is approaching bankruptcy and doesn’t have any cash to invest. For decades congresses and presidents have raided the fund to bolster big-government programs. The president’s shady investment plan hinges on investing cash that simply isn’t there.
     The president and congress have for several years been bragging about great budget surpluses, and, of course, the outlandish claim that the budget is balanced. The federal debt is continuing to rise, by more than $100 billion a year. It is impossible for the budget to be truly balanced while debt continues to rise unless the president has different understanding of the meaning of the word “balanced” than most Americans.
     Constitutionally, there is simply no provision for allowing the federal government to become a “part owner” in private companies.
     One does not set money on a table at Wall Street, leave it there, then come back a few days later to collect the loot and call it investment. When one invests, they are becoming a part owner in the company or companies. With ownership comes the benefit of sharing in the profits, the risk of sharing in losses, and, perhaps most importantly, responsibility in making decisions.
     It is that last component which is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the president’s plan. Are we to assume that the government will invest billions of dollars in stocks, and yet not want to have a voice in the way the companies operate? That would deny the way our government operates. Look at education; the federal government, unconstitutionally, subsidizes approximately eight percent of the public education budget. Yet the strings attached to that small percentage gives the federal government near-absolute control in one way or another over nearly every aspect of the operations in individual school districts.
     Under the president’s plan, government will become a very loud part-owner of thousands of companies. And because government will want to ensure a return on its investments (which is fundamentally impossible), one shudders at the potential rules and regulations that would be imposed on the marketplace in general, and those companies specifically.
     This president firmly believes government knows best–in everything. While he would deny individual Americans the right to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to savings and investment programs of their choosing, this president would dump billions into the stock market so he and his cronies can effectively nationalize our economy, while using the proceeds to pay for more needless government programs.
     While Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and I are often at odds on issues of monetary policy, he perhaps best described the president’s plan. “Let me just say it’s not so much a trade-off of benefits versus costs. I’m frankly just hard-pressed to find any benefits there are in doing it.”
     Such plans not only bode wretched possibilities for the nation and economy in general, but are also harmful to the individual. Mr. Greenspan has pointed out, correctly, that some state government’s already have pension plans for their employees, and that these accounts have an average return two percent or worse than privately run accounts.
     Government investment in the stock market is a path that must not be taken, and a Pandora’s Box that should never be opened. The results could be unimaginably dangerous for the nation, and simply unprofitable for the individual.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 February 1999 Orwellian rules face major opposition Paul legislation will restore financial privacy
     It has turned into a case of government agencies against everyone else.
     More than 14,000 people–average American consumers, bankers, and civil-liberties advocates–have written federal agencies in opposition to the gross violation of privacy known by the Orwellian title “Know Your Customer.” This response is even more remarkable when one realizes that the usual number generated by these agencies’ rules is less than a hundred.

     Almost three months ago I first reported on the proposed regulations brought forward by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other regulatory agencies. These regs would turn bank tellers from reluctant information-gathers to unwilling investigators for the federal government’s ongoing War-on-Everything–which obviously includes the privacy of ordinary Americans.
     Under the existing Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions already must report large transactions to the government. Under these new rules, not only would the banks have to collect the raw data on transactions like a low-level spy but will now be required to serve as the government’s front-line investigators. Investigating who and what? Everyone, and everything financial. Forget the Fourth Amendment, forget the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and forget search warrants; these regulations assume everyone is as guilty as Al Capone.
     The rules require banks to create profiles on its customers’ accounts, and when a customer steps outside that profile, he or she must be reported to the federal government for “suspicious” activity. In addition, the banks will have to track the source of the deposits and, again, report that information to the government. A bank teller would have to report as “suspicious” the 20-year-old, minority single mother who makes an “out-of-profile” $500 cash deposit. That the cash was the gift from a family member, and not funds earned illicitly, would be an inconvenient fact she may never have the opportunity to present. Under current drug-forfeiture laws, her account could be seized, and assets forfeited, without her ever being charged with–let alone tried for–any crime.
     Not only does this represent a toppling of our legal heritage and a dangerous philosophic shift, but it is also a ridiculously heavy burden to place on financial institutions.
     The many bankers who have contacted my office have said they are not sure which is worse: the heavy toll this will take on our precious liberties, or the high cost these rules will mean for the institutions and passed on to customers.
     Understandably, American consumers aren’t thrilled either. Once again the federal government is creating yet another file on them; it is creating fresh opportunity for an over-eager bureaucrat to make a mistake and destroy an innocent person’s life.
     To combat this, I will be introducing three pieces of legislation. The first is the “Know Your Customer Sunset Act,” which will immediately stop these rules from going into effect. The second is the “ Bank Secrecy Sunset Act,” which will force Congress to either rewrite the poorly written, abused Nixon-era program, or devolve that power to the states. The third is the “ FinCEN Public Accountability Act.” This legislation will require that agencies let Americans see their own “financial history” files created under current rules, much like what is required of the FBI and credit bureau reporting agencies.
     Congressmen are signing on these measures due in large part to the growing chorus of Americans who are saying, to paraphrase our founding fathers’ cry, “don’t tread on my privacy rights!” Dozens of organizations, ranging from banking and technology groups to conservative family-values coalitions to the liberal ACLU, are joining in the fight to oppose these regulations.
     As a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, this important threat to our financial privacy will be a top priority for me.
     They may call their rules “Know Your Customer,” but they read a lot more like “Spy on Your Neighbor.” If we act quickly and properly, we have the chance to stop them.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 February 1999 A right to network TV? Free market offers best option for viewers
     Who has the “right” to view television programming? It may seem a trivial question, but it indeed strikes at a core issue for the free-market system.
     For the last several weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural satellite TV customers. These Americans are upset because their satellite service providers have informed them that, absent actions by Congress, they will lose access to certain network television stations and programming.
     Some satellite service providers have written their customers to suggest that this is “unfair” and that they have “as much right as anyone” to see network television irrespective of where they live.
     This, of course, begs the question as to whether or not one has a right to more than can be secured by voluntary exchange in the marketplace, or if the federal government should assume the role of deciding who gets what property in what amount and at whose expense.
     Most recently, in an attempt to protect the property rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast.
     The root cause of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter.
     The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, however, federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights.
     It is within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
     Helpfully, network programs will not be terminated prior to March 1, 1999, and waivers may be available from the local network affiliate for those who cannot receive a signal even when using an over-the-air antenna. Moreover, technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
     I will continue to consistently oppose all governmental barriers to the free functioning of markets–markets, which if allowed to function, will maximize viewer choices at the most reasonable costs.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 February 1999 Stopping the President’s New Little war Clinton would use troops to support ‘Butcher of the Balkans’
     A common practice since World War II has been the presidential commitment of our troops to battle without congressional approval, despite constitutional requirement to the contrary. Continuing in this dubious tradition, President Clinton recently announced he would be sending American troops, under NATO command, into strife-ridden Kosovo.
     Three years ago, the President sent troops into Bosnia, promising they would be home in six months. The years have passed, more than $20 billion has been spent, and our soldiers are still there. Very few seriously ask anymore when these troops will be coming home–or even what it is they are supposed to be accomplishing.
     Last week I introduced House Resolution 647 to stop the president from involving us in Kosovo without first obtaining congressional approval. The measure immediately received more than a dozen cosponsors.
     Congress must restate its constitutional obligation to supervise the engagement of troops in hostile situations. Our Founding Fathers gave Congress the authority to determine what wars should be fought, as Congress is most directly responsible to the people.
     We spend less and less money every year on our own defense while spending more and more policing the world. It would be better to spend on national defense projects the money now being wasted in Bosnia, Iraq and other locales around the world. Moreover, our nation would be undeniably stronger by not having our soldiers killed in pointless “police” actions.
     The issue is one of responsibility. As the history of the last half-century has shown, once troops are sent into a foreign war, it is very difficult to bring them home. Without a pressing national security threat and declaration of war, there are no clear objectives, and, hence, no way to measure when a job is finished.
     The fact previous administrations were unchallenged in scattering troops around the world was not due to legitimately granted power, but rather abdication by Congress of responsibility to supervise out-of-control spending and reckless warring.
     It is remarkable that the president is planning to send troops to Kosovo, a section of Serbia. The Serbia leader, Slobodan Milosevic, is the last of the hard-line communists still ruling a former Soviet Bloc nation. For his well-documented reign of terror, Milosevic has rightfully earned the title “Butcher of the Balkans.” Despite all this, the president is sending our troops to Kosovo to keep independence-minded people under the ruthless hand of Milosevic.
     One task to be assigned our troops will be the disarming of the Kosovo Liberation Army. While supporting Milosevic is hardly rational, it makes even less sense to take actions that will serve only to pit Kosovars against Americans.
     How ironic that at the dawn of this century Americans were viewed as the champions of liberty, yet in its closing days we will be using our might to support a communist butcher.
     Adding to the recklessness of the mission is the near-certainty that our troops will serve under the direct command of a foreign military leader, someone not answerable to Congress or our laws.
     Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States, nor further our national security. In fact, national security will be jeopardized as our presence in the region only increases the likelihood of needless involvement in an all-out war. Even Pentagon officials have been critical of a Kosovo operation because troops are already spread so thinly around the world, there are no defined objectives, and the resources could be better utilized.
     According to the US Constitution and American tradition, it is not a prerogative of the president to send troops around the world to fight the battles that do not concern us.
     Congress must re-exert its constitutional authority and stop presidents from sending troops into harm’s way. Most immediately, Congress must stop President Clinton’s new little war in the Balkans.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 February 1999 The Big Lie Budget surplus is a fiction
     By simple repetition, a lie can become accepted as truth. It is a function of human nature that if enough people hear something often enough, reality takes a back seat to the lie.
     “The Budget Surplus.” For months “it” has been the mantra of everyone in Washington, DC. “The Budget Surplus.” Everyone from the President to the Speaker of the House to TV pundits has spoken about “it” in glowingly terms. “The Budget Surplus.” And there has certainly been no shortage of ideas in how to spend “it.”
     Too bad the “surplus” is a fairy tale.
     The budget surplus is a shameful sham; it is the product of the wishful thinking and convoluted pseudo-math that is the federal budget process. There is no budget surplus. In fact, not only is there no surplus, but the national debt is actually continuing to increase. It will be increasing this year, and next year, and the next year, and on.
     The “surplus” claim is derived, at its most basic level, from the fact that there are technically more “revenues” coming into the federal government coffers than expenditures. That “fact,” however, overlooks several important factors. Most pressing of those is that there is no actual money in the federal trust funds. Those funds–Social Security, highway, airport, etc.–have been (and continue to be) robbed by the politicians and replaced with government IOUs. The money from the funds has gone to pay for liberal social programs and foreign military adventurism. The “surplus” difference between the revenues and expenditures includes the continued theft from the trust funds.
     The debt will increase unless serious changes are made; changes that have nothing to do with creating more government programs and further political shenanigans.
     A real solution to our budget malaise is putting the federal government on a diet. It’s time for the unconstitutional programs of the past to simply go away; the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the pointless, deadly, expensive foreign wars.
     The time has also come for honesty in accounting. The government taxes every American at 15 percent for Social Security, using the fiction that the cash is waiting in a trust fund for retirement to placate us. We must restore the integrity of the trust funds by stopping the politicians from being able to take the money in the first place. I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, to do just that.
     If these trust funds are to exist, then they must be held securely, their integrity ensured by law.
     To the extent that the politicians are able to rob from the trust funds is the extent to which they are going to continue to lie about state of our government’s fiscal soundness, and continue the reckless spending that has been the hallmark of the 20^th Century.
     Integrity is a critical-need in our government; integrity for our trust funds and integrity in budgeting. But most importantly, we need to find integrity in our leaders. For men and women and principle will not lie, cheat and steal.
     For too long Washington politicians have been stealing from the trust funds, cheating the budget process, and propagating lies to cover their tracks. Integrity is truly a critical need.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 March 1999 Phase-in of tax cuts make code more complex Americans deserve deep, across-the-board tax cuts now
     As Americans begin the arduous task of preparing their tax returns for 1998, it is important to keep in mind several important changes to the tax code that could significantly affect how much they owe the government–or how much the government needs to refund.
     While even the smallest tax cuts should be welcomed, the changes going into place reflect the basic problem Americans have with our current system: it is too complicated. The tax code is just getting more complicated; more forms and more time without significant tax cuts for significant numbers of people.
     The first measure is the Child Tax Credit. For 1998 returns, parents can claim $400 per child under the age of 17. Next year, that number will be $500 per child. The credit applies to single filers with adjusted gross incomes less than $75,000 and joint filers with incomes less than $110,000.
     Another important change is the threshold for exemption from the estate, or Death, taxes. The current exemption is up to $625,000. At this time next year, that exemption will have increased to $650,00. By 2006, without a change in the law, the exemption will be $1,000,000.
     Small business owners will have two important changes to their deductions. The first is a deduction in health insurance premiums. This year, small businesses can deduct $45% of the premiums. Next year, for tax year 1999, that deduction will be 60% of the cost. Within four years, the deduction is expected to be 100%.
     Come next year, small businesses will also be able to deduct up to $19,000 in expenses for tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the conduct of a trade or business. The deduction is up from the $18,500 that can be claimed on 1998’s tax year. By 2003, the deduction will increase to $25,000 in 2003 and thereafter.
     Other changes taking effect this year are those regarding dealings with the IRS. Prior to January 19 of this year, the IRS was able to seize a “principle residence” without due process and judicial approval. Now, that practice is forbidden. In addition, taxpayers will be able to recover the “reasonable” costs they incur–such as attorney fees–when the IRS takes a position against a taxpayer that is not “substantially justified.”
     For the 1999 tax year, senior citizens should be aware of an increase in earning limits. Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 will be able to earn up to $15,500 without losing Social Security benefits, up $1,000 from the 1998 tax year. That limit is expected to increase to $30,000 in 2002.
     While there are some minor tax cuts, there are also some increases, most notably in Social Security, which many Americans will have felt in their first paycheck of 1999. Last year. the payroll tax was 12.4 percent levied on the first $68,400 of income. Beginning Jan. 1, that amount is levied on the first $72,600 of earnings. This raises taxes by $490 for approximately 9 million taxpayers.
     In almost every case of “tax cuts,” the reductions are minimal. Americans are still burdened by too many taxes and regulations (which are merely hidden taxes). While initiatives that allow even a few people to save even a few dollars should not be scoffed at, Congress needs to get serious about making deep, across-the-board tax cuts.
     Americans should not be content with letting Congress make only small tax cuts targeted to small groups. If there is to be more than rhetorical lip-service paid to the phrase “doing the business of the people,” then Congress should act immediately to scrap the Internal Revenue Service, scrap the current tax code, and replace it with something much simpler.
     And with rates much, much lower.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 March 1999 Victory should be call to action Complacency must be avoided if liberty to reign
     Americans may lay claim to a minor victory in the battle for liberty, if not the war. Last week, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services unanimously passed a revised version of an amendment I introduced to stop the proposed “Know Your Customer” regulations.
     But this amendment is tacked onto a broader bill that is not assured of passage in the House, nor the Senate, nor receiving the signature of the president. While the message sent to the regulators bent on implementing these regulations is a victory, there remains much work to be done.
     These proposed regulations, which I have written about for almost a year, would virtually eliminate any vestiges of privacy remaining in our financial system. In addition to subverting the Constitution’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, these regulations would–if enacted–wreak havoc on our system of finance. Banks would be required to monitor every transaction of its customers, create detailed profiles based on that monitoring, and then notify federal agencies any time a customer deviated–even slightly–from that profile. All the records would be accessible at any time to the federal government.
     More than 140,000 people wrote in opposition to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and the other agencies promulgating these regulations. Those same agencies–with no small degree of bewilderment–recorded less than 100 comments in support of the massive privacy grab.
     Even law enforcement professionals are unimpressed with the regulations. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America–one of the largest organizations of police officers–supported my work, stating it is “opposed to any federal directive that would require banks to implement profiling systems.”
     The LEAA statement goes on to read that, “Such intrusive measures will also infringe the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens while detracting from meaningful debate and discussion of measures that would improve law enforcement’s crime-fighting ability.”
     The real problem is not the specifics of this particular set of regulations, but the entire process that allows these regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, though, there are some in Congress who irrationally believe one can violate the Constitution’s strict prohibition against federal crime laws, support a multitude of big-government programs like the failed “war on drugs,” yet still respect individual privacy. The logical fallacy of such a belief would be almost laughable, were it not so dangerous and irresponsible.
     Dangerous because those Members of Congress will now–having witnessed a minor victory–forget about the importance of this issue and move on to the next cause du jour. These members of Congress are content only to place inconvenient speed bumps in the way of regulators bent on undermining our form of government.
     I believe, however, we need to take these powers out of the hands of the regulators altogether. Government agencies should not have the power to draft an entire industry into their service, nor should they be allowed to unilaterally declare as criminal the behavior of every American citizen.
     This is why I will not relent in my crusade to reign in these unconstitutional agencies, which operate often in direct opposition to our form of government and tradition of liberty.
     A minor victory in the battle for liberty should inspire us not to drift into dull complacency, but to press on with renewed vigor toward the goal before us. If we are to find true success, it will come when we devote ourselves not to political expediency, but to the full implementation of the principles of liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 March 1999 Contentious debate produces rubber-stamp of Kosovo If children of congress, president, were placed on frontlines, policies would be different
     Pandemonium reigned on the floor of the US House of Representatives as members debated the contentious issue of President Clinton’s intention to place US troops in the middle of the Kosovo civil war.
     President Clinton is planning on sending thousands of soldiers into harms’ way for an unspecified amount of time to achieve unspecified goals and without a single shred of evidence that this internal conflict affects US interests or the safety of American citizens. The American public is outraged, military leaders says this deployment will further erode readiness, and yet Congress cannot muster the courage to tell this president “no.”
     The problem, of course, is that for far too long Members of Congress have endorsed the unconstitutional principle of complete presidential prerogative in military affairs. It is Congress, not the president, which is empowered to declare war. For years, though, Congress has allowed presidents–Republican and Democrat–to recklessly scatter our troops around the world to play the ill-conceived role of international policemen.
     In this current debate, liberal Democrats cannot oppose military action in Kosovo (despite their better instincts to avoid wars) because to do so would reflect badly on a president of their party. Meanwhile, the conservative Republicans (who are finally coming around to a sensible understanding of proper defense policy) must endure charges of hypocrisy if they now oppose missions similar to those rubber-stamped under Republican administrations.
     In an effort to appease the new federal religion of bipartisanship (I prefer non-partisanship), Republicans agreed to introduce a measure offering complete support to the president and any decision he may make regarding troops in Kosovo. Oddly, though, the measure had no binding legal effect, though it erroneously claimed to “authorize” such actions–so much for even the notion of congressional oversight! Some Republicans–including myself–tried unsuccessfully to change the measure so that it would forbid, not approve, the use of troops.
     As the pitch of the arguments rose to partisan rancor, it became abundantly clear that nothing good would occur when the House took its vote.
     A House Concurrent Resolution has no binding legal authority, and is a tool used to make a public comment, but not create or alter federal law. That a non-binding resolution received barely a majority of the votes should be a clear signal to this president not to proceed as he has planned; but that is not likely to happen.
     The winners, as always, are those who seek war and hold our Constitution and principles of non-interventionism in disdain. The losers, of course, are the soldiers who must endure yet another endless deployment that risks their safety and lives, as well as the taxpayers who will now foot the bill for yet another exercise in foreign adventurism.
     During a speech on the House floor, and in conversations with like-minded colleagues, I have suggested that perhaps Presidents and Members of Congress would be less eager to intervene in every little war if their kids–their sons, daughter, grandchildren and family–were to be sent immediately to the frontlines of the conflict.
     As a Vietnam era veteran I could not help but notice that many of those calling for war on the floor of the house had no record of military service in their own biographies. Indeed many of them were the very same people who protested against the war in Vietnam.
     Some of those calling for war did have a military background, but I was especially glad to see heroes like former prisoner of war Sam Johnson and Randall “Duke (‘Top Gun’)” Cunningham, voting along with me to oppose this action. In fact, if only those congressmen who have truly seen combat had been allowed to vote, I dare say the outcome would have been greatly different.
     It’s easy for Congresses and Presidents to be “generous” with other people’s money. It’s apparently just as easy for them to fight international injustice with other people’s children.
     For those of us who cast our votes on the House floor, the pandemonium is merely inconvenient. For the men and women who must now carry out yet another mission of our horrendous foreign policy, the results are far more serious, if not deadly.
     Addressing a different subject, though the underlying principles are the same, I quote Thomas Jefferson: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Texas Straight Talk, 22 March 1999 Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda “Fair,” protected and subsidized trade harms consumer, economy
     Forces of protectionism won a victory recently; a victory over the American consumer and the principle of free trade. Of course, as with so many issues in Washington, DC, it is almost impossible to understand who are the free-traders, fair-traders and protectionists without a scorecard; and even then, of course, none of those words actually mean anything in debates on the House floor.
     Claiming to be watching out for the interests of everyone, Congress passed legislation that reduces the ability of Americans to purchase steel from foreign producers. The only interests being served, though, are the labor unions.
     Proponents of the legislation claimed foreign companies were “dumping” steel on our market. The word “dumping” is used to conjure up images of foreigners sneaking across the border under cover of darkness and selling low-quality steel in back alleys. Reality is far different from rhetoric; Americans are buying the foreign steel because it is a better value.
     So rather than re-examine the market (which is unwilling to pay the high-prices brought on by government regulations and union-imposed wages), the advocates of big government and forced unionism demand that Congress close down what remains of the free market.
     The true free market is a threat to entrenched interests and lazy minds. The free market rewards those who are willing to work hard, produce that which people demand, and at a price they are willing to pay.
     It is no longer politically fashionable to ask for “protection” from foreign competition. Instead, they demand that supreme “virtue” of American politics: fairness.
     “Fair trade!” has become the rallying cry. Sadly, though, there is little “fair” about these policies, and even less about their outcome. This “fairness” means gouging consumers for higher prices using the force of government to protect the rackets of organizations unwilling to work within the system of voluntary exchange.
     This “fairness” extends to other arenas. Take, for example, the situation with Cuba. For three decades national policy has forbade trade with Cuba, on the grounds that we are trying to force Castro from power. To date, that policy has not only been unsuccessful, it has backfired. But, in the name of “fairness” and “security,” Cuba’s poor do not have access to American inexpensive food and medicine.
     I have introduced HR1181, which will allow Americans to enter the Cuban market, but prevents federal tax dollars from being used to subsidize the Castro regime.
     For while many in Washington call themselves “free-traders,” but there is nothing free about their agendas. The so-called “free-trader” in Congress is often one who believes in subsidizing trade; that is, using taxpayer dollars to prop-up foreign governments on the condition that those governments then use the money to purchase goods from certain American companies (which in turn lobby for “protections,” creating a vicious cycle).
     The others who misuse the “free-trade” label are the managed trade proponents. These are the ones responsible for empowering the international regulatory bureaucracies of NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization, all of which have as much in common with free trade as protectionism does.
     In the end, it is the American taxpayer that foots the bill. The cost comes in higher prices, higher taxes, or both.
     True free trade involves neither protectionism nor subsidization. Free trade recognizes that market forces, not government regulations or spending packages, will best allocate resources; even across political borders.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 March 1999 Burning bridges Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful
     This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends.
     Yet, for an Administration enthralled with the notion of a paternalistic government that cares for everyone, everywhere, all the time, President Clinton’s actions in Serbia should not be surprising. Just as this president believes he and his government can best order the lives of each American citizen (he recently said that Americans shouldn’t be given a tax cut because they would not spend the money as wisely as he and his administration would), he is confident that he can solve the problems of the world. His track record suggests otherwise; despite the fanfare and speeches, there is still violence raging from the Middle East to Ireland–all great “successes” for this president.
     For as bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited, and the efforts are quite simply not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where the violence is endless and just as tragic.
     Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance.
     If anything, our involvement threatens to escalate the situation. No successful military action has ever–or likely will ever–involve only air power; ground troops must be involved. While a stealth jet will likely always escape the “primitive” weapons of the Serbs, a bullet aimed at a soldier can be very primitive, yet just as effective as the most modern of firearms.
     Some argue the US is needed to stop the spread of war. Our presence will do the opposite. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a long-desired goal, are now greatly threatened. Our bombings are likely to provoke the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.
     Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims.
     Contrary to his campaign slogan, President Clinton’s actions are burning bridges to the 21^st Century. The tragedy is that it will be our soldiers–our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters–who are trapped by these senseless actions, and it will be the innocent women and children of Serbia who will bear the brunt of the bombings.
     Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years.
     The use of force and acts of war can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty.
     This is not a proud time for the United States.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 April 1999 Playing with matches in the powder keg US in dangerous situation with demoralized, poorly equipped military
     A weakened nation left with a dwindling supply of weapons while facing an increasingly tense situation with troops held hostage and military morale at an all-time low, as war-mongering civilian leaders are eager to spill more blood. Not a description of Iraq or Serbia, but of the US as we enter the second quarter of 1999.
     While downplayed by the media and the Clinton Administration, anonymous sources have revealed in news leaks that the United States is dangerously low on satellite-guided cruise and the Tomahawk missiles–two indispensable mainstays of our air power. Yet these weapons are being expended like candy–with apparently the same effect–in Serbia.
     At the same time, this week, we learned that Russia is moving ships into Balkan Sea. While publicly remaining neutral on the US/NATO attacks on the sovereign nation of Serbia, the Russians have been traditional allies of the Serbs. Massive anti-American demonstrations in Moscow cannot long go unnoticed by the Russian politicians, whose government is, at best, tenuously held together.
     Finally, Americans awoke to the troubling news that three American soldiers were captured by Serbian forces and paraded on state television. Their capture reflects the basic problem with our foreign policy. These men were in Macedonia as NATO troops with a UN “peace-keeping” mission that ended in February. The reason they were still in the region–and specifically near the Serbian border–is unclear.
     What is clear is that no one seems to know what to do with them; they are not–regardless of the media’s sensationalist headlines–“prisoners of war,” for there is simply no declared war. Are they prisoners of peace? Are they trespassers? Under whose legal jurisdiction do they fall? It was not lost on American troops that the Administration and NATO leaders were nonplussed by the capture.
     Of course, what is also not lost on our military is that this Administration does not really worry about things like military morale. After all, the Air Force is trying to wage this mission with a record low number of pilots, diminishing weapons and resorting to cannibalizing pilot-less aircraft for spare parts. The other branches are likewise seeing fewer recruits. And it is no wonder! Why would any young person choose military service–or to stay in the military–when it may require being captured by hostile forces, in the most untenable of situations, while performing missions that have no relation to our national security under the command of foreign leaders?
     The Administration’s track record on military engagement is disastrous, even if one accepts their interventionist philosophy. Not a single foreign entanglement of this Administration has achieved a single one of its goals. Yet far be it for this Administration to learn from past mistakes and put a more sensible foreign policy in place.
     With our troops spread so thinly and so poorly, one must wonder if this Administration is living in a fantasy world. For it is only in the world of fantasies where a hero can successfully face dozens of foes armed only with a butter knife. Yet the American people are not sure if we can even claim the title of hero in this situation, for rarely does a “hero” pick a fight. And one who picks a gun fight with a butter knife is more aptly described as foolish.
     To say the situation facing America is bleak would be optimistic. Dangerous would more correctly reflect reality.
     We have been told that this region is a powder keg. Sadly, this Administration is poised with a lit match, inches from the barrel. Save a miracle, it is sure to explode in our faces.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 April 1999 Get to know your banker Free-market economics can stop privacy invasion
     When government regulators recently announced they were pulling the plug–for now, at least–on plans to strip away the financial privacy of all Americans, one can imagine they did so with a knowing smirk on their face.
     A smirk because they knew what most Americans do not: most big banks already have “Know Your Customer” programs in place. The regulations by that name, proposed last December, would require banks to keep records on the spending and savings habits of every client, with any deviation at all being reported to the IRS, FBI, DEA and other government agencies as being “suspicious.” Those agencies, in turn, would be able to freeze accounts and seize assets–essentially destroying a person’s life–without there ever being a court order or proof of criminal wrongdoing.
     The reality, though, is that many banks succumbed a long time ago and adopted these rules very quietly and “voluntarily.” That is to say, they started doing these things before it was required because they assumed the agencies would get the regulations. Imagine the surprise when these banks (not to mention the regulators) found that a quarter-million people sent protests to the agencies, demanding the rules be pulled. I led a groundswell movement in Congress to stop them, and the “Know Your Customer” program was ‘pulled from the shelf.’
     Officially, anyway.
     The financial regulatory agencies have for some time “recommended” that banks have “Know Your Customer” procedures in place. Those “recommendations,” while not required, are often perceived as an unspoken threat of the federal regulators. Banks rely on the regulators to give them a clean bill of health, or face shut down. One person I know in the industry said it is well understood that if a bank doesn’t follow the “recommendations,” then the agencies will make sure they find some mistake, somewhere, no matter how small, and earn them heavy fines. In other words: do what we want and bank examiners will go easy. Many banks have given in, though some have not.
     The problem for both the big banks and the regulators, though, is the free market. Not every bank is participating in this privacy grab. But you can bet you won’t see anyone advertise that they share every detail of your life with any federal agent who walks in the door. As a consumer, though, you do have a right to know what records your bank keeps on you, what is being done with them, and how they are being used.
     I would suggest that anyone concerned about financial privacy send a letter to their bank, asking those questions and requesting a response in writing. If the bank does have these programs which are not required, the customer should demand that such files not be kept. If the bank gets enough pressure from their customers, they will change their policies–after all, what good is volunteering to assist the government in invading privacy if their customers leave in favor of other institutions that will not?
     While it is impossible for a customer to know exactly what kind of financial records are now maintained about him, it is possible to find out what records the bank is making and what is being done with them. I have introduced legislation, HR 517, the FinCEN Public Accountability Act, which would give Americans access to their files.
     Until then, Americans should use the free market to get to know their banker, and protect their own privacy.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 April 1999 Rein-in the President Lack of congressional diligence has brought problems
     If Congress had been diligent, this president would not have been able to launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation, putting the lives of our soldiers on the line while straining our relations with numerous foreign powers.
     Congress was not diligent these last several months, ignoring legislation I put forward at the beginning of this term to prevent any action in Kosovo. My legislation, HR 647, would prohibit the use of any Department of Defense funds from being used to bomb Yugoslavia without an Act of Congress authorizing such action.
     Congress has been less than diligent for much longer than three months. In fact, it’s been decades.
     The US Constitution gives only Congress the authority to declare war. Presidents and their spin-doctors can talk all they want about “police actions” and “peace-keeping operations,” but any one with common sense knows that when one country’s government drops bombs on another sovereign nation, it is an act of war. Sadly, though, Congress has–over the last fifty years–ceded its war-making power to the executive branch. Today it is commonly, though erroneously, believed by a majority of Americans that presidents can send troops to war without even getting input from Congress.
     The reason for this is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This legislation gives presidents broad authority to commit troops and military resources for up to 60 days without congressional oversight.
     In keeping with this legislation, last week my colleague, Rep. Tom Campbell of California, introduced two pieces of legislation. The House must consider both measures, under law, within two months of introduction.
     The first measure is a declaration of war against Yugoslavia. While Mr. Campbell says he will vote against the measure, he wants to force our fellow Members of Congress to take a stand one way or the other–something no Congress has had to do with respect to war since December of 1941.
     I will vote against the war declaration.
     Mr. Campbell’s second piece of legislation is in keeping with the War Powers Act. If passed, it would require the complete withdrawal of US troops from the conflict.
     This is a measure of which I am not only a (n original cosponsor), but will, of course, support. If Congress wants to show our troops we support them, then we need to get them out of this sickening mess before it is too late.
     Just as importantly, if members of this Congress wants to demonstrate to the American taxpayer they are responsible to our obligations under the Constitution, they will end this president’s militaristic adventurism. It is time for presidents to understand that they are not above the law and that they are not kings who can arbitrarily decide to send troops to battle.
     Further, the taxpayers deserve to get more for their hard-earned dollars. The White House claims this unconstitutional action in Kosovo will carry a price tag of at least $4 billion, none of which was appropriated. So much for the president’s desire to “save Social Security.” This little war of the president’s is being paid for by the Social Security funds. It is currently being said in Washington that an emergency supplemental appropriations bill with offset to pay for this war is “not politically viable.”
     In addition, while our troops are being ineffectively spread around the world, the borders of the United States are left largely unprotected. We deserve better.
     It is ironic that a president who once wrote that he “loathed” the military, has engaged our nation in a situation that is potentially more dangerous than Vietnam. It is time Congress not only reins in this president, but the presidency itself.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 April 1999 ‘Must-Carry’ must be dropped Consumer choices limited by regulations, monopolies
     It cannot be stated too often that we do not enjoy a free marketplace in the United States. In fact, the market is fraught with government intervention at every level. Nothing, it seems, can long escape a politician or bureaucrat eager to shape the world in their image of “fairness.”
     Few other aspects of the market are as visible as television, and it is among the most regulated of industries. Of the many almost-insane rules and regulations which exist for the industry, one is perhaps the most ridiculous of all.
     Called “must-carry,” the rule requires cable companies to carry on their wires all the channels broadcast in the area that they operate. What this means is cable subscribers are forced to pay for these channels, even if they do not want them.
     Almost worst, though, is the way the regulation limits consumer choice. To understand how must-carry limits choice, one must first understand how cable television works. The company receives the broadcaster’s transmission, which it feeds into the cable. A television at the end of the line “tunes in” as it would an antenna. While technology is improving, there is a limited amount of space–or bandwidth–on the cable. For every channel transmitted down the wire, that is space another channel cannot use.
     So while a consumer may not care in the least about the local “all-reruns” broadcast channel, and would prefer the “fish-tank” network, the cable provider might not have the space to pipe it in. Either way, the consumer finds himself paying for a channel he simply does not want, and the cable company must waste bandwidth to provide something customers cannot stand.
     Of course, one must not rush to paint local cable companies as the victim. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege. When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
     Most recently the disease of government intervention has come in the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, strangely, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their product available to cable and satellite service providers.
     So now not only will the government tell the service provider which programs to carry, but at what price to pay for the opportunity.
     The biggest loser, of course, remains the consumer. All of these questions (which channels to carry, how much the channels and carried programs are worth) are best answered by free market, not some bureaucrat working in Washington.
     Up until now must-carry rules have applied only to cable. Now, in a misguided effort to “level the playing field,” rather than repeal the excessive regulation on cable service providers Congress will consider legislation to force “must-carry” regulation upon satellite providers. Of course, leave it to government to want more regulations, higher costs and less freedom for consumers
     This is why I have introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act, which will repeals various rules and regulations which interfere with consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.
     To best serve consumers, and to more fully embrace the philosophy of the free market, Congress should act to remove the restrictive regulations placed on the services cable companies can provide, as well as the barriers that exist giving those companies monopolistic power. As technology expands, we must ensure outmoded notions like government intervention in the market goes the way of the black-and-white set and rabbit-ear antennas.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 May 1999 The war that isn’t a war Cracks forming in unconstitutional wall of war policy
     Congress has sent a strong, clear message opposing the president’s unconstitutional war in the Balkans. At the same time, Congress has also sent a strong, clear message supporting the president’s unconstitutional war in the Balkans.
     If this seems something akin to the clinical definition of schizophrenia, perhaps that is because no other word as aptly describes US foreign policy and constitutional debate. To the casual observer, “Kosovo day” on the House floor had to appear to be chaotic, but I think it was chaotic for a precise reason. The House was, in essence, trying to operate within a flawed unconstitutional process which has been going on for more than 50 years–not just with this President, but every President since World War II. We have in the Congress permitted our Presidents too much leeway in waging war.
     Some of us tried to restore the constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives to wage war. Some will argue it was done sloppily, but considering the alternative of doing nothing, this was much better.
     Nevertheless these votes were very important. One of the most significant, if
     not the most significant: was the vote to declare war on Yugoslavia.
     But that was an easy vote. The House overwhelmingly voted not to go to war, a sentiment with which I have long been in complete agreement. Why should we go to war against a country that has not aggressed against us?
     The chaos and inconsistency, though, came with the other votes. I think there are too many congressmen who have enjoyed the fact that they have delivered the responsibility to the President. They do not want war, but they want war. They do not want a legal war, they want an illegal war. They do not want a war to win; they want a war that is a half of a war. They want the President to do the dirty work, and they certainly do not want Congress to stand up and decide one way or the other.
     So it is not surprising that within just a couple of hours, the Congress voted:

To oppose a ground war;

To oppose the ongoing air war;

To not declare an official state of war;

To keep the troops in the Balkans, presumably doing exactly what I am uncertain.

     So while Congress has now stood up to the president in opposing his air war and ground war, Congress has likewise voted against withdrawal of the troops!
     The people of the United States know this war simply does not make sense. If the people of this country were frightened, if they felt like they were being attacked, if they felt like their liberties were threatened, the vote would have been much different.
     What is not different, unfortunately, is the 50-years of constitutional “role reversal.” Constitutionally, it is the role of Congress to declare war and for the president to subsequently implement the action. Now, presidents can declare war whenever and wherever they want, and Congress is all but powerless to stop him.
     But the recent votes demonstrate a crack is forming in the unconstitutional wall that has been erected around our foreign policy. This should seen for what it is: an encouraging sign that changes are possible. It is now incumbent upon Congress and the American people to exploit that crack and restore constitutional principles to our dealings with foreign nations and, most especially, matters of war.
     It is significant that the House has finally chosen not to rubber stamp an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The American people know that the only moral war is a war that is fought in self-defense.
     While not the best outcome, it is also significant that this president is now left to fight an immoral war, that is now officially not a war. And he is left to fight it without the unquestioning support of Congress.
     It is some consolation that out of the recent legislative chaos and psychosis, it has been highlighted for the American people the wisdom of the Founding Father’s provisions for war, and the malaise certain to result when the Constitution is abandoned.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 May 1999 Parents, teachers need freedom Federal bureaucracy blamed for low-scores, violence
     While cliche, it is nonetheless true that our children represent the future of our nation. And to ensure our nation’s future remains bright, everything involving our children requires the utmost attention, most especially education.
     All too often, though, parents find that instead of the educational bureaucracy existing to support them in training their children for the future, obstacles are placed in the way.
     But it is a mistake for us to blame our kids’ teachers for those obstacles. Indeed, the lion share of the blame should be placed at the feet of congresses, presidents and federal bureaucrats who for more than thirty years have improperly intervened in local educational issues. As the federal government has stepped into education, we have seen test scores decline, public confidence in education plummet, and incidents of violence on school grounds escalate.
     In fact, classroom teachers are often as much victims of bureaucratic meddling as are parents and students. For not only do many in the current administration distrust parents with raising kids, they do not trust teachers to “do the right thing.”
     The insanity of the federal government’s imposition of nonsensical rules and regulations is demonstrated by a recent incident in Virginia, just five miles from Capitol Hill. As reported recently in the Washington Times, it seems six students brought a weapon to school. Teachers learned of this and quickly moved to deal with the kids. All six were to be expelled, but one managed to avoid any punishment whatsoever. Why was the potentially dangerous student left in the student population? Under federal law, school officials were prohibited from expelling him because he is a “learning disabled” student. His “disability”? A “weakness in written language skills.”
     The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) severely limits teachers and local administrators from taking rational, sensible actions to provide a safe environment for students.
     Of course, IDEA is only one of the many ways in which federal tentacles have entwined themselves into the very fabric of our local schools, despite the fact our Constitution does not allow any federal involvement in education.
     The dream of federal education bureaucrats for three decades has been the takeover of school curriculum decisions, either directly by deciding on textbooks, or slightly less directly by mandating a “national standards” student test. Fortunately, such designs have been curtailed by more sensible minds. However, the Clinton Administration is now poised to make an end-run around such prohibitions by pursuing a “national certification” test for teachers.
     If teachers are taught to the test, they will teach what they have learned, goes the thinking, thus implementing a de facto national curriculum.
     To combat this, I introduced HR 1706; this legislation will prohibit a national teacher certification test. In addition, it will prohibit the federal government from “punishing” states and local districts for refusing to go along with federal dictates.
     Certification of teachers may make sense, but that is a decision that should be made by parents, local schools and the state governments.
     A common complaint among parents and educators is that the relatively low pay of teachers makes it hard to keep good people in the system. To that end I have introduced HR 937, the Teacher Tax Cut Act, which would give elementary and secondary school teachers a $1,000 annual tax credit.
     In addition, to ensure parents can provide for their children’s specific educational needs, I have introduced HR 935, the Family Education Freedom Act, to give parents a $3,000 per child per year education tax credit.
     If we are serious about providing for the best education for our nation’s children, it is incumbent on Congress to recognize that thirty years of federal meddling in education has failed. Parents, teachers and local administrators do not need more rules, regulations and taxes; they need more freedom and accountability.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 May 1999 Going from bad to worse–Federal intrusion in civil actions detrimental to all
     When dealing with the federal government, one thing is certain: if a bad situation can be made worse, Congress will typically find a way to do so.
     As a physician, I have long abhorred the outrageous abuse of our legal system by unscrupulous attorneys filing frivolous lawsuits. We all know well the infamous spilt coffee case, and there are dozens more.
     For as bad as those are, however, the federal government is now going to step in and make things worse. Much worse.
     Currently, liability and contract law is handled exclusively by the states. If someone is harmed (physically or economically) as a result of the action or inaction of another, they may seek recourse in state courts. It has rightly fallen to the states to determine how best to procedurally balance the rightful reparation for plaintiffs with the need to allow for reasonableness in the judgments against defendants.
     Now, though, Congress is stepping in to federalize contract and liability law. The process began in earnest just recently as the House took up legislation to limit the liability of corporations and government resulting from potential “y2k” computer glitch problems. While the government has worked hard to downplay the potential problems with “y2k,” the House has dashed madly forward with this legislation to shield businesses against lawsuits resulting from their failing to adequately resolve their own “y2k” problems.
     While one might initially think this sounds like a good idea, it does not take long to understand why it is not. First, this is federal meddling in an area of law not given it under our Constitution or legal tradition.
     Second, as experience has shown, federal “solutions” tend to dumb down a process, rather than encourage excellence. One need look only at that state of our schools to see the most practical example of that premise. In the arena of law, one can examine the results of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which took abortion law out of the purview of the states and gave it to the federal courts.
     Finally, and perhaps most persuasively, is the argument from personal interest. Say your local power company has known (like the rest of us) for some three or more years of the potential problems arising from the date-reading conflict in computers, yet did nothing or very little to correct the problem. Come the stroke of midnight leading into January 1, if power goes out at home it becomes an inconvenience, as for a hospital or business. But if the company was truly incompetent, and the outage lasts into days, or weeks, as they try to manage the situation, the outage becomes costly, disastrous and potentially dangerous. Hospital generators last only so long, small businesses can stand to be closed for only a short period, and children desperately need a warm house.
     At that point, you and your fellow consumers of the government-granted monopoly power company will want to be compensated for your losses. But, alas, the federal government will have protected you from yourself. You might get something, but not nearly what you deserve for the company’s inaction.
     But do not think this is a limited instance. Rather, some are clamoring for the federal government to intervene in all civil suits such as those against gun manufacturers. Soon, as with the issues of abortion and education, the minor intrusion of the federal government in contract and tort law will soon amount to a complete take-over of matters constitutionally left to the states.
     While I strongly condemn frivolous lawsuits, it is hard to support frivolous disregard for our Constitution and system of law. I trust the voters of the several states, and their legislators and governors, to best address these situations.
     Leave it to Congress to make something bad, even worse.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 May 1999 Post Office stamps out privacy More is loony at the post office than just cartoon stamps
     Assaults on privacy are rampant. No sooner have we been successful in stopping four agencies from implementing Orwellian invasions into the financial records of every American citizen, but now the US Post Office has moved to severely limit privacy and restrict trade.
     A Postal Service regulation has been finalized that tramples the privacy of the approximately two million Americans who rent mailboxes from commercial mail receiving agencies.
     Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to rent, a commercial mailbox must provide the commercial agency with personal information, including two forms of identification: one must display a photograph of the renter, and the other include a “serial number...traceable to the bearer.” Of course, that number will generally be today’s de facto national ID–the Social Security Number.
     The Postal Service now requires that the commercial agency send the information to the Post Office, which in turn will maintain the information in a database. Further, the regulations would require the commercial agencies to maintain photocopies of the forms of identification presented by the box renter.
     It should not escape notice that the Postal Service, under the Privacy Act of 1974, is prohibited from doing this itself. How ironic, and outrageous, that the Post office is mandating a private business do what Congress has explicitly forbidden the Post Office from doing.
     Because the federal government has granted a monopoly on first-class mail delivery to the Postal Service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with them. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a commercial mail receiving agency with a choice: either surrender your right to privacy, or surrender your right to receive legal mail in the manner you prefer.
     The post office likes this database because it will give them a 100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a Postal Service PO Box and related services. Thus the Postal Service could mail advertisements to these people explaining, perhaps, how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
     This regulation, ironically, was issued at a time when the Post Office is getting into an increasing number of enterprises not directly related to the delivery of mail. So while the Postal Service is willing to use its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it is at the same time working to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery.
     Of course, this regulation also raises the operating cost on the Post Office’s private competitors for private mailbox services. Some who have examined this bill estimate it could impose costs as high as $1 billion on these small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long-term cost of this rule is incalculable, but will no doubt force some of these businesses into bankruptcy.
     During the rule’s comment period, more than 8,000 people spoke against, and only ten in favor of it. But to those supporting the rule, all is justified because they claim it is necessary to crack down on criminal activities. First, the federal role in crime, even if committed in “interstate commerce,” is a limited one. More importantly, just because someone may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal.
     I have introduced House Joint Resolution 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, hoping that it will be considered under the expedited procedures to overturn onerous regulations as established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy.
     This latest assault on privacy must be reversed. Congress must not allow the Post Office to force American citizens to divulge, as the price for receiving mail, personal information for inclusion in massive databases. Given this rule, and the recent series of postage stamps and paraphernalia, one can only conclude that the US Postal Service has gone loony.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 May 1999 China is only winner in scandals Lack of constitutional governance causes security breaches
     After months of delay, the American people have finally been treated to the 900-page Cox Report, which outlines some twenty years of breaches of security, bureaucratic foul-ups and, most recently, cover-ups. No one should be proud.
     What has come out is not necessarily new–so much has been dribbled out in leaks to the press that no one could claim to really be surprised–but the report is nothing if not shocking in what it reveals about the state of our national security.
     Our national defense is not even for sale, it is simply available for the taking–all comers welcome.
     One of the more troubling revelations is that the Justice Department refused wiretaps on the phone of a suspected Chinese spy. It is ironic because the Clinton Administration has long supported policies that would allow government agents to pry into all our financial records, computer usage and, yes, even tap our phones, without so much as a court order. So while the President and his appointees want an unlimited ability to spy on law-abiding citizens, they refuse to do much to protect our secrets from the communist Chinese.
     Perhaps the single largest non-surprise surrounding the report has been revelations that the President lied about his knowledge of the Chinese espionage. What is troubling, of course, is that even if one can justify publicly lying about possible espionage, it is impossible to excuse his not taking action to remedy the situation.
     The Cox Report makes it clear the Chinese have been stealing our most sensitive weapons secrets for two decades–spanning four Administrations representing both major parties. But the first president to be made aware of the problems is the current occupant of the Oval Office. And his response? To do nothing, of course
     But if it were merely a case of doing nothing, that would be one thing. But this Administration and its allies in the military industrial complex have–it is alleged–actively aided the Chinese. First there was the Commerce Department allowing China to buy high-tech computers, contrary to established policy. Then, private companies–very friendly to Clinton–have transferred further technology.
     This is hardly surprising, of course, for at the same time this was occurring, Chinese money was filling the Democratic Party’s 1996 campaign war chest.
     That the Administration considers as the highest of priorities to kill innocent civilians and spend billions fighting in Yugoslavia’s civil war, which does not involve us or even a region of strategic significance, while ignoring what is arguably the greatest breach of national security in our history, probably should not surprise any of us. This is just one more example of our 40-year-old schizophrenic foreign policy.
     Almost two years ago, long before Monica Lewinsky and the national soap opera begun, several Members and I introduced an Inquiry into Impeachment because of the then-materializing allegations involving these serious breaches of national security, among other similar charges. Of course, this Congress–and indeed much of the nation–was disinterested in pursuing such an investigation, apparently because it is far less ribald than the obsession with sex, though arguably more dangerous.
     Congress has an obligation to safeguard our nation from foreign powers. The Constitution clearly defines protection of national security as one of the very few actual powers of the federal government.
     But as congress’ and presidents have rushed to pursue the unconstitutional, we have neglected the constitutional.
     This president has again proven himself to be many things, though certainly not a man of his word. And many Members of Congress have been asleep at the wheel.
     The Cox Report should stand as an accusatory testament not only to the inexcusable behavior of this Administration, but of elected officials over the last forty years who have pursued political expediency over constitutional governance.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 June 1999 Free trade makes sense Congress must resist raising taxes, limiting freedom
     Once again the contentious debate over trade with China is before the Congress, but this time with the added twist of allegations of spying.
     And, once again, those opposed to free trade will join forces with those favoring taxpayer subsidization of foreign countries to mangle the English language and thoroughly confuse the issue.
     In the parlance of Washington bureaucrats and politicians, as well as most special interest groups, words used in debate take on a quality similar to Orwellian double-speak. As in his classic “1984,” the “Ministry of Love” was actually the department of war, today’s debates use words and phrases in ways diametrically opposed to reality.
     For instance, if someone says they are for “free trade,” one must look carefully what they really mean, for the classic (and common sense) definition does not apply.
     All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.
     On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called “isolationists.” There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves “fair traders,” though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not “fair” in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.
     Sadly, these definitions all hinge on the assumption that there are essentially only two options: tax dollars being used to subsidize corporations/foreign governments, or no trade whatsoever without the rubber stamp of government bureaucrats and special interest groups.
     The bottom-line of both options, of course, is higher taxes for Americans. Higher taxes to finance the subsidies, or higher taxes on incoming products (and make no mistake, a tariff is a tax, paid by the American consumer).
     There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.
     It is indisputable that individuals know better how to provide for their families than government. It is also indisputable that a company is better equipped to know what its market will tolerate than a bureaucrat in Washington. In this way, a person is able to determine what goods best meet their individual needs, weighing numerous factors in their decision. But when government intervenes, it no longer becomes possible for an individual to provide for their family and business in the most expedient fashion. This is the antithesis of liberty.
     Both the “fair traders” and the “subsidizers” now have a fantastic phantom upon which to justify their higher taxes and greater regulations: the Chinese spy scandal. This is a phantom for there is simply no connection between the spying and true free trade. In fact, it was the policy of subsidization and trade regulation, as well as generally lax security, which allowed the illegal transfers of technology. But to blame free trade, and then penalize average Americans, for the spying is the height of dishonesty.
     If we are to end trade with all nations which spy on us, or upon whom we spy, then we will quickly find far fewer products available at the supermarket, and much higher prices on everything.
     The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.
     Never, though, should Congress raise taxes or limit the ability of individual Americans to engage in honest trade with foreign manufacturers. While the market may demand–through boycotts and similar activities–that trade cease, that should be left entirely to the market, not bureaucrats in Washington.
     Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 June 1999 Tragedy begets tragedy Violence in schools doesn’t justify violence against liberty
     Tragedy begets tragedy, and rarely is this more clear than when politicians take it upon themselves to legislatively address heartbreaking situations with feel-good reactions.
     Americans have been rightly shocked by recent violent incidents in public schools. While most Americans have used these tragedies as an opportunity to discuss with their children the importance of morality and individual responsibility, some have seized upon these senseless incidents as a way to further political agendas.
     We must recognize an important historical point. There are more restrictions on the sale, ownership and use of firearms today than at any time in history. Just fifty years ago, anyone could purchase weapons from most store catalogues for home delivery by US Mail. And yet fifty years ago we did not have school shootings. In fact, the number of incidents involving at-school violence with firearms has increased as the number of federal laws and regulations have increased.
     It should also be noted that in each “sensational” case, the violence has occurred in government-run schools where the virtues of gun control and federal law enforcement are extolled daily. This is at a time when increasing numbers of people, and especially those of (some might say) the “pro-gun” political persuasion, are choosing private or home schools. Yet we do not hear of kids slaughtering 12 peers and a teacher at a church school.
     However, one must never allow reality to interfere with the goals of big government advocates. The choir of statists has been singing the hymn of more federal regulations, laws, and control. Some, like Sara Brady and fellow traveler Bill Clinton, unabashedly call for the ban of handguns, or at least the federal registration of all gun owners. This, despite the fact no such law would have saved a single young life. Again, reality is not an issue.
     Lest anyone incorrectly assume assaults on our Constitution are limited to Democrats striking the Second Amendment, there is an equally strong move from some congressional Republicans to wipe away the First Amendment.
     Very soon, Congress will take up HR 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act. The measure not only continues the federalization of law enforcement, it undermines the Bill of Rights. While our founding fathers wisely left the enforcement of crime to local and state leaders, federal legislators assume they are wiser not only than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, but everyone not in DC.
     People who are ordinarily our allies in the defense of liberty have been mislead into supporting HR1501 and amendments that turn federalism and the Constitution on its head. These conservatives are promoting several new “gun control” measures, such as mandatory trigger locks, expanding the background checks, and more.
     One measure would require every music store to provide, free of charge, the lyrics to any song upon the demand of a parent. While perhaps a good service for a store to provide on its own, to mandate this from Washington is nothing short of immoral, and an unfunded mandate of the highest order. It is also an infringement on the rights of the free-market musician. After all, he profits by the sale of his music–lyrics and all. For as revolting as his “art” may be, it remains true that never is a second wrong justified by a first.
     Still another provision would ban the sale of “violent” or “sexual” materials (including movies, books, sculptures, games, etc.) to young persons. But how does one reconcile such action with the freedom of press and religion? With difficulty, since “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” though perhaps states could. One might easily imagine a parent taking umbrage at their child being allowed to purchase such scandalous materials as those found in Genesis 19, Joshua 6 or the Samuels. What might prevent a federal judge from banning the sale of Bibles to youth at local bookstores? Or classic literature, such as the “Iliad” or “Hamlet”? All in the name of limiting violent images, right? Chipping away at the First Amendment, in a misguided attempt to protect children by usurping parental responsibility with new federal laws and bureaucracies, is nothing short of dangerous.
     In rushing to “do something,” even good people are tempted to promote a very bad idea, presenting Americans with a false choice: give up the precious liberties of Bill of Rights and cede greater power to the federal government, or face more youth violence. Reality, of course, demonstrates something very different.
     As Benjamin Franklin once said, anyone who would “give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.”

Texas Straight Talk, 21 June 1999 Let liberty ring loudly All of Constitution, not just sections, must be defended
     A quiet sound rustled through the halls of Congress last week; it was that of the Constitution being casually tossed aside.
     Usually, half of the Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and that is good. The First Amendment states plainly that “Congress shall make no laws” to limit free speech, the press, the practice of religion, or the ability of Americans to assemble in protest of their government.
     The other half of the Congress, on average, is quite capable and anxious to defend the Second Amendment, and that is good. After all, our founding fathers envisioned a well-armed populace as the ultimate check on government tyranny. If some future legislators and presidents had designs on limiting our divinely endowed liberties, our founders believed the Second would hold such impulses in check.
     That modern groups have picked pieces of the Constitution to hold in such high regard, while so casually dismissing the other, is rather strange. Of course, it is no stranger than the two groups joining forces to undermine both the First and Second amendments. I always find this odd, for I would have assumed each Member took seriously his solemn oath to defend the entirety of the Constitution and its underlying principles; not just when convenient, but always.
     Some claim, in the vernacular of political-speak, that it is “marginalizing” for an elected official to hold strongly to the tenets of our Constitution. If it is a political sin to consistently defend free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from unlawful search and seizure, then perhaps we need more political sinners and fewer political saints.
     But there is so much more to our Constitution, and the principles of our republican form of government, that have been so widely abused, ignored and all but erased by both Democrats and Republicans in their zeal to grab political power.
     As recently as the middle of this century, crime control was considered a local matter. For good reason: it is the way the Constitution is designed, and the way it should be. Yet every day Congress writes more criminal laws, taking more authority from our state and local governments, and moving closer to a national police state.
     Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has warned, “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.”
     Before Congress passes more laws, and before individuals demand that Washington solve every problem, we should first seriously consider a simple question: “Does the Constitution allow the federal government to do this?” The question should never be, “Can I use this to get elected?”, nor, “Is it easier to send the problem to Washington?”, and certainly not, “Will it make people feel better if Congress does this?”
     Pundits of late wonder why there seems to be a growing embrace of lawlessness, especially in the culture of youth. One must look no further than the example set by politicians and their adult constituents: ignoring the Constitution for the better part of this century, politicians pass laws in contradiction to the supreme law in attempts to further their careers by appeasing special-interest groups. The message has been clearly received by many young people: don’t let the law get in the way of what you want.
     For the sake of the future of our Republic, it is important that we are not just consistent, but correctly consistent. We must defend not just the sections of the Constitution we find popular, we must defend the entire Constitution. Most importantly, we must jealously guard the philosophy of freedom upon which it is based. If we do, the sound we will hear is that of liberty once again loudly ringing across our land.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 June 1999 Flag Amendment is a reckless solution Loyalty must be to constitutional principles, not symbol of it
     Loyalty and conviction are admirable traits, but when misplaced both can lead to serious problems.
     More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty.
     As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court–in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10^th Amendment–finally ruled against the state law.
     Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
     After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
     This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation–George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin–were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
     Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, “Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ …A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”
     Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to an object–what Mr. Kruel calls the “golden calf”–we had more Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this issue would be far better handled.
     For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.
     The correct solution is to reassert the 10^th Amendment. The states should be unshackled from unconstitutional federal restrictions.
     As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional traditions and liberties.
     Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 July 1999 A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes Americans work past Independence Day to pay cost of government
     On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth, that they were free.
     They declared, in radical terms both then and now, that “all men are created equal” and are endowed with certain “inalienable rights,” rights that government cannot take away for government does not grant them.
     In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that the “…history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having the direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states…” In the list, we find the basic philosophy for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
     One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Such a statement led different people in recent years to wonder, “Americans revolted over taxation without representation; how do they like it with representation?”
     Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they felt shackled with a total tax rate that, in modern terms, amounts to single-digits rates. Today, the average American will pay more than 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.
     In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans work from January until early July just to pay their federal income tax, states and local taxes, and the calculated cost of regulation. Almost no one in America has yet begun going to work to pay for food, clothing, shelter or their children’s education. It was just on June 22 that Americans stopped working to pay for the federal government. The next several weeks will pay the costs of state and local government.
     It is often easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But a decent share rests with those of us who expect Washington, DC, to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution, pass only constitutional authorizations and spending while opposing the rest, politicians would be more responsive.
     All too often, though, politicians get the message that their constituents do indeed want unconstitutional spending cut and bloated government put on a diet–just not in their community or for their particular pet project. This leads to the famous compromises; compromises that sound fine when a politician stands on the stump at election time, but lose luster when the bill comes due on Tax Day.
     Now is the time for Congress to pass the American Values Tax Savings Act of 1999, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation will eliminate the marriage penalty tax, the death tax, the alternative minimum tax, reduce the capital gains tax, and increase the pre-tax contribution levels for IRAs. This measure would provide almost $800 billion in tax relief by 2009 if passed this year.
     Our basic problem is not that we are over-taxed, out-spent or under-represented, it is that we have lost sight of a simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.
     When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans will truly be free.
     That ours is the freest land on the earth, that we enjoy a higher level of liberty than people anywhere, should never distract us from demanding more freedom and more liberty. This should be our declaration.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 July 1999 Campaign reform misses target Americans could expect higher taxes, fewer choices
     Like a bad penny, campaign finance reform is again being pushed as the panacea to the problems in America. And make no doubt about it, there are very serious problems emanating from Washington, DC, which can be traced to the people who hold public office.
     The mistake, though, is in thinking the problem can be fixed simply by putting more restrictions on the average American. These so-called reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem can be traced past the office holders because government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one’s self by “investing” in politicians.
     There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Corporate lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress, while taxpayers’ dollars are used by bureaucrats in efforts to convince Congress to protect their “empires.” Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and individuals alike are forced to participate in an out-of-control system essentially as a matter of self-defense.
     Those pushing finance reform argue the fault rests only with those who are trying to influence government; never is fault assigned, of course, to those congressmen who create the environment that pressures the system to generate abuse. Members of Congress thereby avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead blame those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, despite the fact that political participation is among the most basic of rights bestowed on all Americans.
     All will agree that it is shameful for an elected official to capitulate to well-funded special interest groups. Unwilling to act ethically on their own, politicians will clamor for a system that diminishes the need to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.
     Politicians and bureaucrats will gain great influence over elections, while Americans will be forced to subsidize politicians with whose ideology the taxpayer may vehemently disagree. Clearly incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to which the reformers will never admit. Other winners will be the media, the wealthy and those with celebrity statues.
     The losers include independent and third party candidates, as well as those who believe it is immoral to force people to finance their campaigns.
     The biggest “loser,” however, will be our American tradition of political expression, and the taxpayers that get stuck with bigger tax bills and fewer liberties.
     More regulation of political activism through control of private money, instead of addressing the root problem of an overly-influential government, only drives the money further underground, and thereby giving select groups a strong advantage over the honest candidate who seeks to ethically work for smaller, constitutional government.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 July 1999 Lavish pay and benefits have no merit Pay raises for “public servants” generate more cynicism
     Apparently the American people are so satisfied with increasing taxes and spending, continued abuse of civil liberties and ongoing unconstitutional programs, that they are willing to give Congress a four-percent pay raise and double the pay of the president.
     Don’t remember having been so generous? Don’t worry, Congress is being generous, again, with your money–it’s really quite easy.
     Never mind that as of May 7, 1992, with ratification of the 27^th Amendment, Congress is specifically prevented by the Constitution from increasing pay without there being an election between the legislation passing and the raise going into effect.
     Industrious congressmen have found a semantic loophole; the four-percent pay raise isn’t a pay raise at all, but merely a “cost of living adjustment.” A couple hundred dollars might constitute a COLA, but thousands is a pay-raise.
     As the cynicism of Americans for their government grows, some congressmen will cast a vote for a big pay raise while expressing shock at the public mistrust.
     A pay raise might be in order if Congress were doing its job. If taxes were on the way, if the doors to unconstitutional agencies and programs were being closed, perhaps a pay raise would be in order. Perhaps, but not likely. After all, that would mean Congress was simply doing its job, not doing anything extraordinary.
     And then there is the doubling of the president’s pay. It must be understood that this new presidential pay scale does not go into effect until the current occupant of the office departs in 2001. Currently, the president receives $200,000 in pay, but congressional action would see his pay top $400,000. The argument in support of such a lavish pay check goes like this: the president is the leader of the free world, and as such should be paid on par with the heads of large corporations. The argument continues that without the incentive of higher pay, we might not be getting the best and brightest. (Of course, there is no CEO of a corporation on the planet that has a $5.6 trillion debt.)
     It is obvious we have not had the best these last several years, but that is not a function of pay. In fact, the pay of a president is really the least of his benefits–regardless of amount. After all, taxpayers foot the bill for the First Family’s room and board, a legion of personal servants, a fleet of cars, planes, boats and helicopters. Not to mention nearly unlimited free vacations and the power to command almost any position, speaking fee or posting after their presidency ends. Finally, presidents get paid a healthy pension from the moment they leave office, not to mention a lifetime of taxpayer-funded staff, security and offices.
     The problem with the presidency, the Congress, and everyone in between has not been a lack of pay and perks, but an overabundance. Let’s face it: serving in Congress, and living in the White House, can be pretty good deals. In fact, for many people, these deals are so good they do not want to leave–ever. There is tremendous incentive to stay: the power is the bait, the pay, perks and control are the hook.
     The most effective term limits would be not a number of years, but a reduction in pay and benefits. I refuse the congressional pension because it is immoral that I could stay in office for only a few years, yet qualify for a lucrative pension the taxpayers must fund for the remainder of my days.
     Our founding fathers wisely saw service in elected government as a temporary function, not a lifetime pursuit. They valued the citizen-legislator, who saw himself as a public servant while still making a living in the private sector.
     Today, though, those who labor in the private sector are viewed as pariahs, while congressmen increase the tax levy to further lavish “public servants” with generous pay and benefits. What surprises me is not that so many Americans are cynical of their elected officials, but that there are any who are not.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 July 1999 Reducing the tax reduction Taxpayers need a real break from cost of government
     I have often been accused of having never met a tax cut that I didn’t like. I am guilty as charged.
     The American public is, quite simply, over-taxed. More than half the income of the average American goes to paying the cost of government. Americans pay more for their government than they do the combined cost of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and education.
     Taxpayers need a break. Perhaps the most disgusting and philosophically disgusting idea is that tax cuts “cost” the government. This misguided notion comes from defenders of a statist mindset, who believe that all things–ranging from the most common of items to the first fruits of our labor to our very lives–are owned by the government.
     The reality, of course, is that government does not have any money except what it takes from the taxpayer.
     Unfortunately, for far too many years Members of Congress from both parties have come to view the public purse not as a sacred trust but rather a trough from which they can take all they want, whenever they want.
     And so it was with great anticipation that I heard of a plan that would provide almost a billion dollars in tax cuts. This package would eliminate or significantly reduce such odious taxes as the marriage penalty and the death tax.
     But as I have grown to expect in Washington, the hype fell short of the delivered package. When I did cast my vote in support of the plan–for it does offer the possibility of lower taxes–the excitement had worn off.
     Instead of standing firm, congressional leadership bowed to statist pressure and made significant changes to the package. The income tax reduction was itself reduced. The marriage tax stays on the books for another year. The capital gains and death taxes are only slightly reduced. And the income tax reductions hinge on there being no increases in interest outlays for total US federal government debt. Given this provision, the tax cut is very unlikely.
     Even under this “historic” tax-cut plan, Americans will still work more than half the year to pay the cost of government. Further, most of the tax cuts are only fully realized ten years from now. While some talk about benefits years down the fiscal road, Congress can only draft budgets for a single year; what is passed in one fiscal year can be erased in the next. And as one might imagine, the tax cuts for this fiscal year are puny.
     Until we root out the notion that all things originate with government; until we banish the idea that government is somehow bearing a burden by not taking so much money from society’s producers; until the time comes, we will never see truly historic tax reform.
     The American public clamors for tax relief. I have never had a constituent or taxpayer ask me to vote to raise their taxes; in fact, I am hard-pressed to recall a meeting with taxpayers in which they did not, in some fashion or other, demand that Congress move expeditiously to reduce the burden.
     Members of Congress, and indeed politicians in general, are nothing if not pragmatic. Because they have never truly seen the effect of taking a truly firm stand in favor of cutting taxes, they do not want to risk seeing it when an election might be at stake. What they do know is that pork-barrel projects get them campaign donations to fund their coffers, and favorable newspaper editorials to drive their public relations.
     And pork costs money. And money comes from taxes. And taxes come from the sweat of the American people.
     I have never met a tax cut I wouldn’t support, even a small tax cut. I look forward, though, to the day when I can vote for a tax cut that is neither a rhetorical device nor a watered-down compromise. Instead, I hope one days we will witness a truly historic tax cut that ensures the American people will keep more of what they earn than what they hand over to the tax man.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 August 1999 Restricting the Executive Orders Constitutional vision of separated powers necessary for liberty
     One of the chief complaints of the American colonists against King George was that he had usurped powers that were not rightfully his, and then used those powers to the disadvantage of the people.
     In the ensuing years, those revolutionaries created a federal government that was not only strictly limited, but also strictly divided among three co-equal branches, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States. Under a truly constitutional approach to our government, every branch has the ability to check the abuses of power by the others.
     But this system of “checks” has grown drastically out of balance, if indeed it ever truly was in balance. But the errors of the past, whether distant or recent, should not be reason to leave the future shackled to reckless policies grown from disdainful philosophies.
     The most glaring example of our out-of-balance system is the power of the president to create laws through the use of the “Executive Order.” Our system grants all legislative power to the legislative branch, while Chief Executive exists to “faithfully execute” those laws.
     While there is a role for Executive Orders so that the president may execute his authorities and direct his employees, for far too many years the illegitimate uses have overshadowed the legitimate. Presidents have issued Executive Orders that take on the force of law.
     It is a mistake, though, to place all blame with a single president in particular, or the office in general, for abuse of this power. After all, presidents have had many willing accomplices in Congress. A great number of congressmen and senators quietly appreciate the assumed presidential authority to create and enact legislation because it allows them to see their goal accomplished without having to assume a politically risky position.
     With the “power” of the Executive Order, presidents can commit our troops to undeclared wars, destroy industries or make unprecedented social-policy changes. And they remain unaccountable because often these actions occur behind the door of the Oval Office, are distributed without notice, and then executed in stealth.
     I have introduced legislation, along with Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington, that would bring our federal system into proper balance. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (HR2655) prohibits a presidential order from having the effect of law by restricting the scope of the directives. In addition, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Act, which–despite the constitutional prohibition–granted broad war-making authority to the Office of the President. Further, the legislation suspends all of the “national emergencies” which have been declared since 1976, when Congress last canceled them. Still on the books are “emergencies” relating to Iraq and the Soviet bloc. These emergency declarations give presidents great authority, even if the situation no longer presents a threat to our national security.
     Finally, and perhaps most significantly, my legislation grants legal standing to individual Members of Congress and Senators, state officials and, of course, private citizens who believe a president’s Executive Order has overstepped constitutional bounds and negatively impacted them, their rights, their property or their business.
     That powers have been usurped is undeniable, and that our system is out of balance is evident to the most casual of observers. We have the opportunity to more perfectly balance our system and restrict potential abuses.
     While kings may have the right to promulgate laws simply by decree, it is Rule of Law which is king in our form of government. By clearly defining the lines of power, while restricting the ability of a single person to arbitrarily impose law, we will further secure the blessings of liberty upon our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 August 1999 Legalized theft Corporate, international welfare steals from the working
     “Don’t steal,” reads one of my favorite bumper stickers. “The government doesn’t like the competition!”
     The word “steal” might be a little strong, but not by much when one considers the actions of Congress, and especially votes taken this last week on the Foreign Operations Appropriations budget. This budget contains billions of dollars; nearly all of which are not just unconstitutional, but downright crazy.
     Many people rightly criticize the growing welfare state as it relates to individuals getting handouts, assistance and other benefits from the government. But the more expensive, and rarely discussed, problem is when government provides handouts, assistance and lucrative benefits to wealthy, multinational corporations.
     If an individual takes the money from your wallet to purchase something for himself, it is rightfully considered unlawful. Regardless of the excuse, no matter how good an item he is buying, the thief is still guilty of theft. But when a congressman does the same thing on behalf of a special interest group, it is called the law of the land.
     If a businessman comes to a rational person and says, “I want to expand into a new territory, but the downside is that it is an area that is fraught with civil unrest, is economically unsound, the workforce is untrained and we probably won’t make a profit.” The prudent investor would obviously not take the risk.
     But under our current system, that same businessman can make his move with the knowledge that the taxpayers of the United States will bail him out. This bailout comes from several different mechanisms, like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This absurdity that passes for policy is made all the more disgusting when one recognizes that working families, struggling to make ends meet, are being held liable for business decisions that the wealthiest of private investors would likely not cover.
     Worse still is that if this risky investment finally has some measure of success, the taxpayer gets no benefit despite the exposure to liability; thus the costs are socialized while the profits are internalized. Of course, grateful recipients of the largess generously fill the campaign coffers of those who vote for these gross subsidies.
     Several years ago I first proposed we stop this nonsense for it is simply unconscionable that Texas’ family farmers are getting taxed to provide cover for multinational corporations’ stupid decisions. Only a couple of my colleagues risked the wrath of the corporate interests back then. The first week in August, however, saw several dozen Members of Congress join me in protesting this egregious policy. Unfortunately, the bipartisan, pro-largess caucus still carried the day. However, I did notice that fewer Members of Congress seem as eager to defend corporate welfare.
     These days, of course, the rhetoric of bailing out the corporations is made with allusions to “free trade”; a laughable proposition that could not be further from reality.
     Several weeks ago we engaged in the annual debate over the level of free trade our citizens could have with China. I always take the position that one should have free markets and allow Americans to trade with whomever they please, but at the same time taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize foreign governments. The crowd I cannot understand is the one that argues against free trade yet supports subsidizing China and other brutal regimes around the world. That is the other half of what we do with OPIC, the Export-Import Bank and other international managed-trade organizations. By propping up the corporations that move to China, not only are we subsidizing bad business decisions, but also using tax dollars to shore up China’s economy without their having to feel the pressure of the free market to change their ways.
     The defenders of corporate and international welfare would have us believe that taxpayers get some benefit from seeing their hard-earned dollars go to the boardroom of Boeing or the butchers of Beijing. How one benefits from being exposed to economic risk, or by shipping cash to those with whom one vehemently disapproves, is difficult to imagine.
     The economics, however, are not. The taxpayer loses all the way around.
     When common thieves steal from us to get what they desire, they at least have the courtesy not to try to convince us it is for our benefit, nor return annually to do so.
     Perhaps government also does not like to be outclassed.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 August 1999 A flood of bills of rights Pols hide power-grab agendas behind images of liberty
     There are few weapons in the battle over culture as devious as the misappropriation of words and phrases. In the kind of twisted logic only an Orwellian character could truly appreciate, liberty means slavery, freedom becomes dependence, and volunteerism is compulsion.
     The latest in this trend among the politically savvy is the use of the adjective phrase “Bill of Rights.” Every imaginable cause or group has seen a “Bill of Rights” proposed to support it these days: children, patients, airline travelers and so on.
     Obviously the phrase is meant to stir patriotic emotions, legitimizing whatever the legislative agenda might be by word association.
     Without fail, these new “Bill of Rights” programs are not just cute ploys to garner attention, they strike at the core of what is wrong with the way so many in Congress go about their business. One has to raise the question: What’s wrong with the existing Bill of Rights, those original Ten Amendments to the Constitution, that a new one must be created to assuage every group, complaint or situation?
     The answer is simple. The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it restricts the power of the federal government while ensuring maximum liberty for the individual. This is a problem for those who see government as the panacea to every ill, the protector of all that is good. While the Bill of Rights limits government, liberates the market and empowers the individual, these initiatives inevitably anoint government with greater power, restrict the rights of the individual and shackle the market.
     We should be suspicious when it is declared we need a new “Bill of Rights.” If Congress were interested in protecting the rights of individuals (whether as taxpayers, patients or travelers), then it should adhere to the principles so clearly defined in the original Bill of Rights.
     Perhaps, though, that is the problem; the idea that principles should guide our actions is anathema to many. Or, more likely, it is that many in elected office reject the principles of individual liberty and limited government, believing instead that government knows best.
     If over the last fifty years we would have had more respect for the Bill of Rights, property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in medical care and a host of other issues.
     Economic principles determine efficiency of markets, even the medical market; but not our emotional experiences. As a physician, I know that the most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with goods and other services, is determined by the degree to which the market is allowed to operate.
     Contrary to the claims of advocates for increased government regulation of health care, the problems we face do not represent market failure, but rather the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health-care market. While it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), in a free market this cannot happen. But when one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as with managed care, merely making an effort to balance government dictated advantages between patients and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates; because we are trying to patch an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress over this–or any such issue–should not be a surprise.
     And make no doubt about it: the veritable avalanche of “Bill of Rights” packages before Congress represent more mandates, more government control and fewer liberties for everyone. That they mask their agendas with the phrases of liberty is both deceitful and comforting. Deceitful for obvious reasons; comforting because it reflects an understanding that–despite our many problems–Americans remain rightly suspicious of government power and desirous of liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 August 1999 Draft not needed for protection of liberty Selective Service should be eliminated, funds to Veterans Administration
     When a federal agency admits that it could stand to cut a program, everyone should take notice. Especially when the program carries a $25 million price tag that could be better spent caring for our veterans.
     In 1994 a Department of Defense document was released saying that the time had come to end the inefficient Selective Service draft registration system. In fact, the report stated draft registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.”
     From the military’s perspective, the reasons are straightforward: the world of the 1990s is very different from that of previous generations. This is a world in which even the most low-ranking of soldiers are more likely to use specialized computers than magnetic compasses even in the field. As a result, the skills needed by modern soldiers cannot be taught in a six-week boot camp before being shipped to the front.
     In fact, any crisis that might warrant a draft most likely will not have a front, as was demonstrated in the recent action against Yugoslavia. Pilots flying high-tech planes dropped bombs on targets selected with the aid of orbiting satellites and directed by computer technicians thousands of miles distant.
     While some romanticize the notion of a draft, it is simply inconsistent with the realities of today’s military.
     But a draft is also inconsistent with something far less temporal: the philosophy of liberty. Our founding fathers saw the notion of standing armies–and indeed the potential for them–as inconsistent with liberty. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.
     The draft is foreign to the precepts of liberty. If there is ever a threat to our national survival, people will serve if they believe liberty is worth saving; droves of men rushed to volunteer for service after Japan attacked in 1941. The burden rests on those in elected office to ensure our free society remains one in which the people are willing to fight, even to death, for its continuation. In our Constitution, the founding fathers provided for this mechanism by ensuring all would be free to be armed so that they may rise up in defense of liberty.
     The existence of the mechanisms for a draft reveals a great deal about our state of affairs. It reveals first the belief of many in our government that they are unwilling to maintain a system which the people desire to protect. They cynically suggest that people would not defend their own liberty in the face of a clear and present threat, and so the government-as-patriarch must decide what is best for them.
     More importantly, it reveals the basic philosophy of our leadership: that all things belong first to the government. After all, taxes are withheld from workers before their paycheck is even cut. This means government gets the first fruits of our labor–not our God or family. The existence of a draft registration makes it clear that government has first dibs on the life of every man.
     Our nation does have a problem with recruitment and retention–reasons often cited for keeping the draft registration. Countless surveys, though, have found these problems come not from a lack of patriotism, but because more and more Americans are frustrated with our foreign policy and the increasing number of “police actions” that put soldiers in harm’s way without a national interest at stake.
     Working with me on this critical issue has been the chairman of the Veterans Administration appropriations subcommittee, Jim Walsh (R-NY), as well as William Clay (D, Missouri), Jack Metcalf (R, Washington) and Gary Ackerman (D, New York). Language has been placed in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget to place the Selective Service system in deep standby, end the registration, and transfer the annual $25 million to the Veterans Administration. The VA is one of the most inadequately funded agencies, and this infusion of cash would make a real difference to thousands of veterans. Conversely, our national readiness would not be affected in the least by the change.
     The time has come for the United States to stop looking backward at the tactics of the past, and instead focus on the needs of a modern military and a society oriented toward liberty, while providing for those who have valiantly served our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 September 1999 The smoking gun Waco revelations show true face of federal police
     For years the Clinton Administration, with their willing allies in Congress and the mainstream press, have parroted the line that federal law enforcement officials did nothing wrong in the Branch Davidian stand-off at Waco. Anyone who questioned the government’s official position was relegated to being either a far-right extremist, a militia kook, or a follower of the undeniably peculiar David Koresh.
     It was just weeks after coming to Congress in 1997, while on a national television program, that I was asked about the then-four-year-old case. I responded with the position that the evidence was overwhelmingly strong that everything was not as bureaucrats in the Clinton Administration claimed. I cited recent polling data that indicated that most Americans simply did not trust the government, and that a goodly number feared the increasingly commonplace occurrence of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens.
     Almost immediately the defenders of big government, the administration and the war on civil liberties launched into wild hysterics. I had committed the unpardonable sin of believing the facts rather than the government spin, which attempted to justify the murder of innocent children and untried, uncharged adults
     The Attorney General and her minions in Congress maintained that the conflagration had been a rash act of mass suicide, ignoring that just hours before the raid those same people had requested their phone lines be reconnected. They also ignored the infrared evidence that government agents, as the fire was raging on one side of the house, were entering the home through the back, and that tanks were injecting gases banned under international treaties.
     Now, though, even the most blind followers of the administration and its policies are left stunned with revelations that high-ranking FBI officials and others lied to Congress, hid evidence, broke the law and knowingly subverted justice.
     According to press reports, the recently uncovered evidence has a clear recording of one FBI agent casually asking for permission to use highly flammable explosive devices against citizens of the United States just hours before the inferno began. The permission was, likewise, casually granted.
     These people certainly held peculiar religious beliefs. They may have even been very odd in their habits and mores. But they were citizens of the United Sates. Not terrorists or child molesters–despite early claims by the FBI, repudiated by the Waco child protective services offices. They were not drug dealers–a lie told to justify the use of deadly military force; no drug manufacturing equipment was ever found or seriously believed to exist.
     Worse still for defenders of statism is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were right when they prohibited the federal government from being involved in law enforcement. In Waco, America has seen the face of the growing federal police state, with its heavy emphasis on brute force, military machinery and deadly tactics.
     With the veneer being stripped from the myth of federal law enforcement, Americans are beginning to realize that it is both unconstitutional and untenable. One cannot have a legion of heavily armed bureaucrats with unlimited jurisdiction, the might of the military at their call, and no accountability, yet expect they will respect civil liberties.
     In Waco, we find the answer to a question that is far more troubling than as to why certain tactics were used, methods employed or even the sequence of events leading to all those deaths. The answer we find is to the question, “Why did this happen at all?”
     “Because we could,” we are told.
     With that cavalier attitude so prevalent in federal law enforcement, it is hardly surprising that even greater numbers of Americans now do not trust their government.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 September 1999 Regulating gridiron prayer Communities, not feds, should have control
     With the start of high school football season in the 14^th Congressional District, many of my constituents are upset by the fact that a long-held tradition has been taken from them by the federal courts.
     This tradition, of course, is a simple, non-proselytizing prayer said shortly before the kick-off.
     Many of the people who attend the games and who are now aghast at this federal intrusion have called my office seeking information. They are upset–and rightly so–that the utterance of a simple prayer can be prohibited, despite lip service paid to “freedom of speech.” After all, they argue, doesn’t the US Constitution’s First Amendment strictly prohibit the federal government from interfering in the “free exercise” of religious beliefs?
     Of course it does. For much of our history, we had a more proper understanding of the correct balances in regards to the Constitution. After all, the First Amendment begins with a very important phrase, “Congress shall make no laws….” This phrase was always understood to mean that while the federal government could not create federal laws restricting religion, or use federal monies to give preference to one religious order over another, it specifically does not apply to the state and local governments. In other words, under a correct reading of the Constitution, a state or local government can allow–or prohibit–religious expression in public places.
     Yet the Constitution is also very clear in prohibiting the federal government from being involved in a lot of activities, including education. Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and people. Oddly, education is one such power.
     And what power it is.
     The ability to influence young minds is a tremendous power and awesome responsibility. Our founding fathers correctly denied the federal government this power. They wisely recognized that the people given charge with influencing the education of children should be those who are closest to the children–parents, the community and the state.
     Yet today we have casually accepted the notion of federal involvement in education, despite plummeting test sores and increasing violence–both of which coincide with the increase in federal intrusion. As federal involvement has increased, so has the quality of education and safety declined. In fact, the Princeton Review–the organization that oversees the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)–said the current generation of high school seniors is less educated than their parents. A most disturbing trend.
     What the Princeton Review did not mention, though, is even more significant. The most striking difference in education between these two generations has been that the parents of today’s teens went through schools that had little or no federal government oversight, while their children’s are replete with it.
     Because so few have been willing to criticize the increasing reach into the classroom by Washington, DC, bureaucrats, it is in many ways disingenuous to criticize this latest move. If one is willing to let the federal government dictate education policy in the classroom, social policy in the cafeteria, then intervention at the gridiron should be unsurprising.
     Until we expel the federal government from our schools, we can only expect them to continue to bully their desires onto the students and community, despite firmly held local beliefs and traditions.
     But because Texans take their high school football–and everything associated with it–very seriously, perhaps the federal government has finally pushed too far. Hopefully, federal bureaucrats will be soon find themselves as unwelcome in Texas schools as they have attempted to make God.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 September 1999 Punishing accidents, ignoring murder Punishing accidents, ignoring murder Violence to Unborn Children Act gives abortionists’ a license to kill
     Leave it to a zealous Congress to sweep away time-honored criminal law in an attempt to make a political constituency happy while actively ignoring the real issue.
     The House Judiciary Committee voted last week to approve the “Violence to Unborn Children.” At its surface, this legislation has some appeal, despite the fact it unconstitutionally creates yet another federal crime. It is important to recall that the Constitution only allows three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting and piracy.
     Setting aside those constitutional questions–which Congress should never do, but regularly does–it would seem to finally offer some recognition, at the federal level, that the child in the womb is indeed a human being worthy of protection. Backers of the bill say that it will offer legal protection to the fetus from those who attack it; that is, unless the attacker happens to be an abortionist or the mother. That’s the part of the bill being kept quiet.
     This legislation, which is expected to come to House floor for a vote in a matter of weeks, specifically excludes from its jurisdiction violence done to an unborn child by an abortionist. The legislation states that nothing it should be “construed to permit the prosecution … of any person for conduct relating to an abortion.”
     At the same time, though, the legislation requires that anyone else be charged with murder in federal court, even if their actions were accidental or there was no intent to kill. The notion of “intent” has been a basis for our criminal law for centuries. Someone who unintentionally causes harm or death must still bear some responsibility, but the law has always recognized a difference between willful and accidental action. Not under this legislation.
     It is certainly the case that a person who harms or causes the death of an unborn child should suffer the consequences, but in this legislation the application is artificial and arbitrary. It is okay for one person to kill a baby if they have the letters “M.D.” after their name, but not if they were in a fight with the expectant mother?
     The willful, premeditated taking of human life will go unpunished under this legislation, while an accidental death will face severe prosecution.
     This legislation ignores the millions of children murdered every year at the hand of an abortionist, while exposing to extreme legal jeopardy the relatively small number of individuals who accidentally cause a death.
     Of course, there is another class of individuals who can kill with impunity under this legislation, and that is the mother carrying the child. The bill states that charges cannot be brought against “any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
     As a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist for the past thirty years, I can safely assert that a higher percentage of children are put at harm in the womb by the negligence and even willful action of their mother than by an outsider. If this legislation were to be equally applied, the woman who smokes, drinks, does drugs, or engages in strenuous physical activity while pregnant should be just as liable for prosecution as a stranger who accidentally kills an unborn child when mugging a woman he doesn’t know to be pregnant.
     But of course, passing laws that actually recognize the full rights of the unborn as a human being is not the intention; that, after all, would require a commitment to principle, rather than politics. Instead, this legislation further enlarges the jurisdiction of the federal government by using an emotionally charged issue as justification, without actually addressing the most pressing concerns.
     If passed, politicians will rest easy knowing they have passed a feel-good measure to placate a key constituency, while those concerned with the issue believe a battle has been won. Meanwhile 5,000 babies a day will continue to die at the hands of abortionists, safe in the knowledge federal law now explicitly excuses them from their actions.
     And as but a side note to legal history, yet another blow will have been struck against the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the philosophy of federalism.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 September 1999 ‘Say no to high taxes and spending’ Arrogance kills modest tax cuts for farmers, all taxpayers
     Apparently the president believes the American people do not pay enough in taxes. This, of course, is contrary to what I hear from my constituents.
     The president would have us believe the small businessman in Victoria is simply a statistical aberration, that his daily worries about paying ever-increasing taxes is a sign of his greed. The single mom in Hays County may have trouble making ends meet, but the president assures us it is not related to the large chunk of her paycheck gobbled up by withholding taxes.
     The young couple in Aransas County, according to the president, must have been mistaken when they told me they were paying more in taxes as married people, than when single. Meanwhile, the president ignores the farmer in Waller County who is worried that when he dies his family will have to sell off most of their land to pay the death taxes.
     In fact, my constituents are over-taxed, as is every American taxpayer. Half the income of every American goes to pay the cost of government, yet the president does not wish to permit taxpayers keep just slightly more to help make ends meet.
     It is ironic that the administration and their many parrots around the nation claim to support the family farm. Yet in their assault on tax cuts in general, and this measure in specific, they have done great harm to the small, family farms which are hallmarks of my rural district. In vetoing this tax cut, the president and his allies have done irreparable harm to the cause of family farms.
     Not only would this package have taken a step toward ridding our nation of the immoral death taxes, but also provided major reforms farmers especially needed. Those reforms included the creation of Farm and Ranch Risk Management (FARRM) Accounts, which would have allowed farmers to set aside pre-tax dollars to save for a bad year. Apparently this administration wants America’s farmers to remain dependent on politicians, rather than be able to provide for themselves.
     While death taxes hit farmers perhaps the hardest of anyone, every American should be upset that this president wants to keep these in place. The death tax assumes everything you have belongs to the government. When you die, supporters of the death-tax claim, those things you have built with after-tax income, belong to the government rather than your heirs.
     Of course, the president has not been coy about his position on tax cuts. Just a couple months ago he said the federal government could give a tax cut and “trust that you spend it correctly,” but he trusts the politicians in DC to be wiser with your money.
     Often, the opponents of tax cuts hide their agenda by creating the false dichotomy of pitting tax cuts against Social Security. Social Security is in trouble not because of tax cuts, but because politicians have raided the fund to pay for their big spending programs.
     No word better describes the problem in getting even a modest tax cut in place for taxpayers across the land than the five-letter, one-syllable word “spend.” Whether it’s congressmen or presidents, bureaucrats or special interests, everyone with a hand in crafting the federal budget is committed to spending as much of your money as they can to fund pet projects and secure power bases.
     They will continue to get away with it until Americans say they have had enough. While the process is illogical, the taxes we pay are a direct reflection of the spending priorities in Washington. The budget drafters determine what they want to spend, then tax you accordingly, suggesting that you are getting some benefit from their wisdom.
     The only way we will have our tax burden significantly reduced is for federal spending to be decreased. This president and his cronies–regardless of party affiliation–are committed to spending as much of your money as they can.
     “Just say no to high taxes and high spending,” that’s what my constituents tell me when I go home every weekend. It’s time the White House and all of Congress got that message loud and clear.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 October 1999 Confused priorities President vetoes tax cuts to spend more overseas
     Just two weeks ago the president vetoed a modest tax-cut provision that would have been most helpful to small business owners, farmers and middle-income Americans. In vetoing the measure, the president said it was simply too large a tax cut, that the government couldn’t afford to “give-up” that money. This week we found out what he wanted done with that money: spend it, but not in America.
     Of course, the first fallacy is in suggesting that a tax cut is cost. When someone criticizes a tax cut as “costing too much,” they are revealing a basic belief in the tenets of socialism, where all wealth is created by, and belongs to, the government. A tax cut is allowing a productive individual to keep his own money; it does not cost anyone anything. In fact, the only “costs” in the tax system are the taxes levied on individuals.
     The tax package included what was a minor proposal that would have been a great benefit to people in agriculture. The measure would have allowed farmers and ranchers to set aside pre-tax income in special savings accounts to use in bad years. Such accounts would have granted agriculture the ability to extricate itself from the whims of Washington bureaucrats and politicians.
     When the president vetoed the tax package, he killed farmers’ hopes for this much-needed tool. Apparently he instead wants that money to be spent propping up foreign dictatorships and subsidizing our competitors.
     This past week, the president was threatening to veto the $12.6 billion foreign aid bill proposed by the House and Senate. Not, of course, because it was too much, but not nearly as much as he wanted.
     This measure is actually another increase in spending for items that are both unconstitutional and immoral. The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to tax Americans so that foreign governments can be subsidized. Even if one could find such a power in the Constitution, it still should not be exercised, as it is reprehensible that a single working mother should struggle to make ends meet while being involuntarily taxed to subsidize the newest government in an unstable region.
     These programs assisted in the rise of leaders as Saddam Hussein, Carlos Salinas, Gen Augusto Pinochet and Osma bin Laden.
     In addition, the president wants even more of Americans’ money to spent in so-called “peacekeeping” operations, like those in Somalia and Bosnia, which recklessly place American soldiers in harms’ way for reasons other than national defense.
     But worse, the president’s idea of foreign aid would use American dollars to actually subsidize the foreign competition of American farmers. The president announced Wednesday he wants to cancel competing countries’ debt to the United States–amounting to a $3.5 billion loss for the taxpayers–from loans we made through government operations, such as the Export-Import Bank. Further, his administration is participating in a $27 billion debt forgiveness initiative by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, of which U.S. taxpayers are principle stakeholders.
     It is unconscionable that while our president refuses to allow Americans to keep just slightly more of what they earn, he is committed to spending billions of American dollars overseas. While there is no constitutional justification for these ill-conceived foreign expenditures, the reasons–constitutional and moral–abound for ensuring Americans keep what they earn.
     Debates over spending and taxes reveal much about who we are as individuals and as a nation. Sadly, spending by the government remains out of control and taxes are too high. And that our priorities are sorely out of line is demonstrated by the fact that our president and his allies would subsidize abortions in distant lands with taxes generated by the sweat of farmers, rather than allow Americans to provide for themselves and their families.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 October 1999 Dangerous to our health Congressional remedies like medicine from the Dark Ages
     If Congress practiced medicine, they’d be using leaches on their patients and offering bullets for amputee candidates to bite before hacking off irreparable limbs.
     Of course, this past week one would have thought the US House–composed primarily of lawyers–was instead a convention of the American Medical Association, with Members of Congress attempting to legislatively practice medicine. Yet what was completely ignored in the debate was that this was a clear case of malpractice.
     No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care troubling, if not reckless.
     What made last week’s congressional action the equivalent of medical malpractice was that the people operating on the “patient” were the same ones responsible for injury. American health care became what it is today not as a result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
     To think that by creating a new level of government bureaucracy–which all the plans did–will magically solve the problems is analogous to assuming a wolf can guard the sheep without disastrous consequences ensuing.
     No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions could have only gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and the profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care.
     But the government intervention in health care pre-dates the 1974 Employee Retriement Income Security Act (ERISA), with Congress granting tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, the costs have artificially risen out of the range of most individuals.
     Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse.
     Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and then change the tax code to allow Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, similar to what is already allowed for employers.
     While neither the current system, nor the mess produced by the House vote last week, constitutes traditional socialism, it is rather something almost worse: corporatism. As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington, DC. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
     If Congress is going to continue to meddle in medicine, then perhaps we should require new Members to take the Hippocratic Oath. But given their resistance to upholding the Constitution, it’s doubtful they would pay much attention. Sadly, we can expect Congress to continue to apply leaches to our wallets and amputate whatever good remains in American health care.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 October 1999 Best medicine is liberty Government “reform” means high costs, less service
     Few people will argue there is nothing wrong with the status of health care in the United States. In fact, the sentiments against the status quo are almost unanimous: the system is broken.
     Yet there are many whose ideas to fix the system will actually make the situation worse for everyone, and especially those who can least afford more costly social experiments. As a physician with more than 30 years of private practice, I have too often found that the very people most hurt by “reforms” in health care are the same ones politicians and pundits claimed they were going to help.
     The current legislative drive regarding health care is no exception.
     The more government has been involved, the greater the costs and distortions. Initially there was little resistance to the federal meddling, since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free, while the patients saw they were getting great access without discernable costs. The nation’s medical bill grew as the incentive for patients to economize eroded.
     But while Americans may have deep pockets for the tax man to pull from and the bureaucrat to regulate, those pockets are neither bottomless nor overflowing. In recent years, the increasing tax-bite has become noticeable as the costs of the regulations have become more burdensome.
     Yet rather than reverse the trend and liberate patients, physicians and the health care market, many in Congress would make the situation worse by adding new regulations and new fees, while eroding services and limiting choices.
     Among the most egregious of these new regulations are “must provide” regulations on health insurance providers. These new regs translate into higher costs for the consumer as insurance companies become forced to provide coverage for services they have no desire to cover precisely because they are too costly. While the knee-jerk reaction might be to say, “That’s great, they should pay for…” whatever. But such a reaction means limiting the choices of consumers, because insurance companies will either increase rates to cover the new costs, or deny coverage altogether.
     A non-smoking, non-drinking single mother may not wish to pay premiums to cover the costs of an alcoholic man’s addiction treatments, but new regulations could require just that. No longer will that single mom have the option to pay the lower insurance rates. Suddenly, she has no real choice; she must pay the higher rates or be without coverage.
     Worse, yet, she may have no choice at all, as new regulations price her, or her insurer, out of the health insurance market with no alternative.
     This is precisely what has happened over the last three decades. More and more people, from the lowest economic classes, have been methodically pushed from the system by the cost of greater regulation. The increased number of uninsured then becomes the rallying cry for more government action, which raises costs again…. A vicious cycle, benefiting no one.
     The most important thing Congress can do is to stop practicing medicine and allow market forces to operate by allowing Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for everyone. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force in reducing cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees with patients. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care. MSAs will also allow those consumers to do business with insurance provider of their choice, who will cover the needs and procedures for which that family is willing and able to pay.
     The American people deserve more than the status quo, and better than quasi-socialized medicine. The experience of the last thirty-plus years is clear: even in health care, liberty is the best medicine.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 October 1999 In search of a cause Meaningless, politically correct legislation fails to help Americans
     Members of the United States Congress are often like crusaders in need of a cause. When a cause is not readily available, or those that are do not meet well-established standards of political correctness, congressmen are willing to create one to suit their needs.
     Such was the case last week when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives–which has yet to pass a meaningful tax cut, reduce the number of regulations endured by small businesses and farmers, or even slow the growth of federal spending–passed legislation purporting to end the “depiction of animal cruelty.” Of course, animal cruelty is a serious issue, and one that speaks volumes about the morality of an individual and culture.
     According to the sponsors of the legislation, there is a rampant problem of animals being videotaped while dying cruel, unspeakable deaths. These videotapes are then allegedly sold to people with a penchant for watching such a repulsive activity. The legislation–which passed the House–would make it illegal, the Congress was told, to possess such a video if the intent of the maker was to appeal to such an odd fetish.
     And while it is difficult to risk being seen as “insensitive” to animal cruelty, it must be said: this is a complete sham. All 50 States have laws against violence and cruelty to animals, which is more than adequate to deal with any alleged acts of cruelty. But even worse, this bill was so poorly written, it opens a Pandora’s box, or, if one will pardon the pun, it is a can of worms.
     For instance, the Section 1, Part A, of the legislation states that a penalty of five years in jail will be assigned to “whoever knowingly possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce.” How do you prove intention? This is purely subjective, not the narrowly written law as supporters claimed in the zeal to pass something that would make them appear sensitive to the plight of Hollywood stars also need of a cause.
     But doesn’t Congress have more serious, more pressing, issues to address? America’s educational system continues its downward spiral, our economy is staggering, the trust funds continue to be raided, and our taxes continue to rise. But rather than address issues that require principled votes and a devotion to liberty, Congress seems only interested in providing politically correct, feel-good legislation.
     But one wonders how long America will feel good about ridiculous initiatives such as this “animal cruelty” bill. I have seen some pretty violent ads on television of killing cockroaches, could these be endangered? I am not a very good fisherman nor a hunter, but I have been a few times. From a certain perspective, it is a violent thing to see a kingfish pulled from the sea, hooked by the mouth, thrown on the deck and left to suffocate; and yet this can be seen on a variety of fishing shows each week on television. Backers of the legislation say these shows will not be affected: how do we know for sure? There are hunting films on television in which animals are brutally shot or trapped. Maybe people are delighting in looking at the cruelty or the killing of animals on television even though they are sporting or fishing shows. Do we close those down?
     If Congress were eager to address the issue of “cruelty,” then perhaps the ongoing trampling of the Constitution would be a good place to start. There certainly is a market for people eager to watch our liberties trashed. Or, if Congress is so concerned about brutality, why not finally address the brutal assault on privacy experienced daily by American citizens?
     But those are real problems affecting many Americans, so the likelihood of Congress taking them seriously is abysmally small. Perhaps next week Congress will consider legislation to shield our borders from space invasion. Or maybe we will consider legislation to protect the dragon from over-eager slayers.
     We can be most certain, however, that when ready to address a cause, Congress can be counted upon to create one–no matter how meaningless, unreasonable, or potentially disastrous, it might be.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 November 1999 History Repeats Itself, So Let’s Repeat History A Real Solution to Executive Order Abuses
     This week I testified at a subcommittee hearing regarding my legislation, HR 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. One of the chief complaints of the American colonists against King George was that he usurped powers that were not rightfully his, and then used those powers to the disadvantage of the people. As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.
     There’s an old saying that history often repeats itself, and so it has done concerning recent abuses of power by the executive branch. I believe this is a most serious matter threatening the very structural foundation of freedom established by this nation’s founders. James Madison, quoting Montesquieu in the Federalist Papers No. 47, stated, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.”
     In an effort to resurrect the ingenuity of our founders, I have introduced HR 2655. This act restores the constitutional separation of powers by returning law-making power to Congress ALONE. First, it terminates all existing states of national emergency and removes the executive branch power to declare national emergencies, restoring that power to Congress. It also restricts executive orders by denying to them force of law except as provided for by Congress. Executive orders issued must cite the specific Constitutional provision or Statutory authority… if not, the effect of law is denied. Finally, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Resolution which, despite the constitutional prohibition, granted broad war-making authority to the Office of President.
     It is, of course, a mistake to place all blame with any single president or the presidency itself for abuse of power. After all, presidents have had many willing accomplices in Congress. A great number of congressmen and senators quietly appreciate the assumed presidential authority to create and enact legislation because it allows them to see their goals accomplished without having to assume political responsibility. Still, this administration seems bent on using this vehicle to usurp Congressional authority.
     Most recently, the November 1^st, 1999, issue of U.S. News & World Report states that “Clinton plans a series of executive orders and changes to federal rules that he can sign into law without first getting the ok from GOP naysayers. White House Chief of Staff John Podesta was quoted as saying, “There’s a pretty wide sweep of things we’re looking to do, and we’re going to be very aggressive pursuing it.”
     And, while there is a role for executive orders so that the president may faithfully execute laws passed by Congress, execute those powers specifically granted in Article II and, in so doing, direct executive branch employees, for far too many years, the illegitimate uses have overshadowed the legitimate. Presidents have issued executive orders that have mistakenly taken on the semblance of law. Kings may have the right to decree law, but Rule of Law is king in this country. By clearly defining the lines of power, my bill seeks to further secure the blessings of liberty upon our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 November 1999 Time to Change Priorities Ending involvement in NATO would provide tax cut opportunity and boost health care, education
     Soon, the Congressional Leadership is expected to reach a so-called “compromise” with President Clinton on spending issues, and then exit for the year. But, this week Congress took up many frivolous “suspension bills.” We’re now in that stage when stacks of bad legislation get enacted as Congress lingers before adjourning for the year.
     Unfortunately, in this week’s legislative package was a bill expressing support for continued US involvement in NATO. Although simply a “sense of Congress resolution,” the fact that only 133 Representatives voted “no” says so much about the problem we face today.
     Members of Congress and the Administration have been unable to reach a consensus on critical issues like truly protecting the integrity of our trust funds such as Social Security. Moreover, Congress has been unable, particularly in light of the strong opposition from the President and Democrats in Congress, to reach agreement on cutting the taxes of all Americans.
     So many of our current problems can be remedied by returning to the American public the needed resources to allow you to make the choices that will improve education and health care. And, through tax cuts, we can address problems of basic fairness. For example, it is simply immoral when a person dies that the first concern facing his or her descendants is how to handle an IRS agent breathing down their necks looking to collect Uncle Sam’s share of the estate.
     But, instead of working to end the estate tax, or keep our promises with Social Security, or insuring patient choice through medical savings accounts, we waste our time on low priority items. And, instead of looking to our nation’s future, like giving parents a true choice in education by providing them with a battery of education-related tax credits, we have two thirds in Congress voting to support continued and expanded participation in a cold war relic.
     I have never been in favor of the foreign aid giveaway that is NATO. Frankly, the entanglement in European affairs so central to this organization runs completely contrary to the ideas of our nation’s founders. These brave men understood that freedom cannot survive within the confines of a centralized state. How much worse then is the fate of American liberty when the arms of government are so extended that they reach, not simply to every nook and cranny of our own nation, but also to cover much of the globe as well?
     What we must do is return our government to its rightful and constitutional functions, and the best way to begin that process is to end involvement in multilateral organizations that extend our commitments far and wide. We have no business making commitments to foreign governments while we are breaking trust with our own nation’s senior citizens, military veterans, and taxpayers in general.
     Institutions like NATO are among the very worst of the global bureaucracies that always seem to continue to exist in search of a problem. The Soviet Union is no longer a force in the world, still NATO goes on, in search of a mission. And worse still, rather than finding problems to solve, it rather ends up creating new problems. This year, the NATO alliance conducted its first offensive war, involving itself in the internal affairs of a nation that neither attacked nor threatened any member of NATO. This, of course, violated the NATO treaty. As long as we continue to delegate matters of foreign affairs to our President and international bureaucrats worldwide, these problems will continue, and indeed worsen.
     As is so often the case, process is linked with policy. Until we relearn the lessons of the founders, and understand the need to decentralize government, we’ll continue to spend untold amounts on bombs, weapons and maintaining troops overseas. Only when we prioritize commitments to our own people will we begin the process of repairing our education and health care systems, and keeping our commitments to America’s seniors and taxpayers.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 November 1999 Budget Standoff Continues But Certainly Not for Lack of Money
     Congress adjourned Wednesday but only temporarily as they will return Tuesday, November 16th in an attempt to complete the appropriations process. The target adjournment date was more than two weeks earlier on October 29th but due to presidential vetoes of five appropriations bills, the taxpayer-funded budget juggernaut rumbles onward. Spending levels do not appear to be at issue. In fact, the massive Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill authorized nearly twice as much spending as the last Democratic Congress in 1994. It, in fact, would spend $103.6 Billion dollars, which is $10.3 Billion dollars more than last year’s appropriation. This is a figure that is, in fact, $1.2 Billion dollars more than Clinton requested in his proposed budget. What is at issue here is clearly not total spending but spending not directed to projects favored by the executive branch. It seems the President has found yet another way to legislate–by Veto and threat of government shutdown.

The Constitution, of course, requires all appropriation bills to originate in the House, but when the Interior appropriations bill prohibited funding for implementation of the unratified Kyoto treaty and Clinton’s Land Legacy Initiative government land grab at a taxpayer cost of $579 million, that bill was vetoed. Never mind that the infamous National Endowment for the Arts was funded at nearly double the level at which the Administration requested.

The Commerce Justice State Judiciary appropriations Act was sent to the President with an 11% increase over just last fiscal year (and we are told the era of big government is over). This bill’s failure to dictate to the President’s liking how state and local governments conduct law enforcement activity was the reason, in part, for this veto. Never mind that the Constitution’s enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment leave this matter entirely up to the States.

But this year’s budget process has brought us many other wonders, also. For example, the Defense Appropriations bill provides $1.7 Billion to fund this year’s unconstitutional war in Iraq and Bosnia and $460 million dollars of military aid to the former Soviet Union. The VA/ HUD Appropriations Bill funded the Environmental Protection Agency at a record $7.6 Billion, 5% more than the Administration’s request. The Environmental Protection Agency has now grown to more than 18,000 employees.

An across the board 1% spending cut to offset these spending increases?? In Washington, seemingly unthinkable. A tax cut bill to slowly phase out the federal inheritance tax, eliminate the marriage penalty tax, and make IRA retirement accounts more flexible and tax-friendly?? Vetoed.

The five remaining appropriations bills may be rolled into one omnibus bill for which a “yes” vote will fund $1 billion in un-owed back dues to the United Nations and dictate to state and local school boards how many teachers to hire, much to the delight of the National Education Association and teachers unions.

In light of Congressional appropriations of more and more expenditures and the Administration’s use of legislation and micro-management by veto threat, it seems that almost everyone in Washington has somehow forgotten that the era of big government is supposed to be over.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 November 1999 This Year’s Successes Not so few as you might imagine
     As Congress adjourns for the year, now is an appropriate time to consider what we achieved in this session. This year we were able to achieve a number of successes in some of the areas upon which I put considerable focus.
     Early this year we focused much attention on defeating the proposed “Know Your Customer” federal banking regulation. This regulation proposed by the Federal Reserve and others would have given banks a broad mandate to spy on their customers and report any unusual transactions.
     We were successful in shedding much light on the threat presented by this regulation, and after some 250,000 citizens complaints were lodged during the official “comment period,” the regulation was withdrawn. This is not the final word on this issue, however, as I have introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “Bank Secrecy Act” under which this regulation was proposed. As long as this legislation remains in force we will not be free from these egregious acts of bank regulators.
     One other area in which we found some legislative success deals with the plan for a National Identification Card. A 1996 bill required states to conform their issuance of driver’s licenses to federal standards. Because the mandate would essentially be put into effect next year, this was our last chance to derail this heinous policy.
     Fortunately, within this year’s transportation appropriations bill we were indeed successful in stopping this plan dead in its tracks. With the help of Senator Shelby, Congressman Frank Wolf and others, we repealed the mandate and ended the National Identification Card.
     I also introduced HR 1812 this year, to end the needless and inefficient policy of draft registration. The Department of Defense issued a report pointing out why this program is a waste of money and simply makes no sense in light of current personnel requirements consistent with modern warfare. Moreover, my concern is with the threat to personal freedom evidenced by compulsory registration with the federal government.
     The basis of my bill was included in the committee report issued by Chairman Walsh’s appropriations sub-committee, and when it came to a vote on the House Floor we were able to win with a convincing majority. Two-hundred thirty two Members of Congress voted to support my position. Unfortunately, the funds for the program were reinserted in the bill by the Senate and signed into law by the President. However, considering that when I first returned to Congress a couple of years ago we saw this agency attempting to grow and take on new responsibilities, it is no small victory that we won a vote on the House floor this year to actually eliminate the agency.
     Another key victory we have had is dealing with the US Postal Service regulation that would allow further invasions of the privacy of Commercial Mail Receiving agencies and their many customers. Since I proposed HJR 55, the post office has backed off its original position and redrafted its regulations to make them less onerous. However, we will continue to fight on this front until this regulation is totally repealed.
     On each of these items, intimately linked with personal freedom from federal government intervention, we were successful in moving the ball forward in this session of Congress. Next year, I will continue to be very active on these issues, as well as working to achieve success in bringing about our vision of a limited federal government in a number of other key policy areas.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 November 1999 Taking the Next Step Building on This Year’s Victories
     This year I introduced a number of bills designed to address key concerns facing our country. With Congress now in recess I want to take this opportunity to share information with you regarding some of the bills I have introduced and the problems they seek to address.
     Last week I mentioned the success we had with our efforts to derail the proposed “Know Your Customer” regulation and to end the national identification card scheme, as well as our efforts to curtail the activities of runaway agencies like the US Postal Service and the Selective Service Agency.
     In each of these areas I introduced legislation, and to follow up on our victories in the National Identification Card and “Know Your Customer” battles, I now have bills, pending in committee, which would take the next step on these two topics. My bill to restrict usage of the Social Security number is the next logical step in our battle against federal identifiers. And, my bill to repeal the Bank Secrecy Act would protect us from further attempts at regulations like “Know Your Customer.”
     I have once again introduced legislation to end US involvement in the United Nations. As this international bureaucracy continues to threaten American sovereignty and the individual liberty of American citizens, as well as demanding more and more funding from American taxpayers, it is obvious that our continued involvement is at best a drain on resources and at worst a direct contradiction of the principles the founding fathers so clearly understood when they fought to establish our Republic.
     During this year I also introduced bills to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Our founding fathers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was the bedrock upon which all other rights were rested, a sort of insurance plan against an intrusive and abusive federal police state, my legislation would restore our Republic to those founding principles in this crucial policy area as well.
     I have also introduced the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. Again, based on reestablishing our Republic along the lines understood by our founding fathers, this bill is aimed at stopping Presidential usurpation of the constitutionally enumerated legislative powers. Through the vehicle of the executive order, various Presidents have encroached upon Congressional powers. Sadly, this has often occurred with the benign neglect, or even support of our legislative branch. This bill, which rapidly received a hearing in a key sub-committee of the House Judiciary committee, will continue to be a focal point for my activity in the next session of Congress. And, hopefully, it will continue to attract interest from a multitude of media outlets, as well as support from freedom loving Americans across our nation.
     In addition to these important pieces of legislation I have introduced a number of bills designed to cut taxes on American families. Next week, I will spend more time outlining the importance of that body of legislation. Moreover, my first bill introduced this Congress was the “Social Security Preservation Act,” designed to take all Social Security receipts out of the hands of the politicians and put them into a separate interest bearing account that could only be used for the purposes which those funds were taken from the taxpayers, namely the provision of public pensions through the Social Security system. This is something that everybody now claims, at least rhetorically, to support, yet still we see Social Security dollars being used to finance welfare and pork barrel spending as well as foreign aid and overseas deployment of troops in Kosovo, the Middle East and elsewhere.
     As the next session of Congress begins in early January, I will be working to get these important legislative initiatives through the committee process and to the House Floor. This will be a key part of my work in the year 2000.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 December 1999 Floor Votes Reviewed An Outline of 1999 Paul Amendments
     During the recently concluded session of Congress, I was able to get floor votes on a number of amendments that I proposed. The first amendment I introduced was to HR 1658, a bill introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, aimed at overhauling the nation’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
     This body of law exemplifies much of what is wrong with current legislation. First, these laws were never considered to be the domain of the federal government when our founding fathers crafted our constitution. This approach also considers property an “agent of crime” rather than the person who is actually engaged in an offense, thus making people who have no involvement in criminal activity, subject to loss of property. Finally, these laws resemble a repeal of the idea that individuals are “innocent until proven guilty.” Civil asset forfeiture allows for the confiscation of property, prior even to any conviction, and this is the issue my amendment specifically addressed. Although my amendment did not become part of the final bill, I was pleased that we were able to assist Chairman Hyde. While his bill did not become law, and while it is far from a proper repeal of this entire body of law, the fact that Chairman Hyde succeeded in getting his bill passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives is an important first step in the right direction.
     Another amendment I introduced dealt with funding for the United Nations. Similar to an amendment I put forward in the last Congress that would have ended US participation in that international bureaucracy, this year my amendment garnered 74 votes in the House. This was a significant increase over the 54 vote total we achieved in the 105th Congress. Obviously, although we are not yet close to convincing the majority we need to enact this policy into law, we continue to build support and to see support in advancing this idea.
     In a fashion similar to that which I took in the 105th Congress, I introduced an amendment to stop all funding for so-called overseas family planning. This money is not only another form of foreign aid, it is also used to advocate the anti-life agenda of the most radical pro-abortion groups. Unfortunately, we lost ground on this issue in this Congress. This year we received 145 votes in favor of my amendment, whereas last Congress we had the support of 147 members.
     My final amendment voted upon this year involved ending the further funding of agencies such as the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or “OPIC.” These agencies take our hard earned tax dollars and send them, in the form of grants and subsidized loans, to companies doing business in other nations. This massive corporate welfare scheme is often portrayed as having some benefit to US citizens, but let’s face it–only the very wealthy and very influential corporate and Wall Street interests truly benefit from such financial shenanigans.
     Of course, this amendment always draws the wrath of the rich and powerful insider crowd. However, we were able to get 58 votes in support of our amendment this year, again a significant improvement over the 40 votes we garnered for a similar amendment that I introduced in the 105th Congress.
     I will continue to work to get votes on the floor when these opportunities present themselves according to the rules of the House. It is my intention to continue to focus my amendments on addressing issues of importance to the American people and particularly to cut wasteful Washington spending. And, of course, I will continue to keep attention on this overseas spending which drains our nation’s resources and impoverishes taxpayers in this country.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 December 1999 International Protectionism Cause for Protest
     We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. Although many of those who were protesting were indeed rallying against what they see as the evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The WTO is the furthest thing from free trade. Instead, it is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty, and this is the reason why we must vigorously oppose it. No nation can maintain its sovereignty if it surrenders its authority to an international collective. And, since sovereignty is linked inextricably to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue.
     Let’s face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The WTO is a quasi-governmental agency and hence it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let’s call a spade a spade. The WTO is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected, campaign contributors and fat cats get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group. Preferred that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.
     As a representative of the people of the 14th district of Texas and a member of the United States Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country, it is not my business to tell other countries whether or not they should be in the WTO. They can toss their own sovereignty out the window if that is the choice they make. Thus, I cannot tell China or Britain or anybody else that they should not join the WTO. That is not my constitutional role. I can, however, say that the United States of America ought to withdraw its membership and funding from the WTO immediately.
     If we had a true understanding of the idea of sovereignty, and of free trade, I believe we would make the right decision immediately. Thus, on this issue, our primary objective must be education.
     We need to better explain that the founding fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the War for Independence understood the difference. One only need read John Dickenson’s Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer to discover this.
     When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, they placed the Treaty making authority with the President and the Senate but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effect of this is obvious. The founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade. Hence, our nation was to be governed not by protection but rather by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.
     A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government, thus the tariff would be low. The colonists and founders clearly recognized that tariffs are taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign companies. This realization was made obvious by the British government’s regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today’s protectionists. Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
     While condemning the violence, we should celebrate the idea that political debate in this nation has turned some attention, if only briefly, to the WTO. Now we must take this opportunity and, in fact, never cease to explain the true problems created by this entity. Namely, that it is an assault on sovereignty and an affront to freedom. When we make that case more successfully, we will be able to move the politicians toward getting us out of the WTO.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 December 1999 Cosponsored Bills 106th Congress, 1st Session
     This past year I cosponsored 200 bills in Congress. This means that I have given my name support to legislative initiatives introduced by another member of Congress. As might be expected, nearly half of those bills deal in one way or another with reducing the tax burden faced by Americans. I cosponsored Congressman Kasich’s bill to cut taxes across the board for all Americans, as well as dozens of bills calling for tax relief for educational purposes. Other bills target tax relief to American seniors and for all Americans who are seeking to improve their health care choices.
     Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and “Sense of Congress resolutions” regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem.
     Four bills that I cosponsored this year have actually passed through the House. Two of them were “Sense of Congress” resolutions. One of these expressed the opinion that no federal funds should go to the sacrilegious displays at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and the other one stated that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events ought to be considered constitutional. This latter issue has been very important in Texas where a federal court ruled that prayer before a school football game was unconstitutional. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew that the constitution they gave us was interpreted by liberal judges as prohibiting a prayer at a local high school. This travesty must not stand, and the real solution, of course, is for the federal courts to keep their noses out of the business of local school districts.
     I also cosponsored a bill offered by Roy Blunt from Missouri that delayed even more new federal regulations from going into affect. This bill dealt with ergonomics guidelines, and it passed the House in July.
     Also, I cosponsored Don Young’s American Land Sovereignty Preservation Act, which passed the House earlier this year. This bill would give Congress say in the designation of natural and historic sites. The President has taken onto himself the designation of such sites.
     One bill I cosponsored that did gain support from many in the House, but did not pass the body, was the Tax Limitation Amendment, which would have required a super-majority for any future tax increase. Unfortunately, the amendment was not able to get the 2/3 vote necessary to move it forward.
     Next year I will continue to look for worthy bills to cosponsor even as I work, through signing and coordinating Dear Colleague letters and by otherwise working with key Members of Congress, to help move the bills I cosponsored this year through the process and hopefully on to passage.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 December 1999 Overall Review The First Session of the 106^th Congress
     As we prepare to look forward to the next session of Congress, it is instructive to look back also. Over the past few weeks I have mentioned legislation I introduced and the successes enjoyed this year. Also, recalled the various bills I have cosponsored and some of the issues I was able to bring to the House floor for a vote by the entire Congress.
     Today, I want to focus on a more general overview of the last session of Congress before looking ahead next week to our plans for the new year. This last session of Congress was truly a mixed bag, but it is certain that we have not been able to reverse the trend toward bigger and more intrusive federal government.
     Federal spending increased last year. New federal programs were started and the national debt continues to soar. In spite of the fact that we hear so much talk about budget surpluses, our federal monetary and fiscal policies continue to push our nation dangerously close to the edge of a very steep cliff. Once we hit the edge, we are headed for a deep economic downturn.
     Unfortunately, the leadership of my own party has not been successful in attempts to curtail the President’s plans for an ever-expanding federal leviathan. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is constantly pointing out how they are appropriating more money even than the President asks for in his budget requests. This is a sad state of affairs.
     Nonetheless, our voice is being heard. On issues such as education, health care and personal privacy, we have begun to see the coming together of broad based coalitions that want only to see the federal government out of the day-to-day lives of the American people. While we do not yet have a majority in Congress, often because certain Republicans from the northeast tend to be every bit as liberal as House Democrats, there is a change afoot in the nation. The American people are largely waking up to the fact that further federal intrusion is not the answer.
     Last year we won some victories, small though they may be, because the people spoke. People contacted their Members of Congress and US Senators, often saying, “Enough is enough! It is time for a change!” I know this because I hear from my colleagues who tell me that they have received calls and letters, e-mail s and faxes. They tell me their constituents agree with our perspective and our agenda. Namely, my colleagues here know that there is a growing movement to get the federal government off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of the American people. Ideas like medical savings accounts, education tax credits and others are gaining momentum.
     Still, we have a long way to go. As US participation in this year’s aggressive and treaty-violating NATO war in Kosovo proves, many in positions of leadership believe it is Washington’s role to control not only every nook and cranny of our own country, but also to police every street corner in the world.
     Our founding fathers had a clear vision when they left us a Republic at the end of the 18^th century. And now, it is incumbent upon all Americans that we remember the lesson they taught over 200 years ago. Namely, the greatest gift we can give to the American people this new year is their very birthright, the gift of freedom. And, in order to do that it is imperative that we restore our government to the constitutional republic of limited federal powers it was designed to be. History has taught and retaught one clear lesson: namely, that it is impossible to reconcile a free citizenry with a concentrated and centralized government.
     That we will once again see a rebirth of the spirit of our founders is my wish and prayer for our nation in this most holy of holiday seasons. Merry Christmas.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 January 2000 The Year Ahead Looking towards the 2^nd Session of the 106^th Congress
     Looking toward next year, I am not convinced that we will see a major change in the direction of our country. In fact, I am convinced we will see a budget passed again this year that spends more money than ever, that continues to increase the national debt, and that will allow only minimal tax relief, if tax relief is included at all.
     Still, I believe there are many important areas on which our work must continue to be focused. Much of our work now is educational, aimed at continuing to shed light where our government has gotten off the course intended by our founding fathers, and convincing our fellow citizens of the need to consider these issues anew. This is necessary to restore our Republic to its former greatness.
     One thing on which I will certainly not relent is the issue of tax reduction. In the current climate, with government revenue growing, taking a higher percentage of our people’s earnings than at any time in our history, and with the President claiming “surpluses as far as the eye can see,” we must press forward and show both the moral imperative, and the plain economic sense, of returning to the American people the hard-earned fruits of their labor.
     As I said, I am not expecting we will pass major tax cuts this year, but I certainly intend to fight to see that we do. And, as I have always held that any small tax reduction is better than no reduction at all, I will continue to support any legislation that cuts taxes.
     This coming year I will also continue to focus considerable attention on issues of personal privacy. Right now, my staff is studying ways to draft a privacy amendment to our constitution. Generally, I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments, especially since the federal government now ignores so much of the existing constitution.
     Still, with the federal judges and liberals working to define privacy in a way that our founding fathers would have never intended, and with leftists using so-called privacy legislation to further expand the ever-growing weed that is our federal government, I am convinced the time has come for us to outline, in a clear, concise and constitutional manner, the true definition of privacy rights as our founding fathers would have understood them.
     Of course, the only way we are going to truly achieve long term success is by strictly limiting the activities of the federal government. Real tax reduction will come only when Americans are prepared to accept significant spending cuts, and that, in turn, depends upon our understanding the limited constitutional role our citizens imposed upon the federal government.
     I am convinced that the best way for us to reestablish a limited federal government is by restoring the spirit of our founding fathers. These brave men well understood that concentration and centralization of power leads to tyranny and despotism. For this reason we must do two things. First, we must recall that our nation was founded on the principle that the government that governs closest to home is the government best equipped to deal with social ills. That means powers of state and local governments must once again be given their proper respect. Next, we must make certain to restore the proper separation of powers in Washington. The 535 voting Members of both Houses of Congress must reassert their authority as opposed to that of the nine men and women who sit in black robes, or a Presidency that increasingly displays its arrogance by usurping power. By reestablishing this division of powers, we can once again check intrusive government action. This is the agenda I will continue to advocate in the upcoming session of Congress.
     I wish you the very best in the upcoming year.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 January 2000 The New Year Y2K Expectations
     The New Year arrived calmly and peacefully. With all the hype regarding Y2K, most Americans anticipated some degree of chaos either from failed computers or a terrorist attack. Now that the New Year produced no startling news, most Americans will probably react in the opposite direction; complacency.
     The media blames Y2K scaremongers and alarmists for the concern for a computer-driven crisis. But for several months, official government announcements urging citizens to prepare for Y2K with extra cash and extra home provisions played a part in the fear that some Americans felt. These warnings for the most part were sincere, but there was obviously some ignorance by most of the “experts” on what would really happen.
     Private computers were corrected beyond expectations, because many people did not understand or underestimated the free market’s ability to adjust. The final word has not yet been heard on government computers. It may be that weeks or even months may be required to find out where the real glitches are. Most government checks, scheduled for early January, were processed in December, which may have only delayed the problems if they still exist. Evidence that the IRS computers have been corrected to adjust for calculating interest and penalties are yet to come.
     It is even possible that “infected” computers may gradually interfere with corrected computers. Only time will tell if we still have any significant problems. I’m certain that if indeed we get by with minimal computer disruptions, the credit will go to the private programmers and non-government entities that knew it was in their best interest to appropriately deal with the problem.
     But government bureaucrats never miss a chance to emphasize their importance. If indeed, the problem was not severe as it appears, it’s interesting to note the high visibility in the past months of Y2K Czar, John Koskinen. He now seeks credit for saving the country from chaos. The government Information Coordination Center headed up by Koskinen and his consultants is already looking for another dragon to slay. They are now working to make the Center permanent for the purpose of monitoring any possible technological crisis in the future. The experts at the Center believe the World Wide Web needs closer monitoring. Koskinen concerns are: “information security, whether it’s from viruses, hackers, cyber-terrorists, or others, and our ability to share information is critical.”
     This type of government surveillance bothers me and could be the vehicle for getting the government “leg” in the door to gain more control over the Internet. The Internet tax is a big issue and won’t go away. When government bureaucrats talk of security, they mean theirs–not ours. And I’m sure that “national security interests” will always be used as an excuse for government to have more control over the Internet. Other arguments that will be used will include the need to assist federal law enforcement efforts in fighting drugs, tax dodgers, dead-beat dads, pornography, and child molesters, etc.
     Not long ago, realizing Congress was moving to permit the use of encryption and the sale of encryption technology overseas voluntarily, Clinton said he would accomplish this through a directive. It sounded good, but as is the case with all presidential directives and executive orders, we must remain skeptical. Now some experts are saying that the President’s move to permit these sales of encryption technology may have actually made the problem worse.
     The question the American people must answer is how much liberty they are willing to sacrifice in order to allow the federal government to pursue goals that were once the domain of state and local law enforcement agencies.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 January 2000 Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term How Long Can “Business as Usual” Last?
     President Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to a fourth term as Federal Reserve Board Chairman has been met with nearly unanimous praise. From Congressional leaders to Wall Street gurus, the announcement brought a sigh of relief that good times will continue. The only reservation I noticed was written by economist Mark Weisbrot, who worried that Greenspan might not inflate the currency fast enough. Otherwise, everyone seemed delighted with the nomination.
     Essentially, no one in Washington, on Wall Street, or in the financial media challenges the inflationary policy of the Fed, believing that the favorable status quo will continue indefinitely as long as the money wizard stays in charge. In good times it’s easy to forget severe recessions and commodity price inflation. Today, just about everyone endorses the New Era in prosperity that technology and Alan Greenspan have delivered to us. Inflation, as defined by a rising CPI, has been declared dead.
     But one thing ignored is the fact that a fiat monetary system is incompatible with a free market economy. Instead of depending on production and savings for capital, today’s economy depends on new “capital” coming from the Fed’s credit machine. When credit is created out of thin air for investment purposes and interest rates are driven artificially low, mal-investment results. This monetary inflation, of which we have had plenty, has already set the stage for the next recession.
     Many are delighted that Greenspan will stay in charge, believing he can prevent an economic turndown with proper monetary management. Sorry, but it’s too late. The distortions are already in place, and because the most recent economic cycle has lasted longer than usual, it means there’s been more credit creation and distortion than usual. Therefore a bigger downturn will result. The only policy available to the Fed today is to further inflate the currency in an attempt to delay the inevitable correction.
     Greenspan has already supervised one serious recession in the early 1990s. No matter how astute a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is, it’s impossible to avoid recessions when managing a fiat monetary system. Alan Greenspan has been quite generous when it comes to creating new money. Since 1987 when Greenspan took over, high-powered money, as measured by the monetary base, has increased by 138%. This has resulted in an increase of nearly $3 trillion of bank deposits as measured by M3. This new money creation keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be, making the banks and Wall Street happy. It also pleases the spendthrift politicians who during Greenspan’s term have increased the national debt by $3 trillion. Almost the entire increase in the national debt since 1987 has been monetized or paid for by Greenspan printing new money.
     Of course, any of us would “thrive” if we could increase our wealth at that rate with borrowing and counterfeiting–but for us it’s illegal. For now, foreigners’ willingness to soak up our inflated dollars, while selling us goods at discount, makes us feel wealthier. But that will eventually end with higher interest rates, a weak dollar and CPI type price inflation. When this takes place, any increase in Federal Reserve credit will only accelerate the painful correction.
     Every time the market in the past three years threatened to bring on a correction, Chairman Greenspan rushed to the rescue–to the delight of everyone in Washington and New York–with a massive influx of new money and lower rates. In 1997 the excuse was the Asian crisis; in 1998 it was the failure of Long Term Capital Management; and in 1999 it was the potential Y2K crisis. In the past 3 months, bank credit has increased at a greater than 30% annual rate. Greenspan, in this past quarter, may have talked about “tight money” and even raised overnight rates, but he was quite active inflating the currency.
     It’s true that this inflationary policy does alleviate the immediate financial crisis. But it does so by further inflating the financial bubble. It delays the correction but makes the situation ever more dangerous for all Americans. There will be a price to pay. Borrowing and creating credit out of thin air will never prove to be the way to permanent prosperity. When it comes to money there are no “New Eras”. Economic law will prevail. The law of supply and demand applies to money as well as goods and services.
     The Federal Reserve will always want to avert a collapse of the stock market, just as it did publicly with Long Term Capital Management. But it can only do that for a limited period of time. The markets will eventually rule. They always do.
     Likewise, the world central banks have for years sold and loaned gold to keep the gold price artificially low. A rise in gold price is a vote of no confidence in paper. And it’s in the interest of all central banks to keep this from happening. Their credibility is at stake. But we must remember through the 50s and the 60s, gold was “fixed” at $35 an ounce and in the 70s the markets overruled the powerful Fed and the US Treasury and vetoed this price.
     Alan Greenspan was at one time a free market adherent and gold standard advocate. Read what he had to say about the Federal Reserve Board policy of the 1920s and the subsequent depression. The experts in the 20s had also declared a New Era economic growth without price inflation resulting from technological advances and wise monetary management. Greenspan explains: “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late. By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a constant demoralizing of business confidence.” (Gold and Economic Freedom, 1966)
     Maybe Alan Greenspan has been at the Fed too long. It seems he now believes in his own greatness. He should read his own analysis, decline the nomination, and hope the next chairman gets blamed for the correction already built into the system.
     This is not to say that anyone else can do any better than the current chairman in the coming years. Central planning, whether it’s in the monetary system or in the economy itself, just doesn’t work. The debate should not be over who is best at managing the economy, determining the money supply and knowing the proper interest rates. It should be over whether or not we should have a monetary system that requires its manager to know things he cannot know. Instead of arguing over whether and when interest rates should go up or down, we should debate whether or not market interest rates and commodity money is superior to fiat money in preventing price inflation, recessions and painful periods of unemployment.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 January 2000 Parental Control, not Federal Mandates, Key to Education Reform Ron Paul fights to cut taxes on parents, reduce mandates on teachers
     A recent Investor’s Business Daily story told of parents across the nation who have become so frustrated with their lack of control over their children’s education that they are taking school administrators to court! For example, parents in Plano, Texas are challenging the school district’s intention to use textbooks relying on “connected math.” These parents want their children taught traditional math, not the education establishment’s latest fad. In a similar case, a mother in Fort Zumwalt, Missouri is suing the school district for not offering her autistic son the education program that she believes will enable him to reach his full potential.
     These suits are the result of the increasing centralization of education which has given federal bureaucrats more control while reducing the ability of parents to control their children’s education. Unfortunately, these lawsuits will not further parental control. Instead, they will empower judges to seize more control over schools. If we truly want to reform the system, we need to return control over the education dollar to parents, teachers and local school districts. However, each time we are given a new education proposal from Washington, it involves another layer of bureaucracy, and that has proven harmful to education.
     Despite the abundant evidence of the failure of centralized education, Vice President Al Gore recently introduced a new proposal that would give Washington bureaucrats an additional $115 billion to place new regulations on local schools. A key element to the plan is that no school district could receive federal funds unless they had a plan in place to test teachers.
     Federally mandating teacher testing would inevitably lead to national testing as Washington-based politicians and bureaucrats would demand that state and local governments conform to their national specifications. National testing means a national curriculum. Since teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test, new teachers will base their lesson plans on what they need to know in order to pass the Education Department-approved test.
     In order to stop the Federal Government from seizing complete control over the teaching profession, last year I introduced legislation, HR 1706, which prohibits such national testing and certification. The bill passed the House of Representatives in July, but has yet to be voted on in the Senate. Last month, along with 14 of my colleagues, I sent a letter to Senate Education Committee Chairman James Jeffords (R-VT) asking that the ban on national testing be included in the Senate version of the legislation.
     In addition to fighting the nationalization of the teaching profession, I am working to give control of the education dollar back to parents through my Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child’s education related expenses. Unlike Mr. Gore’s proposal, my bill would allow parents the maximum amount of freedom in determining how to educate their children. It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child.
     My bill would allow the parents in Plano to chose schools with appropriate textbooks and free the Missouri mother to make sure her autistic son gets the type of education that best suits his needs. In fact, the Family Education Freedom Act will especially benefit the parents of children with disabilities because it gives them the freedom to use more of their own resources to meet their child’s unique educational needs.
     Congress has no constitutional authority to control local education. Thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. The bottom line is that politicians are holding our children’s education hostage in Washington for political purposes, and with plans like that offered by Mr. Gore, they are also taking authority away from locally elected school boards and putting it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. I will continue to use my position on the Education Committee to fight to improve education by giving dollars and authority back to parents, teachers and local school districts.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 January 2000 Relations with Russia It’s Time to End US Interventionism
     The past month saw many interesting developments in Russia, and they have provided us with just cause for immediate concern. Of course the biggest Y2K event was the resignation of Boris Yeltsin.
     Shortly after his replacement Vladimir Putin came to power, a very somber event occurred. Namely, the Kremlin granted him more power to use nuclear weapons. The first reason given for this change in policy was that the expansion of NATO had caused the Russians to see a threat drawing closer to them which had not been previously perceived. The second reason–the war in Yugoslavia had made it apparent that there is now a NATO precedent for launching an attack into a country that had not itself attacked any NATO member.
     When the Clinton Administration and others were busy slapping each other on the backs with congratulations for what they saw as a “job well done” in Yugoslavia, I was warning that this act would have dangerous consequences that could not be foreseen at the time.
     I regret to report how accurate that warning turned out to be. Russia is not happy with its attempts at transition to a more westernized economy and culture. The Russian people are looking for somebody to blame, and they are seeking out their old enemies as scapegoats.
     The Russian bear has never stopped being a ferocious one, and our own policy, which is analogous to continually poking, prodding and otherwise “climbing into the cage” with that bear, is not and has not been in our own best interests. Through the IMF, the World Bank and other such entities we have continued to provide foreign aid to the bear. In doing this we are in essence feeding a very unfriendly entity.
     Our US leaders have told us how we need to continue subsidizing the bear because that is the way, so they say, to keep the Russians “on our side.” The latest moves indicate that Russia will pursue what is in her national interests regardless of any US subsidies they may receive. Thus, when we subsidize foreign countries, we subsidize their national interests–interests that are, more or less frequently, bound to be inimical to our own.
     Another so-called “surprise” move of Mr. Yeltsin’s successor was that he cut a deal with communist party members of the legislature, the Russian Duma. This seems to be a surprise only to those naive enough to believe that we could befriend a potentially hostile nation by sending lots of taxpayer money to it. The reason that the communists continue to be players on the Russian scene should be obvious. First of all, the indoctrination of Marxist ideology that nation underwent for nearly a century cannot be expected to disappear overnight, or even in a decade. Indeed it is likely to be many generations before Marxism is repudiated in the mind of the typical Russian citizen. Moreover, in the short run, the communists are a valuable ally to any Russian politician who is looking to maintain and increase his power base. The communists are traditionally hostile toward the United States, and since America makes a good scapegoat for any Russian leader, it is only natural that the current Russian boss would seek an alliance with the communists.
     Also, it has long been a tactic of those in power that they will find outside scapegoats when internal problems persist. In the current instance the fact that Russia has had a terrible war with Chechnya has made it expedient for Russian leaders to begin to focus energy toward vilifying America.
     The best way for us to break this vicious cycle seems most clear to me. We ought to recommit ourselves to a foreign policy that seeks our national interest. The components of such a policy involve a strong national defense and a policy of non-intervention abroad. That means that we should end these failed attempts to win people to our cause by giving them foreign aid payments.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 February 2000 Medical Privacy Threatened Deadline for Halting Dangerous Regulations Quickly Approaching
     An unconstitutional and dangerous rulemaking procedure by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is underway and greatly threatens the health care privacy and freedom of Americans. The deadline for concerned citizens to submit comments to HHS is February 17.
     On November 3rd, 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed medical privacy regulations in the Federal Register. Protecting medical privacy is a noble goal; however, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to mandate a uniform standard of privacy protections for every citizen. Rather, individuals and those with whom they entrust their health care information should determine the question of who should have access to a person’s medical records. Real threats to privacy come primarily from governments that have historically compelled individuals to provide information, often in exchange for some government benefit.
     The HHS regulation would severely reduce individuals’ control over their medical records. The regulation, when finalized, will deny, as a matter of federal law, individuals’ ability to contract with providers or payors to establish limitations on who should have access to their medical records. Instead, every American will be forced to accept the privacy standard decided upon by Washington-based bureaucrats and politicians, and it is not a good one.
     The regulations also give the federal government power to punish those who violate these standards. Thus, in a remarkable example of government paternalism, individuals are forced to rely on the good graces of government bureaucrats for protection of their medical privacy. These so-called “privacy protection” regulations not only strip individuals of any ability to determine for themselves how best to protect their medical privacy, they also create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. For example, medical researchers may access people’s private medical records even if individuals do not want this.
     Forcing individuals and providers to reveal medical records without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private records; therefore, restrictions on individuals’ ability to control the dissemination of their private information represent a massive taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”
     Allowing law enforcement officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s “papers.”
     Finally, I object to the fact that these proposed regulations “permit” health care providers (already beholden to government by funding) to give medical records to the government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.
     Before implementing these rules, HHS must consider what will happen to the trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database, seen by medical researchers, or handed over to government agents without a warrant. For more information on how to submit comments to the Department of Health and Human Services, feel free to contact my congressional staff by email at rep.paul@mail.house.gov. Please use the words “HHS Regs” in the subject line, and make sure to include your email address in your message. You may also contact my office by phone at 202-225-2831.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 February 2000 Keeping Promises about Social Security Votes Speak Louder Than Words
     On occasion I hear comments like “you just don’t vote with the majority enough.” Some cannot understand it when I vote with a small group of people or by myself. But when I talk to people in my district and tell them how I feel about a particular issue, I believe that I owe it to them to vote in Washington in a fashion that is consistent with what I tell them. If I give my word to the people, I believe I must then vote the way I tell them that I will. This is what I must do even when it means that my votes will not be popular with politicians in Washington, even with some in my own political party.
     Recently in national politics, we have heard some claim to tell people the truth “no matter what.” For me, that has always been my policy. If I tell you what I will do, that is exactly what I will do.
     That is why I was heartened when recently, the independent, nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation praised me as one of only seven members of the House of Representatives who voted not to spend one penny of the Social Security trust fund on other government programs last year. Right now nearly every politician is claiming to have saved Social Security, but according to this independent group, only seven Members Congress actually voted that way last year. Yes, this is exactly why I can sometimes vote with only a handful of others, because I pledged to not spend Social Security trust fund dollars on other programs. While many people in Washington say they agree, this non-partisan organization says only a handful really vote that way.
     By the way, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) is a 300,000 member, nationwide organization. And this NTU study shows that politicians developed tricks to hide the fact that they spent money from American senior’s retirement accounts.
     In recent years, President Clinton and Congress have claimed to produce a balanced budget, but this has only come as a result of taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. I believe that no funds should be spent out of the Social Security trust fund except to pay pensions to beneficiaries. My top priority this Congress is to protect senior’s retirements. That is why the first bill I introduced this term was HR 219, the Social Security Preservation Act. This bill will make it illegal for politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to continuing dipping into the trust funds.
     Each year the President and Congress take the money Americans pay into Social Security and use it for purposes other than paying pensions. Simply, they are stealing from our senior citizens. The Social Security Preservation Act will restore Americans’ faith in their retirement. It should be illegal for the government to use the trust fund for any purpose except administering the Social Security system.
     According to NTU Director of Congressional Analysis Jeff Dircksen, these seven Members are a rare example of Congressmen who have established a voting record of protecting the Social Security system, as opposed to dipping into it to pay for pork-barrel projects and other spending increases.
     “Washington quickly adapted to the era of budget surpluses. The longer the surpluses stay in Washington, the greater the chance they will be spent,” Dircksen said. “Taxpayers would be much better off if more members of Congress would vote like these seven. It’s good to see someone taking a stand for the taxpayers and for their constituents.”
     I thank Mr. Dircksen and the NTU for their sentiments, and I wholeheartedly agree that it is high time the entire Congress took a real stand. I have offered a bill, HR 219, which will allow them to do just that–take a stand by joining us in saying “hands off Social Security” and also in doing something about it.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 February 2000 Repeal Earnings Limitation Stop Penalizing Seniors for Working
     During a time when an increasing number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the federal government does just that through Social Security “earnings limitations.” Earnings limitations deduct a portion of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set limit. By providing a disincentive for seniors to remain in the workplace, this restriction damages the economy and punishes individuals for seeking gainful employment. It is simply un-American that the federal government would punish someone for continuing to contribute to the economy by reducing benefits that person has already paid for and been promised by Congress.
     Eliminating the earnings penalty is one of my top priorities for this year. That is why I was an original cosponsor of Rep. Sam Johnson’s legislation to repeal the earnings limitation for Social Security beneficiaries (HR 5). Fortunately, the Congressional leadership has promised to schedule a vote on repealing the earnings limitation and President Clinton has promised to sign it, so I am hopeful we may get rid of this penalty on hard-working seniors.
     When the government takes money every month from people’s paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to work.
     Furthermore, by providing a disincentive to remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.
     The underlying issue of the earning limitation goes back to the fact that money from the trust fund is being spent for things other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219), which forbids Congress from spending Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social Security pensions.
     Stopping the raid on the Social Security trust fund would also make it easier for me to realize one of my other priorities, ending the absurd tax placed on Social Security beneficiaries. Since Social Security benefits are paid for from tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another means of “double taxation.” This is why I am cosponsoring legislation to end the tax on Social Security benefits. Tax reduction for seniors is also a major plank in my Pharmaceutical Freedom Act (HR 3636) which provides senior citizens with a tax credit to help them cover the costs of prescription medicines. It is long past time that Congress chooses between raiding the Social Security trust fund and helping seniors afford prescription medicines.
     I will continue to promote legislation designed to protect the Social Security trust fund from big-spending politicians and eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. Of course, I will also continue to fight to repeal the earnings limitation and ensure that senior citizens will have the option of continuing to work after retirement age without being penalized by an overly burdensome federal government.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 February 2000 Sound Money Needed More Than Ever Greenspan Admits Fed Flaw in Testimony
     I have got to hand it to Alan Greenspan. Testifying last week before the House Banking Committee, he sounded so authoritative that my colleague Mel Watt from North Carolina said that he could not even understand the things Greenspan says. Mr. Watt attributed his lack of understanding not to some deficiency in Greenspan’s communicative capabilities but rather to Watts’ self-professed lack of understanding. Yes, it does seem that Greenspan can convince many, including some here in Congress, that up is down and vice versa.
     For my part, I was intrigued by an admission that Greenspan made to my direct questions put to him. After I pressed him for an explanation of what he considered the best tool to measure the money supply, Greenspan plainly admitted that he was at a loss for picking out what such a measure might be. When I suggested that it must be difficult to manage something you cannot even define, he not only agreed with me but said it was (and this is Mr. Greenspan’s word) “impossible” to manage something you could not define.
     This is in fact an obvious truth but at the same time a startling admission from our nation’s leading maker of monetary policy. Of course, one thing of which Greenspan is quite aware due to his familiarity with the economics of sound money, is the fact that the creation of units of monetary exchange out of thin air will lead to a recession.
     In addition to Greenspan’s admission regarding the difficulty of a centrally managed money supply there is a darker problem to which he is far less likely to own up. That is the fact that centrally planned monetary policy is open to political pressures as well. For years Chairman Greenspan had been concerned about the over-expansion of the money supply, dating back at least to his “irrational exuberance” statements. So why did Greenspan not begin the monetary tightening that he now counsels at a much earlier period?
     Well, perhaps the best way to answer the question is to consider when the Fed did indeed take the first step on the path of its current policy direction toward raising the Fed funds rate. If you’ll recall, it was at the very first Fed meeting after President Clinton’s impeachment trial had been wrapped up in the US Senate.
     So, as the President faced a stiff challenge that could threaten the very existence of his Presidency, Mr. Greenspan kept the money flowing and the good times rolling, even as he was speaking the rhetoric of increased concern for the economy. Now if anybody is surprised that the future of our US economy would be subjected to political manipulation to assist a troubled President you ought not to be. Indeed it is the history of the Fed to be responsive to certain political needs of, and pressures from, the political power brokers who have influence over the appointment and confirmation of Fed board members, including the Fed chair. Nobody who has seriously considered Fed action in light of election-year politics and troubled political leaders could argue with a straight face that the one does not directly affect the other.
     The bottom line is that Greenspan’s admission suggests that, even without the negative affects of political considerations, a fiat monetary policy is doomed to fail. When we add to the mix the all-too-human tendency of central planners responding to political pressure, as Greenspan and the fed money making machine clearly did throughout the impeachment process, what we have is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, Greenspan’s admission points anew to the fact that a big mess is coming. But fortunately for those who are listening, it also presents proof-positive that the best way to avoid such calamities in the future is to reset our monetary policy on a firm and sound basis.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 March 2000 How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia Next We Will Be Sending the FBI Abroad to Fight that Crime
     Organized crime in Russia is a well-known problem. One of the arguments used for not sending IMF funds to Russia was the pervasive corruption throughout their government. As quickly as the funds were appropriated, they were laundered through New York banks and off to a numbered Swiss account–probably with very little actually ever passing through to Moscow. But the proponents of aid won’t give up; our tax dollars, they argue, are vital for the successful transition from totalitarianism to democracy. What is generally forgotten is that the process of taking funds from someone who earned them is every bit as morally reprehensible as the corruption that results when sent hither and yon around the world.
     Unfortunately, the moral, constitutional, and practical arguments against foreign aid in general, and assistance to Russia in particular, have almost no adherents in Washington. For this reason the problem goes from bad to worse.
     The FBI, having been well trained at Waco and Ruby Ridge, has expressed deep concern about Russian organized crime. Our FBI agents have traversed the globe in recent years looking for dragons to slay, but up until now they worked out of hotel rooms and US Embassies trying not to stumble over host countries’ police and our CIA agents.
     This is now going to change. The FBI is opening its first overseas office. The plan is to open an office in Budapest, Hungary, since it’s believed this is a haven to Russian mob leaders stealing our foreign aid money. Chief of the FBI’s Organized Crime Division, Thomas Fuentes, brags that this office “will develop and operate criminal informants,” to gather intelligence, something he says the FBI has never done before in this manner.
     If our government and political leaders had any “intelligence” this plan would be squelched. It can lead to no good and in all probability will backfire. What do we do if the FBI office is bombed and Americans are killed? We have no business there, and this is a dangerous precedent to set.
     Even if the current Hungarian government has given our justice department the go-ahead to open this office, we can be certain some Hungarian citizens will strongly resent it. Those who believe in Hungarian sovereignty will respond with hatred toward Americans just as is happening on a daily basis in Iraq over our routine bombing of that country and the stoning of our troops stationed in Kosovo.
     Our FBI agents will carry guns and be permitted to make arrests. The Hungarian government will have no say about the employees who work in the office. Can one imagine what the reaction would be in the United States if a foreign country wanted to do the same thing here? The FBI is anxious to make this mission a success because they want to set up similar offices in the Baltic States, Nigeria, and South Africa. This is a foolhardy adventure and a recipe for disaster. The procedures for sharing information and coordinating police activities in dealing with international criminals has been used for a long time, but this bold move is sure to offend many. And when some accident occurs it will lead to an unnecessary international crisis.
     We don’t need to police the world in the military sense, and surely we should not invade other countries with active FBI offices usurping other countries’ sovereignty. If we’re worried about how US taxpayers’ dollars are misused in foreign aid, there is a much simpler solution–stop sending the money overseas.
     Unfortunately, this bold move of an overseas FBI office will go unnoticed in Washington DC, and the politicians will not address the subject until a major crisis erupts. A constitutional approach to government would preclude this type of international adventurism. The president should have never ordered this project. And Congress, if it cared and assumed its responsibilities, would quickly de-fund it. The quicker the better.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 March 2000 The Big Lie NATO’s Campaign of Deception in Kosovo
     Citizens of a free country ought to expect they won’t be burdened with the kind of propaganda barrage that has come to be associated with Nazi “interior ministers” such as Josef Goebbles or Soviet “media spokesmen” like Vladimir Posner. However, the more information that comes out about the NATO war in Kosovo, the more evident is the fact that NATO made an apparent “policy decision” to lie about Serbian atrocities. It seems the western democracies “stole a page from the play books” of their former totalitarian adversaries in Germany and the Soviet Union.
     Writing recently in Liberty Magazine, David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of “100,000 or more” was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim. One media pundit suggested the number would be a quarter-of-a-million dead. NATO even gave a name to this “campaign of mass genocide,” it was dubbed “Operation Horseshoe” but, as Steele says, the factual basis for the existence of such a genocide is spurious at best. In fact, Steele likens it to the Bryce report that reported falsified claims of genocide in Belgium in World War I.
     Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally. The loss of 2,000 lives is a great tragedy, but there are more Americans than that killed domestically every year and it hardly warrants the kind of violent response we saw in Kosovo. In fact, Mr. Steele states that Kosovo was safer than any major U.S. city prior to the NATO bombing. Moreover, as Steele shows, it is hardly evident that each of those bodies was killed as a result of a campaign of genocide.
     Finally, Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations as well as from our own government. However, a few sources closely followed developments and seemed to get the story about right. Pablo Ordaz of El Pais magazine, Audrey Gillan of the London Review of Books and even two members of an inspection team sent to Kosovo for the purpose of investigating purported mass graves all challenged the stories of the propaganda machine.
     Steele also shows that while we were told of ethnic cleansing and Kosovars who were being forced from their homes, the truth of the matter is they were being forced from their homes because of the danger and destruction being caused by NATO bombing in the region. If anything, this so-called ethnic cleansing appears as a direct result of NATO action. In fact, as Steele states, now that NATO and the KLA have control of Kosovo there have been widespread reports that the people we were supposedly protecting, the Kosovars, are now engaged in a murdering spree against the Serbians.
     Instead of hearing the truth from our leadership, we were fed emotional tales of mass killing that were entirely blown out of proportion in order to justify force and violence in the region.
     The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 March 2000 The World Trade Organization Barrier to Free Trade
     The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced.
     If one truly believes in free trade, one never argues a need for reciprocity or bureaucratic management of trade. If free trade is truly beneficial, as so many claim, unilateral free trade is an end in itself and requires neither treaties nor international management by politicians and bureaucrats. A country should promote free trade in its own self-interest–never for the benefit of someone else.
     Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a “cost” of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a “deal.”
     Congressional approval for the WTO came in the lame duck special session in 1994 shortly after Republicans won the House and before the new Members were sworn in. Although it was actually a treaty that brought the WTO into existence it was called an “agreement” thus avoiding the required two-thirds votes in the Senate. A simple majority of both Houses would be enough to put the US in the WTO.
     Belonging to the WTO undermines national sovereignty. An encouraging sign is that those on the left, who frequently champion international causes, are becoming more aware of the shortcomings of organizations like the World Trade Organization when it undermines domestic laws, such as those protecting health, workers, environment, and consumers. The argument that membership in the World Trade Organization does not undermine national sovereignty is not supported by the facts. The CRS report on the World Trade Organization (August 25, 1999) is explicit in its explanation: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”
     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.
     This example clearly demonstrates that membership in the World Trade Organization is in conflict with our Constitution, undermining our legal system and our sovereignty. The message is clear. For us to be a responsible member of the WTO we must follow the rules, and, if we do, Congress must capitulate and raise taxes on our corporations by repealing the Foreign Sales Corporation program. As was explained by the CRS, members are “legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with World Trade Organization rules.”
     I have introduced HJR 90 to protect US Sovereignty, and true free trade, by withdrawing our membership from the World Trade Organization. If you are not a resident of the 14th district of Texas and would like to know where your representative stands on this issue, I encourage you to call his or her office and ask them.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 March 2000 Answering the Middle Class Squeeze Central Planning is the Problem, Not the Solution
     We hear a lot about how great our economy is doing. Heading the cheerleading squad are people like Vice President Gore and others who want to be re-elected.
     If things are so good why do these worshippers of the so-called “new economy” press for items such as raises in the federal minimum wage? Recently the House voted to increase the government-mandated wage rate. This occurred as a result of much prodding by the Clinton-Gore administration.
     But is raising the minimum wage a real answer? Of course not! People at the lower end of the wage scale are certainly being hit by increased costs of living. Look, for example, at the recent upsurge in the price of fuel. Will a wage increase solve that problem?
     Consider also that recent Producer Price Index figures show costs jumping at their highest rate in about nine years. Those figures indicate that our interventionist economic policy may soon bring about a recession.
     Of course it is true that the people who get hurt most in tough times are the middle class, particularly those at the lower end of the wage scale. But as a physician I know that I must diagnose an illness before I can treat a patient.
     In the current instance the diagnoses indicates that the squeeze of the middle class is caused not by low wages, but rather by increased costs resulting from central planning. And the key pillars of our current central-planning regime can be found in tax and monetary policies.
     The fact that government creates money out of thin air must be addressed, because it is the entire reason why costs of living increase and standards of living decline. In a market economy prices tend to gently fall as a result of the increased efficiencies brought about by competition. If the average person paid half as much for his or her home and half as much for his or her car, would we not be better off than we are with these paltry government-mandated wage increases?
     Again, there is only one reason why prices are rising instead of falling. Because the government, through its credit-creation mechanism, is engaged in a sort of price controls, it is in fact following a policy that eventuates in price inflation as well as recession. Plus, this credit creation is at the heart of recent instability in the markets, thus threatening retirement security.
     Add to these price controls a federal minimum wage, and our policy now resembles full out wage-and-price controls. Indeed, those who may celebrate the recent wage hike should remember that the same principle that permits the federal government to set higher wages is the very principle which has been used in the past, and will likely again be used in the future, to cap wages. Federal wage-setting power assumes the government has authority to set a maximum wage, as well as a minimum. Richard Nixon did it, and another President may well attempt this in the future if he is charged with creating run-away inflation.
     I also mentioned taxes, and I’d like to briefly look at that as well. Our tax burden is at its highest peacetime levels. This means wage earners are being squeezed by the cost of government as well as the cost of living. Had Congress not stopped the Clinton-Gore tax on BTU’s, (which they called an economic stimulus package), fuel prices would be significantly higher than they are right now. This points to why government is not the answer.
     Increases in costs of living are a real problem, especially for those at the lower end of the wage scale. Those costs will continue to rise if we allow central planning to continue, but the solution to central planning is freedom, not grant further control over wages to government.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 April 2000 Electoral Follies Paul Says Gore’s Plan is Hypocritical, Would Ruin Free Elections
     This week, Vice President Gore announced his plan to establish a new government-controlled endowment that would fund candidates who seek positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. It was only a matter of time before those who had been seeking to restrict free elections would propose a total government takeover of campaigns. Vice President Gore has done just that.
     I have long advocated sweeping changes that would open up elections here. I have suggested that federal spending limits be abolished, and that presidential debates be opened. I have also worked for years to make ballot access easier to attain. The problem with elections is not that there is too much money involved, but rather that choices are restricted by government policies crafted by incumbents who want to be protected from competition.
     I believe in competition, in the economic marketplace, and in the marketplace of ideas also. For political purposes, the marketplace is an election and that marketplace ought to be free from federal interference and government restrictions. Our founding fathers gave no power over political campaigns to any federal bureaucracy. Indeed, they would have recoiled at the very notion. But in the current “anything goes” Clinton-Gore administration there is no barrier against what will be proposed by those who seek to maintain political power.
     Let’s face it, even the liberal national media openly reported that Gore was primarily trying to defend himself against his own past. That is, he proposed these so-called reforms as an attempt to make folks forget about his fundraising at Buddhist Temples and from telephones inside the White House.
     In trying to conjure up what he calls, “a controlling legal authority,” Gore has proposed not campaign finance reforms, but rather campaign restrictions. Forgetting for the moment that it would take an awful lot of trips to the Buddhist Temple to raise the $7.1 billion dollars that Gore seeks for this endowment, let me just address how this money would be spent.
     First, we must realize that a new board would be empowered to govern this endowment. The board would undoubtedly be populated by political patronage appointees, but aside from that we should ask where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is given authority to provide for such a board. The short answer is that no such authority exists, and only tinkering with our Constitution at the expense of the bill of rights can in fact create it. Moreover, this money would almost certainly be apportioned among certain favored political parties. Would so-called minor party candidates be funded? Would incumbents receive more of this taxpayer funding than challengers? Would candidates be funded in primaries? Who would decide all of these things?
     With those kinds of questions outstanding we can be certain of one thing, whatever the final details, some candidates would certainly be treated differently than others. It is an obvious breech of equal protection to suggest that only Democrats and Republicans would get funded. On the other hand, do we really want our taxpayer dollars going to fund candidates of, say, the Socialist and Communist parties? Perhaps the Vice President feels that funding the Socialist Party is fine with him. Based on his voting record in Congress, that would not surprise me.
     Vice President Gore’s proposal can only be marked down as a cynical and hypocritical attack on the very idea of free elections. Rather than trying to protect his own political backside by attempting to restrict free campaigns, Vice President Gore should use the authority of his office to impress upon the Attorney General the need for a full investigation into the laws that were violated in the 1996 campaign. Instead of proposing new laws and new bureaucracies, the Vice President and his ilk should simply come into compliance with the existing laws for which they claim such strong support.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 April 2000 Classroom Excellence Depends on Quality Teachers Reform Packages Gaining Momentum
     Over these past few years I have focused a lot of attention on education related issues. As a Member of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives, I am pleased to be in the forefront of changing our education system, working to give more control to parents and local educators.
     The most important local educator is the classroom teacher. With that said, it should be obvious that recruiting and training top rate teaching professionals is a necessity for our local schools to be successful in educating the next generation.
     The federal government cannot and should not be responsible for assuring that the best teachers control classrooms. However we certainly can change federal policy to make it easier for local schools to get the best teachers possible. Last week Governor Bush announced a battery of education proposals that I, as a member of the Education Committee, will likely have to review.
     At first glance, many components of recent education proposals look quite similar to some of the things I have been working on these last few years. For example, the idea of teacher training has been very important to me. Together with my friends at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, I have been deeply involved in advocating improved teacher training. Southwest Texas has been a leader in finding innovative ways to prepare teachers to educate the next generation, and I was pleased to be able to assist the University’s acting President, Bob Gratz, to have the opportunity to address teacher training issues before a House committee this week.
     The best way to ensure that our nation’s teachers receive the training they need is to rely on the ideas of people at the state and local levels, like the folks at Southwest Texas. DC-based bureaucrats and politicians merely impose a one-size-fits-all model of teacher training on the nation.
     Another portion of Governor Bush’s plan involves removing federal regulations that hamstring teachers’ ability to maintain discipline, a proposal similar to legislation I supported in the Education Committee this past week. I have fought an often-lonely battle to stop these federal regulations from being continued, so I am pleased to see others stepping up to end them.
     The federal government has stood in the way of true teacher authority for far too long. By imposing regulations making it difficult for teachers and school districts to remove violent and unruly children, Washington has put handcuffs on teachers at great expense to local public education.
     When it comes to recruiting teachers, I have introduced legislation to provide teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. I have suggested that we should not only undertake this program in order to improve teacher take-home pay but also to help reimburse teachers for the out-of-pocket expenses they incur.
     In fact, I am hopeful that, with these issues now being placed “front and center” on the national agenda we will be able to move forward on them during this Congress. The idea of relying on recruiting and training great teachers as the means to educational success is mere common sense. And, the notion that we will best accomplish this by making it worth while for top candidates to enter these positions by increasing their take home pay and by providing them with the type of positive work environment that can best be assured by making the teacher responsible for the classroom, is exactly what is needed to reform education in this country.
     These reforms, together with education-related tax credits that will give parents and students true power over school systems, will result in a real education revolution. During the weeks and months ahead I will continue working to get Washington out of the way of these common sense reforms, because in shrinking the power that politicians and bureaucrats have over education, we are undertaking the most important policy initiatives we can put forward for future generations.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 April 2000 Time To Get Serious With Big Government International Institutions Must Be Curtailed
     This week protesters came to Washington, DC, to make known their opposition to the policies of international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Many of these people were also present at the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization.
     I have two general problems with these protests. The first is that the violence and lawlessness to which such demonstrations often degenerate simply goes overboard and is just plain wrong. In short, it tends to do more harm to the causes they espouse than any benefit those causes may receive from the publicity generated.
     My other criticism is that these groups really tend to focus on minor side issues and never really address the principle upon which their argument depends. In short, the problem with the alphabet-soup of international financial organizations is not the policy of the current group administering these programs. Rather, the real issue is that these organizations threaten the very idea of self-government and self-determination. We do not need to change the policies these institutions are following. We need to shut down the entire international monetary apparatus and end the international welfare state.
     The World Bank and IMF are not merely a significant drain on U.S. taxpayers and a threat to self-government. They also use the leverage that they purchase with our tax dollars, as a means to force less developed countries to take on new and harmful fiscal, monetary and economic regulations. This serves to leave these countries further impoverished.
     There is no real way to effectively change these policies. The very nature of the current international regime will always ensure that bad policy will flow from these institutions because they have essentially been captured by those who have an interest in maintaining and expanding the international debt and credit machine. The only way to stop these policies is to end the agencies.
     Similarly, I met in my office with representatives of organized labor this week. They are concerned about international trade issues. As I explained to them, the basis of their problem is not trade but managed trade and the fact that America subsidizes their competitors. They are very open to this argument but are convinced they should continue to tinker around the edges at present, fighting trade status for this or that country, one battle at a time.
     My approach is to end the World Trade Organization. Although there is considerable sympathy for this approach, the groups and people who express their agreement seem content to work on minor side issues. Or, they refuse to work together with others who they distrust. This latter concern was suggested to me when I spoke to a coalition of the leaders of top conservative groups in Washington about the WTO this week.
     The big problem is that, as people continue to fight battles on the edges, and work exclusively with those people with whom they have long-term ties. Our nation’s sovereignty continues to be eroded by internationalists who have no gumption about the niceties of what organizations they need to work with in order to advance their agenda, much less any concern about those who are injured as a result of their successful promotion of that agenda. Those of us who realize that these international organizations are the crux of the problem must begin immediately to focus our attention on the central issue, namely putting these institutions out of business. We must also understand that to be effective we need to have large coalition of people dedicated to peaceful and lawful methods who will work together to combat the considerable interests stacked up against us.
     Only when we fight the correct battle, using the correct tactics, will we see progress made in dealing a blow to these freedom-threatening institutions and the woeful policy proscriptions they so often promote.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 April 2000 Constitutional Rights Threatened Firearms Under Increasing Attack
     The constitutional rights of all Americans continue to be threatened. Unfortunately, this election year has shades of past years when the President and the anti-gun lobby were able to neutralize many key gun rights advocates and back-down the congressional leadership.
     I agree with our founding fathers and others who assert that the right to keep and bear arms is a key cornerstone right that acts as an insurance policy for all other liberties. The problem is that this right is being eroded at the edges, and attempts to compromise have left us in a position where the basic principle has been nearly erased.
     The arguments of those who oppose gun rights make no sense at all. New gun laws have gone on the book just about every decade over the last century, and at the same time gun related crime incidents have increased. In fact, in places where gun laws are most strict, gun crime and violence is most rampant.
     One only need ask the question, “Would you feel safer in New York City or Washington, DC, where guns are prohibited, or in rural Texas where there is a concealed carry law or in Vermont which has no gun regulations?” Facts do indeed tend to show that an armed society is indeed a polite society.
     In fact, Doctor John Lott, a Ph.D. law professor at Yale University, has completed impressive studies that show, in his words, “more guns equal less crime.” Certainly it is true that gun laws have never had any measurably positive impact on crime. In fact, in countries that have recently undergone gun confiscations, violent crime rates have skyrocketed. It is simply common sense to suggest that a murderer or felon is not going to be deterred by the fact that in the commission of such a crime he or she will also have to violate a gun control law.
     Gun control laws do nothing to reduce crime. That is why they are so insidious. Those who push these laws either have to be completely ignorant of this fact, or they must be motivated by some other agenda. It stands to reason that the latter option is the more truthful.
     The reason that gun control advocates will never run out of new proposals is precisely because they realize full well that gun control cannot limit crime. Thus, they will always be back with what they call “just one more reasonable little regulation.” We should not be arguing for further enforcement of existing gun laws. Instead we should be putting these laws on trial.
     It has been said that the very definition of insanity is to continue using the same means while expecting a different result. The means of controlling crime by controlling guns is a dismal failure. The idea that we should continue this policy is absurd. We should ask the gun control advocates why it is that the gun control act, the automatic weapon ban and the Brady bill have not proven to be the panacea they promised when proposing these bills.
     I oppose gun laws on constitutional grounds, but I often wonder why those who say they want to be reasonable do not ask the gun grabbers straight away for some evidence that their approach works. Or, why they do not demand evidence that a new proposal will bear the promised results of cutting crime. Without some measurement of the effects of gun laws how can anybody tell if they have been successful? The administration simply trumps up its statistics after-the-fact.
     Actually, I realize why the gun grabbers are never called onto the carpet in such a way. Simply, those who refuse to stand up for constitutional rights like to say they are compromising, but the fact is they are cowering. It is one thing to be a coward with one’s own life, but it is entirely immoral to run in fear when it comes to defending the constitutional rights we are sworn to uphold.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 May 2000 The Cost of War After the Bombs Stop the True Impact Becomes Obvious
     The Clinton-Gore Administration talks incessantly about certain issues. Protecting the environment, improving health care, helping children and those at the lower end of the wage scale are mantras they repeat over and over again.
     The administration likes to argue that these issues are not constrained by national boundaries. They say such global issues call for global solutions, for which they usually propose global agencies such as the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. They say these problems are global, so America must send billions of dollars in taxpayer funding to other countries to help them with their environmental, economic, and health-related problems.
     A recent report by German Television’s “Deutsche World,” in its English Language edition, shows that, like on so many occasions, the administration says one thing but does the exact opposite.
     The current case involves what we might term the fallout from Mr. Clinton’s war in Kosovo. But, don’t expect the lap-dogging U.S. media to report on it anytime soon. Deutsche World’s feature on the anniversary of the commencement of the hostilities shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effects of war last for generations after the bombing ends.
     Germany is, of course, a NATO member, so this is hardly a report biased toward Serbia. This report showed that, on all of these issues on which the administration rails, this NATO bombing campaign was a disaster.
     As a physician I am most concerned with public health, so let’s begin there. Because of repeated bombings targeted against chemical factories, NATO has turned Serbia into a sort of toxic soup. The soil is laced with toxins. Because of embargoes, the locals must largely eat locally grown food, and it is contaminated. People fear that feeding their children is akin to poisoning them. Medical personnel point out that the most certain effect of the bombings will be an increase in cancer rates, not just now but literally for generations to come.
     And what about the environmental impact? Well, along with the poisoned soil there is poisoned air, and poisoned water. The famous Danube is now a toxic stream. Fish have been poisoned and killed, and the water is so chemically contaminated that a ban on eating fish from the river is now in effect.
     Finally, we need to ask who bears the brunt of all these environmental and health risks? Again, it is primarily the young people who have a poisoned nation and a poisoned food supply with which they must deal, as well as the factory workers and fishermen who are now out of work with dim prospects for the future.
     All of the environmental and health care legislation the administration pushes, saying they want a healthier and cleaner world, will not have even one-tenth of the impact that this NATO bombing campaign had. The true environmental and health policy legacy of the Clinton-Gore administration is the toxic spoils of Serbia.
     You may ask, how does this impact me? Well, first let’s not forget that these bombs were primarily funded using U.S. taxpayer funds, money that could have been used to help bolster the Social Security trust fund or meet the so-called “pay-go” requirements of tax cut legislation. In fact, we are continuing to shell out funds for this policy. Just a few weeks ago I put forward an amendment to cut of funds for further operations in Kosovo and new adventures involving the US military in Colombia, but it was defeated.
     The bottom line is this, Americans continue paying a price for the NATO war on Kosovo, and I expect that the price will continue to be paid. At some point, we will almost certainly be asked to pay to clean-up Clinton’s mess in Serbia with a new foreign aid package. Plus, we can expect future generations of Serbs to be bent on getting even with the westerners who they hold responsible for inflicting these long-term pains upon their nation and its populace.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 May 2000 Government Snoops Threaten Privacy Time To Put Chains on the Feds, Not Give Them More Power
     Let’s say you broke your arm and the doctor gave you a cast on the wrong arm. If you broke your leg one week later, would you go back to the same doctor to have your leg set?
     When I see President Clinton suggesting he is going to protect the privacy rights of Americans I start to feel like the fella in the example just cited. Do I really trust Bill Clinton, or any U.S. President, to protect my privacy? Would the founding fathers accept the notion that the federal government is supposed to protect our privacy? Did they authorize that in the constitution?
     Bill Clinton has been a terrible custodian of the public records with which he has been entrusted. He has allowed secrets to slip into the hands of the communist Chinese, but that is not all. This President has been found in violation of the Privacy Act by a federal court. Moreover, we all know the sad story of “filegate,” when the White House improperly obtained private FBI files.
     Now President Clinton says he wants to protect your privacy. Has he had a change of heart? Is he now prepared to take steps to make sure the federal government will no longer engage in the kinds of activities it has undertaken on his watch? Hardly!
     Whenever this President talks about privacy protection he always means giving the federal government more power. What he wishes to restrict are private sector actions involving companies selling names or information. Certainly we should not be subject to the sale of our private information against our will. But there are existing methods to prevent such a thing from happening. Through the freedom to contract and the power of state laws such activities can be curtailed.
     When it comes to our privacy rights however, we need to understand the idea from the view of those who ensconced our rights in a constitution. Our founding fathers understood privacy rights are held by individuals and ought not to be violated by the federal government. Mr. Clinton’s attempts are to turn the thoughts of the founders upside down. He would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by federal intervention into the information economy. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contrary to the ideas of liberty.
     If we really want to advance privacy we need to make sure our federal government has fewer records rather than giving it more power to create more lists and police more communications in the name of privacy protection. Let’s look at the issue of identity theft as an example. What few realize is that the single greatest contributing factor to identity theft is the government-mandated Social Security number. Successful identity-thieves routinely rely on the Social Security number as the “key” to unlock the records of their victims. Just as the burglar uses a crow bar to open windows, the chief tool of the identity thief is the Social Security number.
     If President Clinton were truly concerned with this invasion of privacy he would spend less time making speeches attacking the private sector, or proclaiming that he is tough on crime, and he would join with me in working to pass HR 220, restricting use of the Social Security number. We have essentially allowed that number to become a unique identifier for all sorts of purposes outside of those originally intended, and that is the problem my legislation seeks to address.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 May 2000 Helping Cancer Patients and the Terminally Ill is a Moral Imperative Compassion Requires Allowing People To Use Their Resources to Fight These Diseases
     Last weekend President Clinton issued an appeal to lay aside partisan differences in order that we may address critical health care related issues. I hope the President will take his own advice and work to pass legislation that I recently introduced. However, in all honesty, I expect that we will once again see this issue dragged down by those who would rather score political points than address very real problems.
     When workers are stricken with a grave illness, they need the love and support of their family and friends as well as the best health care they can get. As a doctor who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, and as a member of Congress, I know how truly critical it is that cancer patients as well as those who suffer from terminal illnesses have the resources available to them to combat these illnesses.
     That is why I have introduced sweeping legislation aimed at assisting the terminally ill, and those stricken with cancer, to meet the financial burdens of health care costs resulting from their illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act (HR 4265), would exempt all persons diagnosed with terminal illness, or any form of cancer, from the employee portion of payroll taxes for as long as they continue to suffer from the illness or have significant costs resulting therefrom.
     This bill would allow such individuals to keep their resources for those purposes without adversely affecting their ability to collect benefits. Rather than forcing people who are in such dire situations to continue paying taxes for a retirement they may never live to see, we need to free up resources for them now, without any penalty accruing to them if they can beat these terrible diseases. I have spoken with patients who have suffered from these illnesses, which put such a terrible strain on them and their loved ones. Even when they have health care coverage (and many do not), they still incur all kinds of costs ranging from transportation to and from care centers and certain prescription drugs which may not be fully covered, to hiring sitters to watch their children while they receive treatment. The list is nearly endless. In the legislation I introduced, if the disease goes into remission and all related costs are paid, the employee would again resume paying the payroll tax. This is a conservative program designed to reduce the tax burden of those fighting these dreaded illnesses. We need to offer compassion to those who suffer, but we also owe it to them to stop taking away the resources which can help people beat breast cancer, AIDS or other terrible health problems.
     I am hopeful that people who are truly interested in improving health care for the terminally ill and others with cancer will join me in supporting and advancing this legislation. Rather than focusing on making political points or representing the needs of special interests, this is a piece of common sense health care legislation that would serve the interests of those who are suffering.
     When I first announced this legislation to constituents a few weeks back I was so pleased when one person immediately responded with a note to my office saying how he was a cancer survivor and thought that this was a plan that would “greatly assist” those suffering from such diseases.
     In the weeks and months ahead I will be promoting this legislation with my constituents, here in the House of Representatives and elsewhere. If you live outside of the 14th District of Texas and want to know how your representative stands on this important legislation you should call or write to his or her Washington office.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 May 2000 Privacy Takes Center Stage
     A few weeks back I wrote about my efforts to advance privacy legislation. This issue has taken front and center stage over the past couple of weeks, so I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the activities undertaken these past weeks.
     Last week the Ways and Means Committee held hearings regarding use of the Social Security number. The fact that the Social Security number has become a unique identifier has strongly contributed to the efforts of those who invade the privacy rights of citizens. From government snoops at the IRS to identity-thieves, those who would invade privacy have found the Social Security number to be a key weapon to allow them to commit their criminal actions.
     This week the Government Reform and Oversight Committee met to consider potential solutions to privacy problems. Featured in this legislative hearing was my bill, HR 220. As I had done the week before, I was called to testify before the government reform committee. In so doing, I again stressed the importance of ending the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier.
     When Social Security was put into place a couple of very clear promises were made to the American people. One of the promises made was that the funds going into the Social Security trust fund would not be used to run the laundry list of government programs and the alphabet soup listing of government agencies. What we were told is that those dollars would be used only to run a public pension system.
     The other thing we were told was that the Social Security number would not become a form of national identifier, and that the use of the number would be limited to purposes essential to the management of the public pension program. The government misled us on both counts.
     Ever since Vietnam, the government has been sucking dollars out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for government programs, including foreign adventurism. Whenever we vote to spend more money in Bosnia or Kosovo or Colombia, we are tapping funds that could be used to repay the Social Security trust fund for years of unrelated expenses. This spending must stop.
     And, for years we have seen the Social Security number more and more closely resemble a national ID number. It was just a few years ago when the IRS started demanding the number be used for all dependants on our annual tax filings. In this information age we have seen an explosion in the uses of the Social Security number and a closer link between the number and individuals owing to the fact that the information society depends upon relational data bases for all sorts of things.
     Right now Congress is considering two very different solutions to the privacy problems that have arisen as the result of these extraneous uses of the Social Security number. My solution remains to strictly limit the government. This Congress I introduced two bills the very first day we met. HR 219 stops the government from using Social Security monies for other government programs and HR 220 stops the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier.
     It will probably not surprise anybody to learn that there are a number of people in Congress who are actually suggesting that the best way to protect privacy is to make the government bigger and stronger. These people argue that the government should further regulate the information economy in an attempt to advance privacy. Any person familiar with the concept of negative and positive rights, and any student of history, will immediately realize the follies of trying to secure privacy rights by increasing government authority.
     Right now we can celebrate that this very important issue is being discussed, but we need to be cautious because it is very possible that in the name of privacy, bad legislation will pass.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 May 2000 China Bill Is Not Free Trade New Government Programs Approved By House
     This week changes to the bill on trade relations with China meant that I had to vote against the legislation. I have consistently voted for normal trade relations with China, but here we have a situation where the House leadership gave in to the liberal Democrat demand for more government. I could not support that.
     Also, consider the process in which these changes were made. For months we have been talking about PNTR, and I said I would support normal trade relations. The first version of the bill was put forward by the sub-committee chaired by my good friend Phil Crane, a strong advocate of free markets and free trade. After seeing HR 4444, I was able to again voice strong support for PNTR. However, we wound up in a last minute situation where the President was unable to convince his own party to support him. A backroom deal was cut aimed at winning votes from liberal Democrats. I will not support this method of operation.
     At the beginning of the week the PNTR bill was clean, totaling three pages in length. By the time we voted on the issue, the bill had grown to sixty-six pages. This simply illustrates the problem.
     The people who elected us have criticized this Congress. Time and again I have heard it said that we are not doing the job we have been elected to do. We have given in to President Clinton and the liberal minority in the House. Enough is enough. These last minute changes left us a PNTR bill that created a new government commission and put taxpayers on the line for millions in so-called “technical aid” to Communist China. Apparently the administration believed left-wing members of Congress could be convinced to vote for freer trade and freer markets just so long as we give more foreign aid to our Communist Chinese adversaries.
     Managed trade features of the legislation also disappointed me. It is tiresome to hear over and over about free trade from the very people who are trying to cut off free trade. For example, this last minute language included so called anti-surge protections. How in the world can any serious person suggest this is free trade? The changes made to appease the liberals made this bill the very opposite of what it had been purported to be. As so often happens with large bills in Washington, PNTR became a vehicle for big government, managed trade, foreign aid giveaways and the creation of new government commissions. I could have supported a clean bill that simply meant lower tariffs, but this bill, and the means by which these changes were brought about, cried out for rejection of the legislation and the entire process.
     Another example that shows what happened to the contents of this so called free trade bill is seen in the provision putting American taxpayers on the hook for nearly $100 million dollars in new spending for radio broadcasts aimed not just at China but other Asian countries. So much for our commitment not to spend Social Security surpluses on other government programs.
     In the days and weeks ahead we will consider HJR 90. This is legislation that I introduced to remove the United States from the World Trade Organization, or WTO. Just as this PNTR bill ended up as a vehicle for foreign aid giveaways and managed trade, the WTO is an egregious attack on U.S. sovereignty and a colossal attempt at managed trade, all pursued in the name of free trade.
     Free trade is about free markets, which means limiting government interference in the marketplace. We face high hurdles for the philosophy of less government in the foreseeable future because the Congressional trade debate is now limited to the voices of outright protectionists and those who, in the name of free trade, promote a regime of managed trade which threatens the sovereignty upon which our fundamental liberties will always depend.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 June 2000 CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
     When the House of Representatives recently passed the “Conservation and Reinvestment Act”, better known as CARA, it took a big step in the wrong direction. This legislation allows the federal government to get further involved in the real estate business by owning more property.
     I believe the federal government should be selling off many of its real property holdings. Efficient land use, as well as constitutional government, would suggest the federal government already owns far too much real property.
     Still, some of the most radical environmentalists remain convinced that the only way to protect green space is for government, particularly the federal government, to own more and more land. This is an ironic point of view, because countries that have had the most government regulation of property, such as the former Soviet bloc nations, have had the absolute worst records of environmental quality.
     In the CARA legislation, some non-tax revenues, such as those from oil drilling leases, would be used to mitigate problems resulting from the drilling. However, areas without any such damages were still expressly earmarked for pork-barrel spending projects.
     These funds are being separately dedicated and taken off budget so Congress will not have to do annual appropriations with them. This scheme is bad for two reasons. First, it allows the Executive Branch to have powers that are Constitutionally directed to Congress. So this bill not only diminishes private property, it also erodes the Constitutional separation of powers. Furthermore, this off-budget scheme will not amount to anything approaching a true trust fund. Time and again, we have seen government raid trust funds to pay for spending measures for which those funds were never intended. The most glaring example of this is the raiding of the Social Security trust fund. However, highway funds, airport funds and others are also regularly raided to pay for foreign aid giveaways and other pork.
     CARA not only necessitates the creation of a trust fund to engage in activities which are not authorized by the Constitution, it also promises to have a negative impact on property rights in general and on the environment Congress is claiming to protect. If we are truly interested in providing better land management and environmental stewardship, we should get the federal government out of the land management business. As the recent uncontrolled burns of Los Alamos show, there is literally no end to the possible ways the federal government can mismanage environmentally sensitive lands.
     I have introduced legislation to take a project in my district out of federal hands and place it with agencies in Texas. Of course, the executive branch has stalled it every step of the way. When the federal government begins to micro-manage affairs that belong at the state and local levels, it is nearly impossible to stop. Unfortunately, this CARA bill will give federal agencies much more control over real property. Once people see the folly of this bill, it will be too late because the federal bureaucracy will be in control. Now I can only hope that my colleagues in the Senate will stop this terrible legislation from becoming law.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 June 2000 Repeal of Un-American “Death Tax” Passes House
     On Friday, the House of Representatives cast a historic vote and repealed the immoral estate tax, better known as the “death tax.” Of all the outrageous taxes Americans are forced to pay each year, the death tax is the most outrageous of them all. It amounts to government confiscation of American citizens’ property when they die, instead of allowing them to pass a legacy on to their families.
     The death tax confiscates anywhere from 37%-55% of a person’s estate when he or she dies. That is not only the highest tax rate in the tax code. It is also double taxation, a tax on already taxed items. People pay federal, state, and local taxes out of their paychecks for their entire lives. What estate is built then gets taxed at their death, and their family is forced to pay the federal government again.
     The death tax was originally created as a temporary tax for the purpose of raising funds for war-related events. It was first enacted in 1797 to pay for the creation of the navy. After the goal was met, it was repealed in 1802. This happened several more times to pay for the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, but was repealed when the conflicts were over. However, in 1916, the death tax became a permanent fixture in the tax code, and it has been a thorn in the side of hard-working Americans ever since.
     The entire concept of the death tax is not only destructive to families, but is also extremely harmful to the economy. It gives people less incentive to save and more incentive to spend because of the relatively high rate at which estates are taxed. Thus, it results in a disincentive to parents to leave their children a family business, family farm or their savings. A recent study from George Mason University found that within eight years of eliminating the death tax, the gross domestic product would be $80 billion larger than expected, resulting in 250,000 new jobs.
     There are some who argue the government would lose too much revenue if the death tax were repealed. First, I object to the notion that money collected from the death tax is, in fact, the government’s money to lose. The money belongs to American citizens who worked hard to earn it. And another thing that jumps out at me is the inefficiency of government with regard to collecting this tax. Three years ago, the death tax raised $20 billion in government revenue. However, the cost to government of actually collecting the money, combined with the cost of compliance, amounts to $12 billion. That means the $20 billion collected by the IRS actually required a $32 drain on the economy. On the other hand, repealing the tax would cost the government $20 billion, but it would inject $32 billion into the economy.
     In a word, the death tax is simply un-American. People should not be punished for working hard their entire lives, creating jobs and wealth for others, and then trying to leave some of it so their children can have better lives. I applaud the members of the House who had the courage to cast the historic vote today to repeal the death tax. Now, I call on the members of the Senate and the President to support this legislation. The time has come to create a government that is supportive, not oppressive to the small business owner and the family farmer. If we put our faith in the American people, instead of the government, we will increase individual savings, promote job creation and, most importantly, support the family structure.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 June 2000 A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
      On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a “uniform standard health identifier” on the American people. This legislation will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being filed away. It restores and protects the fundamental privacy and due process rights that are the foundation of our system of government.
     As a doctor, I know how crucial it is to insure people’s privacy when speaking to their physicians. Unless Congress permanently forbids the development of a medical ID, Americans may not be able to talk to their doctors about matters that are of an utmost private nature without fear of having this information accessed by government agencies! As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. What happens to that trust when patients know any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a database accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s ‘unique personal identifier?
     Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
     Millions of Americans are outraged over the increasing trend toward national ID cards, especially in light of the fact that the Social Security card has become mandatory in order to do business. In reality, the Social Security number has been transformed from an administrative device used to administer the Social Security program into a de facto national ID number. Today, most Americans cannot get a job, get married, open a bank account, or even get a fishing license without their Social Security numbers. Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier. This anger towards Washington would increase exponentially if Americans were informed that their doctors would not treat them until they produce their national health IDs.
     No private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on a massive scale as can the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with many government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties, have occurred by government agents. I can only imagine the havoc they could wreak if they were allowed to access an individual’s medical records.
     I am very pleased that my amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill passed the House. American citizens have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. It is the only way to guarantee that medical IDs do not become a reality. By listening to the American people, we have terminated the uniform standard health identifier. This is a great victory for privacy rights. We have finally taken a stand against federal bureaucrats invading our privacy and recording every detail of our lives.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 June 2000 EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
     On Wednesday of this week, I voted in enthusiastic support of an amendment to an appropriations bill prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using any taxpayer funds to designate certain areas as “ozone nonattainment areas.” The amendment, which was introduced by Representatives Linder and Collins of Georgia, is needed to prevent the EPA from acting without regard to federal court decisions. Without Congressional action, counties in the 14th district of Texas (and many areas across America) could be designated as “non-attainment” areas, with dire consequences. Affected areas face the very serious loss of federal highway funds, as well as restrictions on local industries, changes to land use regulations, and reformulated gasoline requirements. The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards, and this vote represents another step in my ongoing fight against unconstitutional and unbridled federal agencies.
     The EPA, with typical bureaucratic arrogance, has acted without congressional authorization in creating its own standards for air quality. It created National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), rating counties for compliance. These standards have been challenged successfully by industry groups and three States in federal Court. The D.C. District Court of Appeals found that the EPA acted without congressional authorization when it created and applied its air standards. Because the standards were “arbitrary” and not based on “intelligible principles”, the actions of the agency amount to sheer, unbridled policy judgments-expressions of bureaucratic willfulness rather than application of policies articulated in the Clean Air Act. This sound decision by the Court supported constitutional principles, as all legislative powers are assigned to Congress only.
     Not surprisingly, the EPA has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Truly troubling, however, is the agency’s refusal to comply with the standing Court of Appeals decision while its appeal is carried out. The EPA brazenly has decided to continue designating “non-attainment” areas despite the Court’s clear finding of the unconstitutionality of its actions. The Linder/Collins amendment was necessary to legislatively prevent the EPA from further unconstitutional actions.
     The people of the 14th District are directly affected by EPA actions. Areas in Brazoria and Victoria counties face possible “non-attainment” designation and the resulting loss of transportation funds. Local governments and agriculture face another key battle with the EPA over “non-point source” pollution standards, which could force farmers to obtain federal permits and have “waste management plans” approved by regulators. The threat to the local economy is obvious, as the costs of complying with onerous regulations will send business and jobs elsewhere. While air and water quality standards are a legitimate concern, the state of Texas should make its own decisions without oversight from Washington.
     I previously have stated in this column that there is no constitutional authority for the creation of the EPA. I view Wednesday’s vote as a victory in our fight against unconstitutional, unaccountable federal agencies. We must continue to work against EPA overreaching in the 14th District of Texas and across the nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 July 2000 True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
     Tuesday evening, House lawmakers reached a compromise agreement that will permit U.S. exports of food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in nearly 40 years. This partial repeal of the trade embargo was proposed by Representative George Nethercutt of Washington State,who has joined me in working to open trade with Cuba. The agreement allows U.S. businesses to sell food or medicine to Cuba, while prohibiting the federal government from financing or otherwise subsidizing such sales. The agreement also prohibits the President from imposing further restrictions on food or medicine sales to other countries without congressional approval. I applaud this compromise as a good step in the direction of true free trade–it allows more trade, while prohibiting government subsidization of trade.
     The usual politics have accompanied the agreement. The provisions have been added and removed from two different appropriations bills. The President opposes the agreement, as it threatens his “authority” to assess trade sanctions against countries at will. Of course, he has no such authority, as the power to regulate foreign trade is expressly delegated to Congress in the Constitution. Currently, House leaders plan to take the Nethercutt agreement into conference with the Senate on an agricultural bill. My hope is that free trade principles and restrictions on unconstitutional executive orders remain intact.
     Unfortunately, as details of the final arrangement emerge, it becomes obvious that one significant hurdle remains in place. By keeping in place prohibitions on private financing, the compromise, while being a good first step, does not go far enough. Under the current agreement, farmers seeking to extend credit to Cuban buyers cannot do so through a U.S. bank. Our farmers should not have to seek financing from foreign banks. This hurdle may limit the practical benefits of the repeal of the embargo.
     Still, farmers in the 14th District would benefit from access to this new market (as well as access to four other countries named in the agreement). Trade advisory groups estimate that U.S. exports of food to Cuba alone could amount to $400 million within five years. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the aggregate market for agricultural commodities to all five countries amounts to $7 billion. Rather than punishing our farmers with sanctions, we should be eliminating barriers so that they can export agricultural products to these countries. Sanctions simply benefit our export competitors, who have increased their sales in markets closed to American businesses. Over one-third of U.S. agricultural production is exported, so farmers suffer disproportionately when trade restrictions are imposed.
     Nevertheless, the Nethercutt agreement is beneficial, but not perfect. I introduced a more comprehensive bill in March 1999 (H.R. 1181). My bill would have removed trade restrictions with Cuba completely, so that all types of U.S. products could be exported. In addition, my bill prohibited any federal assistance or taxpayer subsidies to Cuba. Also, I would allow American banks to finance sales to Cuba (or any other nation), so that Texas farmers would not have to seek financing from foreign banks. My bill would have created true free trade with Cuba, with no restrictions and no subsidies by the federal government. Still, the current agreement represents an endorsement of many of the principles contained in my bill, and I support it accordingly.
     I have always supported true free trade not simply because it makes economic sense for Texas agriculture, but also because it is a critical component of private property rights and human freedom. “Sanctions,” closing foreign markets, really are penalties on Texas farmers who export much of what they produce. Such sanctions ought never be permitted merely by executive order. We have a long way to go in reforming agricultural policy and ending embargoes which hurt our farmers, but this agreement is an important first step and a victory for Texas farmers. I will continue the battle to get HR 1181 passed so that we might realize the full benefits of free trade with Cuba.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 July 2000 Last-Minute Supplemental Spending is Dangerous and Unnecessary “Emergency” Spending Bill is Pork-Barrel Politics
     Recently, House members approved a fiscal year 2001 Military Construction appropriations bill that also contained an emergency supplemental spending package for fiscal year 2000. The bill provides a total of $20 billion in new federal spending, $11.2 billion of which is supplemental spending for fiscal year 2000. I voted against this massive new spending. Congress should be required to adhere to its existing fiscal year budget, just as families and businesses must operate within their own budgets.
     The supplemental spending bill is dangerous, wasteful and unnecessary. Every year Congress decides midway through its fiscal year that it didn’t budget enough money, so it creates an “emergency” to justify new spending. This year the “emergency” requires that we spend more on the failed drug war and more on sending our troops overseas. The big spenders in Congress made certain the supplemental bill was packaged with a Military Construction bill, which insured its passage during eleventh-hour voting. Congress already spends far too much money, and this additional $11 billion in spending cannot be justified.
     Worse yet, much of the spending contained in the supplemental bill goes overseas. Several South American countries, including Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador receive a total of $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars. Colombia alone receives approximately half a billion dollars for costly helicopters and U.S. training of its police and military forces in “counternarcotics” activities. I find this a particularly dangerous and expensive proposition. Our nation should not be spending billions of dollars and sending 60 military helicopters to the Colombian Army and National Police to escalate our failed drug war. We risk another Nicaragua when we meddle in the internal politics and military activities of a foreign nation. Sending expensive helicopters to Colombia is the worst kind of pork-barrel politics–helicopters are ineffective weapons of war, as we have seen in Vietnam and Somalia. The American people are tired of paying their tax dollars to fund expensive toys for foreign governments. Taxpayers should demand that Congress demonstrate the national interest served before it sends billions to foreign nations.
     I also oppose the $2 billion in spending authorized for the ongoing Kosovo military action. I consistently have decried our involvement in UN “peacekeeping” missions, which really are acts of war requiring congressional approval. Moreover, our national sovereignty is threatened when we place our troops under UN command. We don’t need to spend more money on Kosovo or any other foreign war the UN deems deserving. Time and time again we have seen the disastrous consequences of meddling in wars which do not involve our national interests. We should get our troops out of Kosovo and stop trying to police the world. UN “peacekeeping” in Kosovo doesn’t work, and we should not be spending billions of dollars in “emergency” funds perpetuating our involvement. The American people are tired of sending our troops abroad under UN command to interfere in conflicts unrelated to our national interest.
     This bill contains the kind of massive foreign aid spending and political maneuvering that people in my district have had enough of. Farmers in Texas struggling with drought conditions have every reason to oppose our sending $25 million to Mozambique for disaster relief, as called for in the bill. U.S. taxpayers have every reason to oppose billions in new spending for fiscal year 2000 simply because Congress seems incapable of adhering to its budget. We cannot throw our tax dollars at every global problem, and we should not let special interests and back room deals dictate our appropriations process.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 July 2000 High Taxes Cause High Gas Prices Gas Tax Relief Will Benefit Consumers Immediately
     Consumers throughout the 14th district of Texas and Americans everywhere have felt the impact of higher gasoline prices during the past year. In response, our government officials have offered up the usual “solution”: greater regulation of the oil industry. Administration officials have ordered an FTC antitrust probe, while vote-seeking politicians have condemned the oil industry and called for an investigation into collusion and price gouging. The truth is that costly federal taxes and regulations largely are to blame for high fuel prices, not convenient scapegoats like OPEC and the oil companies. I co-sponsored legislation in March that would immediately address the real problem: exorbitant gas taxes.
     The obvious way to reduce the price that consumers pay for gasoline is to reduce fuel taxes. Federal taxes account for nearly 20 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. State and local taxes bring the total to 42 cents per gallon. Thus, while the cost of crude oil is roughly 70 cents per gallon (based on the current cost of $30 per barrel for OPEC crude oil), the “cost of politicians” is 42 cents! In fact, over 43 different taxes are imposed on the production and distribution of gasoline by various levels of government. The pre-tax price of a gallon of gasoline barely has changed in the last decade, hovering around 88 cents throughout the 1990s. The real increase has been in various taxes: in 1990 consumers spent only 27 cents per gallon in taxes (as opposed to 42 cents today). At the same time, EPA regulations (such as those requiring new reformulated gasoline) add significantly to the cost of fuel production. Analysts estimate consumers would save a whopping $67 billion in one year if gas taxes were eliminated. Clearly, we need to end the smokescreen and stop blaming oil companies for high prices that have been caused almost entirely by huge increases in fuel taxes.
     The call by administration politicians for an investigation of high gas prices is particularly inconsistent, because the current administration routinely has supported energy taxes and EPA regulations which directly increase the price we all pay at the pump. Of course, politicians love to respond to pressure that they “do something” about high gas prices, regardless of the hypocrisy involved. Unfortunately, they never do the right thing by eliminating or reducing the taxes that cause high gas prices to begin with.
     Fortunately some of my colleagues in Congress agree, and have joined me in co-sponsoring legislation that reduces or places a moratorium on federal gas taxes. H.R. 3844, which I co-sponsored back in March, calls for a total repeal of federal gas tax increases imposed in 1993. H.R. 4111, which I also co-sponsored in March, mandates a six-month suspension of federal gas taxes while maintaining the repeal of the 1993 tax increases. A new bill I support, H.R. 4776, suspends federal gas taxes through March 2001, and requires the Secretary of Energy to report on the economic feasibility of maintaining the reformulated gas mandate imposed by the Clean Air Act. All of these bills would provide immediate relief to consumers at the pump, especially during summer months when many families drive long distances on vacation. Beneficial effects would be felt throughout the economy, as retail costs are directly affected by fuel costs borne by the trucking and air freight industries in shipping retail goods.
     Of course, eliminating gas taxes will not eliminate all fluctuations in gas prices. Some fluctuation occurs as the normal result of supply and demand forces in the market. Americans can take partial responsibility for their gas bills by driving fuel-efficient automobiles. Also, we should be willing to explore new domestic oil sources to reduce our need to buy oil abroad. However, politicians should be held accountable for true cause of high gas prices: massive increases in federal gas taxes.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 July 2000 Lower Taxes Encourage Saving for Retirement Legislation Will Allow Increased Contributions to Tax Deductible IRAs and Tax-Deferred Pensions
     This week the House of Representatives voted to support H.R. 1102, the “Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform” bill. The bill increases the deductible amounts individuals may contribute to their IRAs, while also increasing tax-deferred amounts that may be contributed to 401(k) pension plans. While I certainly supported the bill based on its tax relief, I also applaud the underlying principle of encouraging private retirement saving by allowing individuals to keep more of their paychecks. American taxpayers know that the best way for them to save for their retirement is to invest their pre-tax dollars in private pensions and retirement accounts. Taxpayers, rather than the federal government, should be the stewards of their own hard-earned retirement savings.
     Taken together, the contribution increases contained in H.R. 1102 represent a positive step in the right direction. Specifically, H.R. 1102 raises deductible IRA contribution amounts from the current $2,000 to $5,000 over the next three years. This raise was badly needed, as the $2,000 limit has been in place since 1981. Beginning in 2004, the $5,000 IRA contribution limit will be indexed to inflation in $500 increments. Similarly, contributions to 401(k) and like pension plans are raised from the current $10,000 to $15,000 over the next five years. In 2005, further increases will be indexed to inflation in $500 increments. These raises will reduce the tax bills of millions of Americans who always contribute the maximum amount allowed to their IRAs and pensions.
     The bill contains other worthy provisions. “Pension portability” is enhanced, making it easier for employees who change jobs more often in today’s economy to move their pension savings to another type of plan. This is accomplished by relaxing the “roll-over” rules, which dictate the time in which individuals may make a tax-free transfer of their pension when they start a new job. Americans over 50 also benefit from the “catch-up” provisions contained in the bill. Individuals 50 and over may contribute $5,000 to their IRAs immediately beginning in 2001, in addition to the amount that they would otherwise be allowed to contribute. Thus, by 2003 such an individual could contribute a total of $10,000 to an IRA. This larger deduction will allow older taxpayers to quickly expand their retirement savings, at a time when many people are concerned that they may not have saved enough to support themselves when they stop working.
     I have introduced legislation that would have provided faster pension and IRA tax relief. In 1999 I introduced H.R. 802, a bill which would have immediately raised the annual deductible IRA contribution amount to $5,000, without the gradual increments of the current bill. I also co-sponsored bills in 1999 which would have allowed a tax credit for contributions to IRAs and broadened penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs. Still, H.R. 1102 does provide real tax cuts for American taxpayers. Individuals will be able to reduce their income tax bills immediately with an increased IRA contribution deduction, while putting more of their paychecks into tax-deferred pensions.
     Our tax laws generally discourage private saving. H.R. 1102, like my pension reform proposals, focuses on increasing saving by increasing the tax deductions and tax deferrals available to individuals. We can encourage retirement saving simply by allowing employees to put more of their paychecks into IRAs and pension funds, instead of sending taxes to the federal government. More than ever, Americans know that their own private retirement savings will be critical to their standard of living during their later years.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 July 2000 The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
     The House of Representatives recently approved a massive appropriations bill that will fund various Treasury Department agencies at record spending levels. The bill appropriates nearly 30 billion dollars, an increase over last year’s already huge Treasury budget. More disturbing, however, is the whopping 23% increase in funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) contained in the Treasury bill.
     ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task.
     The American public gradually has become aware of the disturbing trend toward federal policing of our nation. Many Americans do not support ATF, especially after the disastrous events at Waco. I was widely attacked in the media and by members of Congress for questioning the government’s actions at Waco, and for merely suggesting that many Americans were concerned by the possibility of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens. Now we have Congress spending more money to increase the budget for ATF, despite its highly questionable actions and the resulting public mistrust of the agency.
     It is important to recognize that our federal constitution lists only three federal crimes, namely counterfeiting, treason, and piracy on the high seas. The founding fathers never envisioned a federal police force, knowing that such a force would trample on the right of each state to enact and enforce its own criminal laws. Hence there is no provision for the creation of a general federal police force in the enumeration of congressional powers. Furthermore, the 10th amendment explicitly reserves the general police power to the states individually. Washington politicians, however, have no interest in constitutional limitations when they seek to expand and consolidate their power by federalizing whole areas of criminal activity. They have consistently expanded federal criminal laws, particularly in the areas of drugs and firearms. The result of this expansion is the inevitable call for more federal police to enforce the new laws. We are told we need more ATF agents to monitor firearms, and more DEA agents to wage the “war on drugs.” Congress is not concerned with its lack of constitutional authority to create, much less expand a national police force.
     Washington politicians have successfully used recent excessive-force allegations against local police to further their goals. It is convenient to portray local police as violent or racist, and therefore in need of federal oversight and restraint. The question, however, is whether we should trust a federal police force more than we trust our own local authorities. I believe there is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were correct when they prohibited federal government involvement in law enforcement. In Waco, Americans had a vivid example of the impact of the growing police state. With the veneer being stripped from the myth of federal law enforcement, our citizens are beginning to realize that it is both unconstitutional and untenable.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 August 2000 Long and Short Term Solutions to the Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs
     As a physician, I know how vitally important prescription medications are to senior citizens in Texas and across the nation. Many seniors in my district are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs, which can cost hundreds of dollars or more each month. Seniors on a fixed income often face the dilemma of foregoing other necessities so they can pay for medicines. Older Americans who once relied on Social Security and Medicare to provide funds for their health care now find themselves spending more and more out-of-pocket to cover deductibles and quickly rising drug costs. It is simply not right that we continue to tax Social Security benefits at a time when so many seniors are struggling to pay for needed medicines.
     Congress recently has considered different ways to help seniors struggling to pay their prescription drug bills. Unfortunately, nearly every proposal that comes out of Washington involves a new federal program that continues taxing Social Security benefits and misusing the Social Security trust fund, or attempts to lower costs through price-fixing measures which will result in rationing of drugs. Other proposals create government subsidies to insurance or pharmaceutical companies. These plans take control of health care away from the individual and place it in the hands of bureaucrats.
     This is why I introduced the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act” (HR 3636). This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, will have access to affordable prescription drugs. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing government imposed cost increases and providing seniors a prescription drug tax credit.
     The first provision of the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act” provides senior citizens a tax credit off the top of their taxable income equal to 80% of their prescription drug costs. The tax credit is intended to supplement efforts to reform and strengthen Medicare by ensuring seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control.
     My bill also removes needless government barriers to the availability of pharmaceuticals. The key to controlling drug costs is to promote competition, with choices for consumers. However, FDA regulations make it nearly impossible for American consumers to obtain many medicines they need. My bill places the burden on the FDA to demonstrate why an individual should not be permitted to choose prescription drugs for personal use, thereby freeing American consumers to enjoy the benefits of price competition.
     Similarly, the Act protects pharmacies from being strangled by federal regulations. More options increase competition, making pharmaceuticals more accessible and affordable for millions of Americans. My legislation protects these pharmacies from needless federal regulations that only serve to increase drug prices and deprive seniors of another means for obtaining medications.
     The “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act” provides a long-term, permanent solution to the rising cost of prescription drugs. I also have announced a new program called “Free and Low-Cost Prescription Drugs,” which addresses the immediate concerns of seniors in my district. Although it is not widely known, drug companies have programs that offer prescription drugs free of charge to individuals who cannot afford them. My “Free and Low-Cost Prescription Drugs” effort increases awareness of these programs and helps seniors complete paperwork necessary to participate. There are several success stories where people have received their prescriptions free through this program. I decided to make this a district-wide effort, so my office will begin conducting workshops at area senior centers. We will work to help as many seniors as possible find free or affordable prescription drugs.
     I believe the combination of the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act” and my new “Free and Low-Cost Prescription Drug” program will give seniors the short-term relief they need as well as a long-term solution to the serious problem of astronomical prescription drug prices. I am proud to lead the effort in Congress by working to ensure affordable prescription drugs.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 August 2000 Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
     From time to time, some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans so it can operate more efficiently. While I do not doubt their good intentions, I would remind them that in the United States, the people should never be asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government a little easier. The government is here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to invade their privacy in the name of efficient government.
     With that in mind, I have introduced two key pieces of legislation aimed at curtailing governmental privacy invasions. The first is the “Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act” (HR 220). This bill forbids federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system. When Social Security was introduced, the American people were told that their number would never become a form of national identifier. In fact, until the 1970’s all Social Security cards stated on the back that the card was not an ID card. Unfortunately, cards issued today do not contain that same phrase, and Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of Social Security numbers.
     For example, in 1998 over 200 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Also, day-to-day private business dealings are becoming increasingly difficult without a Social Security number. You cannot open a bank account, get married, or even obtain a fishing license without disclosing your Social Security number. My bill will restore privacy to Americans who currently are being abused by overreaching government.
     The other piece of legislation I have introduced is the “Census Privacy Act” (HR 4085). This bill will prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting any information from citizens except for their name, address and the number of people per residence. That is all Congress needs for a head count of the population in order to re-draw congressional districts every ten years as is required by the Constitution.
     I introduced this legislation after scores of calls to my office during the recent census process from constituents who thought the long forms were too intrusive. There is no reason why the federal government needs to know how much money you make or how many bathrooms you have in your home. This information is personal and private, and I am committed to restoring to Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being recorded.
     On a more positive note, privacy advocates scored a major victory this summer when the House passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a uniform standard health identifier on the American people. As a doctor, I know how important it is to insure patient confidentiality, and I am very pleased my colleagues supported the amendment. It is the only way to guarantee that national medical ID’s do not become a reality.
     The other major privacy victory recently was when the federal government withdrew proposed Know Your Customer regulations which would have forced banks to report practically every customer transaction to the government. I was proud to lead the effort on the Banking Committee to stop this invasion of privacy with my “Bank Secrecy Sunset Act” (HR 518), would have overturned any such regulations. Fortunately, the proposal was withdrawn before the legislation was needed, but I believe this will be an ongoing battle. Those advocating more intrusion by the government will continue their legislative efforts, and we must stand ready to face that constant threat.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 August 2000 Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
     This year we have heard proposals by various people in Washington advocating more government control over our health care system. These proposals almost invariably call for more tax dollars to be sent to Washington, so bureaucrats can make decisions about your medical care rather than having you choose. The approach is almost always the same–send your money to Washington, where bureaucrats decide what to do with your dollars. I advocate a different approach, however. I believe my constituents (and all Americans) should keep more of their own paychecks, leaving them with greater money and choices when addressing their own health care concerns.
     As a physician, I am especially concerned with those who face terrible terminal illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. Patients facing terminal illnesses need all of their financial resources available to them to fight their disease and pay their medical bills. Yet we continue to impose payroll taxes on citizens with terminal illnesses to fund a retirement they may never live to see.
     Accordingly, I have introduced the “Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act” (H.R. 4265). This legislation would exempt all persons diagnosed with terminal illnesses (or any form of cancer) from the employee portion of payroll taxes for as long as they continue to suffer with their illness or incur significant health care costs resulting from the illness. Compassion and common sense require that we adopt a policy that stops taking needed resources away from those suffering from terrible health problems. This legislation is a realistic approach to helping people pay for quality health care when they need it most.
     An important provision of the “Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act” ensures that the exemption from payroll taxes provided by the Act does not adversely affect a qualifying individual’s ability to collect benefits in the future. Individuals facing terminal illnesses need more of their own resources available to them to pay medical bills, but they should not be penalized if they survive their condition. Once their disease goes into remission and all related costs are paid, the individual resumes paying the payroll tax.
     Similarly, I have introduced legislation designed to provide needed resources to parents struggling to pay for their terminally ill or disabled children’s medical bills. The “Family Health Tax Cut Act” (H.R. 4799) allows families to deduct a portion of their health care expenses for dependent children. Specifically, the Act provides parents caring for a child with a disability, cancer, terminal illness, or other condition requiring specialized medical care with a tax credit of up to $3,000. Our tax laws permit businesses to deduct employee health care costs from their income taxes; surely families should be permitted the same deduction to free up more of their financial resources to pay for the medical bills of their seriously ill children. The deduction is especially critical to low-income families, many of whom do not have health insurance provided by their employers.
     Both of these bills allow individuals who are suffering to keep more of their resources, rather than sending needed dollars to Washington. In my medical practice, I have spoken to patients suffering from terminal illnesses. Even when they have health coverage (and many do not), their disease puts a tremendous financial strain on them and their loved ones. The list of expenses they incur is nearly endless, ranging from transportation to care centers and hiring babysitters to watch their children to paying out-of-pocket costs for expensive drugs which are not fully covered. Family and friends can offer compassion and support, but Congress owes it to terminally ill persons to stop taking away the resources they need to fight cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and other terrible health problems. My hope is that citizens in my district (and my fellow legislators) who are truly interested in helping those with terminal illnesses will join me and support my legislation.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 August 2000 Reforming Social Security to Protect Present and Future Senior Citizens
     Social Security reform is a critical issue for all Americans. Some seniors in my district depend on their Social Security benefits for all or much of their monthly income. These seniors paid payroll taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system. Their monthly benefits do not represent an entitlement payment, but rather a return of their own tax dollars paid over a lifetime of work. Our seniors certainly deserve to know that their needed retirement funds are secure.
     Unfortunately, Washington politicians have not hesitated to spend Social Security funds for other purposes over the years. It is important to remember that the system originally was designed as a forced retirement savings program. Social Security monies were to be set aside in a separate trust fund used only for the payment of benefits. Revenue-hungry politicians, however, have needed to pay for more and more government programs over the past decades. The result is that the Social Security trust fund has been violated: Social Security “surpluses” have been spent on a myriad of federal programs. When the government spends Social Security funds elsewhere, it must rely on new payroll taxes to meet its current Social Security obligations. This means those payroll taxes are never set aside at all, but rather used to pay current benefits. The resulting conflict between generations is the inevitable result of the shameful and reckless policy of spending Social Security trust funds for purposes other than the payment of benefits.
     The first step we must take to reform Social Security is to protect the trust fund from big-spending politicians. I introduced H.R. 219, the “Social Security Preservation Act,” for this very purpose. The Act states that all monies raised by the Social Security payroll tax will be spent solely on pension payments to beneficiaries. Any excess funds will be invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit in order to allow the trust fund to grow, and to keep the trust fund from being used for other purposes. I am proud that the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union reported that I was one of only seven members of the House of Representatives who voted not to spend one penny of the Social Security trust fund for other programs last year. My legislation will finally make it illegal for politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to continue dipping into trust funds. Simply put, these politicians are stealing from our senior citizens.
     The second reform we must make is to stop taxing Social Security benefits. Seniors already have paid income and payroll taxes throughout their working lives. Social Security benefits are financed by tax dollars, so any tax imposed on benefits is simply another form of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits is merely an accounting trick, which allows Congress to reduce benefits without honestly announcing its intentions. Prior to 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from federal income taxes. In 1993, the current administration successfully passed legislation allowing up to 85% of benefits to be taxed (up from 50%). I introduced legislation to repeal this increase in 1997, and earlier this year I voted for the “Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act” to repeal the increase, which was successful in the House. More importantly, I cosponsored H.R. 761, which would eliminate all taxes on Social Security benefits. I intend to continue my efforts to convince my colleagues and the administration to end this very unfair tax.
     Other positive reforms have support in Congress. Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation I cosponsored ending the earnings limitation on seniors. This legislation was needed to encourage our seniors to seek productive employment without suffering the loss of Social Security benefits. Overwhelming public support for the change prompted the President to sign the bill into law. These reforms are needed to protect not only today’s senior citizens, but also today’s younger working people who deserve a solvent Social Security system.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 September 2000 Local Control is the Key to Education Reform
     Education reform is of critical importance in America today. Over the past decades, we have witnessed two undeniable trends in our education system. First, the role of the federal government has steadily increased. Second, the quality of our nation’s public schools has steadily decreased. These unfortunate developments compel me (and millions of parents across the country) to question our approach, to ask hard questions about the obvious failure of many public schools to provide children with a quality education. Why, given 70 years of ever-increasing federal spending, has government failed to create the wonderful public school system promised us by Great Society politicians? Why do we spend far more per student today than in the past, with far worse results? Why, despite the increases in federal spending, are public school teachers still underpaid (with the brightest young people refusing to enter the profession)? Finally, why have we allowed the federal government to consistently expand its control over our local school systems?
     These questions all point to an inescapable conclusion: the federal government is not the answer. The key to fixing our education system is to reduce the role of the federal government and expand local and parental control of schools. Funding decisions increasingly have been controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, causing public and even some private schools to follow the dictates of these federal “educrats” to an ever-greater degree to preserve their funding. As a result, curricula, teacher standards, textbook selection, and discipline policies have been crafted in Washington. Rigorous classes in basics such as mathematics, grammar, science, Western civilization, and history have been reduced or eliminated, while politically favored subjects have been forced upon students. Religious observation and prayer, although widely practiced and supported by the majority of Americans, have been forbidden to students under perverse interpretations of the First amendment by federal courts. Worst of all, the values and concerns of local parents have been ignored.
     Last year I introduced legislation designed to return control of local schools to parents. The “Family Education Freedom Act” (H.R. 935) would empower millions of lower-income and middle class families to improve their local schools or choose a private school for their children. This is accomplished by allowing parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 per child for expenses incurred in sending their children to a public, private, parochial, or other religious school. The credit also is available to parents who home-school their children.
     The $3,000 tax credit will make better education affordable to parents who would choose to send their children to a private school, but cannot because of the enormous tax burden imposed by Washington. Also, parents who wish to send their children to local public schools may use their credit dollars to finance the purchase of educational tools or fund extracurricular programs.
     I also introduced the “Education Improvement Tax Cut Act” (H.R. 936) in an effort to give parents more control over improving their local schools. The Act allows individuals to claim a tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for cash or other donations to a school or scholarship program. This approach encourages parents to spend money to improve the school their child attends, rather than pay more in federal taxes to support distant education programs that reflect only the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
     When it comes to education policy, one size does not fit all. I want to give parents the freedom to choose the best option for their kids, without federal oversight. American families agree with me, as polls show that over 70% of them support education tax credits! True education reform requires that we return control of schools to parents and local school districts.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 September 2000 The Danger of Military Foreign Aid to Colombia
     The President recently visited Colombia, touting a 1.3 billion-dollar military aid package for the South American region. The big spenders in Congress authorized the package by passing an “emergency supplemental” spending bill earlier this summer during eleventh-hour voting. The spending package, termed “Plan Colombia,” authorizes nearly half a billion dollars for Colombia alone. Not surprisingly, the administration used convenient “war on drugs” rhetoric to convince Congress and the American people that this massive spending on foreign military interdiction was justified. The President promised that America would never be dragged into Colombia’s civil war, yet virtually all of the aid dollars were spent on weapons of war and military training.
     Specifically, Colombia received 60 high-tech military helicoptors, along with hundreds of millions for training its police and military forces in “counternarcotics” activities. Clearly, this amounts to an escalation of the dangerous situation in Colombia. Time and time again we have witnessed the inevitable results of spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund internal conflicts in foreign nations. Apparently the current administration has not learned the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, or Kosovo. When we meddle in the politics (and warfare) of a foreign nation, we risk an open-ended conflict that costs billions and risks the lives of our soldiers. Obviously, U.S. military personnel will be needed to fly (and train others to fly) our modern helicopters. U.S. soldiers will train the Colombian army and national police. Despite the “war on drugs” justification, the truth is that the distinction between fighting drugs and waging war in Colombia is murky at best. We will send more money, more weapons, and more soldiers to Colombia, yet what will we receive in return? Do we really want to place our sons and daughters in harm’s way so that we can influence another country’s internal politics? What national interest is served by our involvement in this conflict?
     In recent months, we have seen increased killing in Colombia relating to its upcoming elections. As the U.S. steps up its drug interdiction, some drug cartels simply have begun to move their capital elsewhere, including Miami, according to newspaper reports. In the U.S., certain special interest groups such as helicopter manufacturers and big oil companies (who want protection for their oil interests in the region) have been supporting the administration through their lobbyists.
     Fortunately, however, many Americans agree that military aid for Colombia is a bad idea. “Plan Colombia” has received harsh criticism from members of Congress, while various human rights activists have condemned the President’s visit. Normally, the government of a country must meet certain humanitarian standards to qualify for U.S. foreign aid. Although Colombia does not meet such standards, the administration and Congress chose to waive the requirements on “national security” grounds. As Robert White, former ambassador to El Salvador, stated: “There is a very great danger that this kind of thing can increase little by little, and all of a sudden you will be in far more deeply than you ever wished to be. This could aggravate and prolong the three-decade old Colombian civil war.”
     The American people do not support our actions in Colombia. Polls have shown that approximately 70% of Americans do not support defending foreign countries if U.S. soldiers are put in jeopardy. Our primary concern in military affairs should be maintaining a strong national defense and protecting our national security interests. Our actions in Colombia have nothing to with our national defense, and they undermine our national security by creating resentment from factions we do not support. We must remember that money spent in Colombia necessarily reduces spending on a variety of more important issues. We should build up our military, providing our soldiers with better salaries, housing, and medical care. Similarly, foreign aid dollars could be spent on education, Social Security, or Medicare. My constituents do not support our dangerous and expensive involvement in Colombia, and I intend to continue working to eliminate wasteful foreign aid in our next budget.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 September 2000 Congress Must Work for Seniors
     Last week, I received an award for my support of “senior friendly” legislation in this Congress from the 60 Plus Association, a non-partisan group that focuses on issues important to seniors. While I am pleased to have earned this distinction, it is important to recognize the tremendous amount of work yet to be done in Congress for older Americans.
     Seniors represent the fastest growing demographic group in our nation. More Americans are living longer, often for several decades after retirement. While many enjoy good health and financial security during their later years, millions have limited means. These seniors survived the Depression, fought World War II, and created the prosperity and freedom we enjoy today. Congress needs to honor our nation’s commitments to them.
     First, Congress needs to protect the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Our seniors funded Social Security and Medicare throughout their working lives, and they deserve to know that their funds will be spent only to pay benefits. Unfortunately, revenue-hungry politicians have not hesitated to raid the Trust Funds to pay for pork-barrel projects. Last year alone, Congress took $21 billion from Medicare to fund other programs. Accordingly, I supported the “Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act” earlier this year, which mandates that additional revenues from the two programs can be used only for benefits payments. I also introduced the “Social Security Preservation Act” during this Congress. The Act mandates that Social Security funds can be used only to pay benefits, making it illegal to use them for any other purpose. Congress and the administration must support both these bills so Americans can have faith that their retirement funds are secure.
     Next, Congress must work to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Many seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are unable to afford the expensive medications they need every month. Unfortunately, nearly every proposal coming out of Washington attempts to lower drug costs through price-fixing (which inevitably leads to rationing of drugs), or through subsidies to insurance or pharmaceutical companies. My legislation, the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act,” makes prescription drugs more affordable by providing seniors with a tax credit for drug expenses so they can spend their resources on needed medications. Also, my legislation eliminates needless government regulations and barriers to competition which drive up drug prices. Congress must remove bureaucratic regulations that prevent America’s seniors from enjoying lower prices available from Internet and foreign pharmacies. The key to lowering drug prices is to create a true, competitive free market for prescription drugs. Additionally, my legislation returns control of health care dollars to our seniors and their doctors, rather than federal bureaucrats.
     Finally, Congress must pass real tax relief for seniors. Earlier this year, I supported the successful repeal of the Social Security earnings limitation, which frees older Americans to continue to work without endangering their eligibility for benefits. We should go a step further, however, and stop taxing older Americans’ income. I voted to repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. More importantly I have introduced legislation to end Social Security taxes altogether. We never taxed Social Security benefits before 1984. Why are we taking taxes out of a widow’s monthly $600 benefits check now? Such double taxation is unconscionable, especially considering that many seniors rely on Social Security to provide all or most of their monthly income.
     Finally, Congress must support seniors by eliminating the death tax. Although this tax accounts for only a tiny portion of federal revenues (about 1.5%), it has a devastating impact on many seniors and their families. When Congress ends the death tax, seniors no longer will worry about losing their farms, small businesses, and savings to the government.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 September 2000 Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction? The Surplus Belongs to the Taxpayers
     Last week I voted to support the “Debt Relief Lockbox Reconciliation Act,” legislation designed to insure that any 2001 Social Security and Medicare surpluses are not spent on unrelated federal programs. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security and Medicare programs will have a combined surplus of approximately $198 billion in the coming year. Until Congress passes tax reform legislation that returns any surplus dollars to taxpayers, I will support efforts to prevent revenue-hungry politician and bureaucrats from spending your retirement and health care surplus dollars on pork-barrel projects.
     This “lockbox” bill underscores the rise of a very important debate on Capitol Hill regarding our nation’s “budget surplus.” It is important to understand the budget process when we consider the rhetoric from Washington and the national media. While many politicians seek to take credit for the seemingly rosy outlook for the federal budget, it is easy for the public to be misled regarding the true nature of the surplus.
     First and foremost, we cannot forget that our nation remains nearly $6 trillion in debt. This debt is the result of one very simple but enormous problem: over the years, Congress has spent more than the Treasury has collected in taxes. Note that Congress, rather than any particular administration, is responsible for creating this debt. Congress alone determines how much is spent when it passes appropriations bills each year. When Congress spends more than it has, it must (like any family or business) borrow money. Eventually we all pay for this fiscal irresponsibility, as more and more of the government’s annual budget is spent on interest payments. Even worse, this debt has caused the Federal Reserve to authorize the printing of more and more money during past decades, creating price inflation and making your dollars worth less.
     Accordingly, any surplus that exists must be understood as a surplus for the current budget year only. Politicians and the media have termed these funds a “budget surplus” or “government surplus.” These terms are widely accepted, and the self-congratulatory debate in Congress centers around what the government ought to do with the money. The truth, however, is that these funds represent a tax surplus. The federal government did not create a surplus, nor did the congressional budget process create a surplus. No politician created the surplus. You created the surplus with your tax dollars. It is your money! I urge you not to permit Washington politicians to claim any credit for overcharging you on April 15th.
     Obviously, taxpayers should decide what is done with any surplus funds. Rest assured many in Congress are eager to spend the surplus on a variety of wasteful federal programs. This is a golden opportunity for Congress, because it can go on a spending spree without raising taxes! I supported the “lockbox” legislation because it prevents any spending of surplus dollars, instead requiring that funds be applied to debt reduction (I also have introduced legislation that prevents non-surplus Social Security and Medicare trust funds from being spent on unrelated programs). Reduction of the national debt certainly is preferable to new spending. My preference, however, would be to return any surplus directly to taxpayers. American families are taxed far too much now, and they never should be required to overfund the government. A surplus refund check would be a step in the right direction. The most important point, however, is that Congress should not be permitted to find new ways to spend your surplus dollars.
     The key to true budget reform is very simple: Congress must drastically reduce spending. A fiscally responsible federal government that adhered to limits set forth in the Constitution could easily operate on a dramatically smaller budget. Our government operated on a mere fraction of its current budget even when we were fighting the Korean War! Despite what you hear this fall, debt reduction and tax relief are not mutually exclusive. Government is far too large, and it performs far too many unconstitutional functions. A constitutionally proper limited government could function without debt and with much lower taxes.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 October 2000 “Privatization” of Social Security Poses Risks Federal Government Should Not Play the Stock Market with Your Retirement Funds
     I recently voted to support Social Security “Lockbox” legislation designed to safeguard that program’s trust fund. The legislation was needed to protect both surplus and non-surplus Social Security funds from being spent on unrelated programs by revenue-hungry politicians.
     Social Security, when instituted in the 1930’s, represented a promise by the federal government to working Americans. In exchange for their participation in a retirement savings program (via payroll taxes), Americans would be guaranteed monthly payments when they retired. 65 years later, when the majority of America’s families own stocks or mutual funds, it is easy for some to forget that many retired Americans continue to rely on a monthly Social Security check for all or most of their income. These Americans funded the system throughout their working lives, and they deserve to know that their retirement funds are secure–after all, it’s their money. I believe Congress must work to insure that the federal government meets its promise to our seniors.
     Concerns over the future solvency of Social Security have prompted proposals for “privatizing” the system. Many proposals include plans to allow the federal government to put tax dollars into certain approved stock market investments.
     I certainly support policies that encourage individuals to invest for their retirement. I believe Congress should lower taxes, allowing workers to keep more of their paychecks to invest. I also support legislation increasing the amounts individuals may put into tax-deductible or tax-deferred IRA, 401(k), and similar pension plans. Furthermore, I have cosponsored legislation that would end the terrible income tax on Social Security benefits.
     However, I believe government-managed investment of Social Security funds poses undue risks for our nation’s seniors. Although the stock market has done well in recent years, market investments never are completely safe (especially with the Federal Reserve’s risky inflationary policies). Our nation’s seniors could lose their benefits if the U.S. stock market (or markets worldwide) experience a severe downturn. Remember that Social Security payments were promised to our seniors, and they paid for them during their working lives. Congress cannot risk breaking the Social Security promise, because it cannot risk the well being of millions of our nation’s seniors.
     Furthermore, government involvement in the private stock market would have dangerous consequences. Who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles were approved? Which politicians would you trust to create an investment portfolio with your taxes? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If the company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company’s honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
     Such “privatization” of Social Security would not really be private at all. Private companies would become a “partner” of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to make up for dollars taken out of the Social Security trust fund. Political favoritism, rather than market efficiency, would determine what investments were made. Worst of all, our nation’s seniors would be threatened with the loss of the benefits they already paid for.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 October 2000 Drug Re-Importation Will Lower Prescription Drug Costs Free-Market Approach Benefits American Consumers
     This week, members of a joint House and Senate committee reached an agreement on proposed legislation which would allow the re-importation of prescription drugs into the U.S. The proposal, part of a fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill scheduled for a House vote next week, faces some opposition from both Congress and the administration. However, I believe widespread public concern over the high cost of prescription drugs will convince lawmakers and the President to support this needed reform.
     Many widely used drugs made by American companies sell for far less in Europe, Canada, and Mexico. Undoubtedly you have seen news reports featuring seniors taking bus trips across the Mexican or Canadian borders to buy their needed drugs. As a physician and member of Congress, this greatly disturbs me. U.S. citizens never should be forced to leave their own country simply to obtain affordable prescription drugs.
     Drug re-importation legislation will help reverse this unfortunate situation. The proposed measure allows U.S. citizens, pharmacies, and drug wholesalers to re-import prescription drugs manufactured in the U.S. This legislation is badly needed to allow our citizens to benefit from worldwide price competition. Clearly, when we permit Americans to import drugs, the result is increased competition and lower drug prices.
     Legislation I introduced earlier this year would go farther in creating beneficial price competition for pharmaceuticals. The “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act” (H.R. 3636) eliminates needless FDA regulations which prevent Americans from buying low-cost drugs from foreign and Internet pharmacies. The Act also provides seniors with a tax credit of up to 80% of their prescription drug expenditures. My approach applies free-market principles to the problem: drugs become more affordable when we encourage price competition and provide tax relief to offset drug expenses. The free-market approach lets you and your doctor choose the prescription drugs that are appropriate for you.
     Unfortunately, many prescription drug proposals coming out of Washington take a different approach and put drug decisions in the hands of federal bureaucrats. We are told that massive new federal expenditures are the answer to the drug cost problem. More taxes must be sent to all-knowing federal health bureaucrats, who will decide what drugs you need. Of course, proponents of the governmental approach won’t tell you that they want to lower drug costs through price-fixing schemes (which inevitably lead to the rationing of drugs) or through subsidies to insurance and pharmaceutical companies (which stifle price competition). Furthermore, bureaucrats won’t admit that the current regulatory regime is a major cause of high drug prices. They just want to expand it and limit your choices in the process.
     The administration’s plan would grant the FDA new investigative powers to monitor online drug sales. The administration also wants to impose massive penalties on non-complying online pharmacies and increase the FDA budget for the hiring of more online snoops. As usual, the government’s approach to the problem is more government; in this case increased FDA regulations to bring all online pharmacies under federal control (even those which comply with existing state laws). Of course, contrary to conventional wisdom, the FDA is not an independent agency working to “protect” you. Instead, government regulators have worked hand-in-glove with powerful pharmaceutical industry interests for more than a century. Is it any wonder that the FDA and its lobbyist-influenced regulations have done nothing but drive up the price of prescription drugs?
     The proposed crackdown on online pharmacies simply serves the existing entrenched pharmaceutical interests at the expense of price competition. As a result, you and I end up paying more for our prescriptions. However, the re-importation agreement reached this week encourages me that others in Congress are beginning to favor the free-market approach. Undoubtedly many are responding to polls showing that a large majority of Americans support drug re-importation. I applaud my colleagues who support the measure, and I plan to use this momentum to seek passage of the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act.” Congress must allow all Americans to benefit from worldwide price competition for prescription drugs.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 October 2000 Real Tax Reform Still Needed for Texas Families
     Earlier this week I received a “Tax Fighter Award” from the nonpartisan National Tax Limitation Committee, based on my pro-taxpayer voting record during the 106th Congress. While I was pleased to receive the award, I realize the tax burden facing Texas families remains far too high. This Congress has proven itself unwilling to make real reforms to our overly complex and burdensome tax system.
     Washington politicians love to champion the “budget surplus,” as though government created an economic windfall. The truth is quite different. The surplus simply represents an overpayment of your tax dollars. Of course once the government has your money, it characterizes any tax cutting proposals as “costing too much.” “We can’t afford to spend the surplus,” politicians tell us. This is nonsense, and I urge taxpayers in my district to reject the ludicrous notion that tax reduction will harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
     Tax reduction is my first priority as your Congressman. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day” (representing the portion of the year you work just to pay taxes) for the majority of Americans is around June 1st. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and June going to the government! Clearly, the status quo is not acceptable. Texas families cannot continue to work more and more simply to keep pace with their tax bill.
     The income tax is the most burdensome of all taxes. Rates are far too high, and the forms are ridiculously complex. The IRS remains an uncontrolled bureaucracy of terror. Public opposition to the current structure has created support for flat tax and national sales tax proposals. My proposal is known as the “Liberty Amendment” (H.J.R 116). This bill would repeal the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax in 1913. It is important to remember that the U.S. government operated for more than 130 years without an income tax. Government revenues were generated by simple excise taxes. It is time to return to a simple, fair method of funding the federal government.
     We also must eliminate the very harmful estate tax, and end the terrible practice of imposing a tax on families when a loved one dies. This tax penalizes thrift and savings, denying Americans the right to pass their property to their children. Despite the Washington rhetoric, the estate tax does not apply only to the rich. In fact, it forces the sale of many small family businesses when heirs cannot pay the estate tax bill. Worst of all, the estate tax is imposed on savings and capital that already have been taxed. The estate tax simply takes money away from families and puts it in the hands of the government. There is no moral or economic justification for estate taxes, and I co-sponsored legislation and voted twice to repeal the tax.
     Taxes on Social Security benefits also must be abolished. I supported a bill earlier this year which successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill (H.R. 761) would go farther and eliminate all taxes on Social Security benefits (remember, prior to 1984 benefits were exempt from federal income taxes). Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits. Why are we taxing a widow’s $700 monthly benefits check? We must repeal this unfair tax so that our seniors receive all of their hard-earned benefits.
     Various other taxes also must be eliminated. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 October 2000 Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy The Social Security Number has Become a National ID
     Several years ago, a constituent of mine was victimized by an unscrupulous insurance company employee. Unknown to my constituent at the time, the thief obtained her Social Security number and stole her identity. The thief applied for credit cards, took out loans, and wrote bad checks, all using her name. Her credit rating was ruined, and she found herself unable to get a job in her chosen field of law enforcement because felonies committed by the thief showed up on background checks. After years of fighting with credit agencies, state authorities, and the Social Security administration, she still has not completely cleared her name.
     Unfortunately, identity theft is a growing trend in America. While we must blame and adequately punish the criminals involved, we also must demand that Congress do more to maintain the confidentiality of Social Security numbers (which is the key to identity theft).
     First and foremost, we must end the massive abuse of Social Security numbers by the government. The widespread proliferation of uses (and misuses) of the number is well known to all of us. One cannot open a bank account, get a job, get married, or even obtain a simple library card without disclosing one’s number. Even worse, the IRS uses Social Security numbers as a taxpayer ID, and IRS regulations even force parents to get numbers for newborns to qualify for the dependency deduction. Increasingly, we are tracked from cradle to grave by our Social Security number, which now undeniably acts as a national ID. Every American should be alarmed by this terrible loss of privacy caused by a government that seeks to number and track its citizens.
     Concerns about personal privacy are not new. When the Social Security program began in the 1930s, people objected to the idea of being assigned a number that could be widely used as an identifier. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to those concerns, promising Americans that only they and the Social Security administration would ever know their number. Sadly, 65 years later we see how utterly this promise has been broken. The mission of Congress should be to reverse this dangerous trend and restore privacy before America truly becomes a “surveillance society.”
     I introduced the “Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act” (H.R.220) to immediately bring an end to governmental abuse of our Social Security numbers. This legislation simply prohibits the federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the Social Security administration. Quite simply, your number is your private business, and this legislation is badly needed to restore promised confidentiality. The IRS should not know your private number, and certainly your local motor vehicles department has no business asking for it.
     Similarly, I cosponsored the “Social Security Number Confidentiality Act” (H.R.3218), which forces the Treasury department to prevent numbers from being viewed through window envelopes used for benefits checks. H.R. 3218 passed by a unanimous vote in the House last week, which encourages me that citizens are voicing their privacy concerns to their Representatives.
     The administration and federal bureaucrats will continue to look for ways to increase government monitoring of citizens. Recently, the administration proposed and fought to enact legislation creating a “uniform standard health identifier,” clearly as part of a larger plan to create a national medical system. As a physician and privacy advocate, I know how dangerous a federal medical ID would be. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship would be destroyed if the patient knew his or her medical problems would be entered into a federal database. The government has no business knowing your medical history. Virtually all Americans agree with me, because public support for my opposition to the medical ID proposal was overwhelming. Ultimately, the medical ID plan was eliminated by my amendment to a larger bill.
     The federal government should keep its promise and restrict its use of Social Security numbers. Above all, it should restore the confidentiality of your private number, so that we might prevent identity theft crimes in the future. In the meantime, next time the government asks for your Social Security number, question the request and voice your objection.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 October 2000 U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate Our National Sovereignty is Violated
     An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106^th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed “unthinkable” only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws.
     More specifically, Congress voted to change our tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), solely because the WTO appellate panel deemed that our FSC tax rules constituted a “subsidy”–the EU contingent in the WTO had brought a complaint to the panel. Our FSC rules simply allow U.S. corporations to exempt a small portion of income earned abroad from taxes. No “subsidy” is involved; no tax dollars are given to FSCs. Moreover, most EU countries do not tax their corporations on any income earned abroad. Still, the appellate panel agreed with the EU and gave the U.S an October 1^st deadline to change our tax laws.
     I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade.
     More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, a Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules,” (emphasis added).
     Earlier this year I sought to address this terrible threat to our sovereignty by introducing a resolution withdrawing us from the WTO. I explained my concerns in a brief to the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, pointing out the unconstitutionality of our involvement. I warned that the WTO could begin dictating our environmental, labor, and tax laws. These arguments were met with hostility and condescension. Subcommittee members stated that we need the WTO to avoid “trade wars,” and that the U.S. Congress would never change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO. “Unthinkable” was how one member put it. Judging by this week’s vote, the “unthinkable” has become reality.
     We should never change our national laws at the behest of any international organization. Congress simply has ceded its legislative authority to the WTO, and it is shameful that this action likely will go unnoticed by the American people. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income. The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. We stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war with the EU, even though we were told that the WTO was needed to avoid such conflicts. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
     Rest assured that the WTO assault on American sovereignty will not end here. What will happen when the Europeans object to another area of our tax laws? Will we change the way we tax individuals also? Perhaps the Europeans will object to our relatively liberal immigration laws, because they resent losing their talented citizens to America. Whatever the issue, the threat remains the same. Americans who care about sovereignty have every reason to be outraged.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 November 2000 The Appropriations Process Poses a Risk to American Taxpayers
     Congress has nearly completed the controversial appropriations process for fiscal year 2001. The 13 appropriations bills that will be passed this year represent “discretionary” spending, which funds thousands of federal programs and agencies. By contrast, permanent law, funding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt sets “mandatory” spending. The appropriations process is critically important to taxpayers, because Congress is deciding how to spend YOUR money. As usual, the discretionary portion of the 2001 federal budget contains a staggering amount of special-interest pork. Spending levels for federal programs, foreign aid, and wasteful agencies have been increasing steadily throughout the 1990s. Unfortunately, this Congress has not demonstrated a willingness to change its reckless spending habits. Recent partisan posturing aside, taxpayers once again will pay for record amounts of needless federal spending.
     The 2001 budget submitted by the President calls for federal spending approaching 2 trillion dollars. Requested discretionary spending amounts to approximately 630 billion dollars. These figures obviously are very high, but the greatest outrage is that Congress is prepared to authorize spending above the levels requested by the President! The emerging year-end appropriations bills contain $35 to $45 billion in extra discretionary spending. In other words, American taxpayers would have been better off if Congress simply had rubber-stamped the President’s proposed budget! Congress has not only surrendered to the President’s demands, it has rewarded him with tens of billions in funding beyond his requests. Remember, this is the same President who told America that we could not “afford” to eliminate the marriage tax penalty or the estate tax.
     Taxpayers should know that Congress passed a budget resolution earlier this year that limited 2001 discretionary spending to $600 billion (H. Con. Res. 290). Furthermore, when Congress passed the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, it authorized only $541 billion for 2001. These commitments simply have been abandoned in the spending frenzy spurred by the rosy “surplus” projections touted by both parties. Congress should be mindful that continued spending increases will quickly devour any one-year tax surplus, and that debt reduction should take precedent over any new spending.
     Some statistics help put congressional spending habits in perspective. In the past three years alone, discretionary spending has increased by almost 16%. In those same three years, spending for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has grown by nearly 30 percent. In just two years, spending for the department of Agriculture has increased by a whopping 47 percent! These discouraging trends reflect the longstanding obstacle to real budget reform: year-end pork spending for special interests to protect congressional seats.
     A terrible example of pork-barrel spending is evident in the 2001 Military Construction appropriations bill. Several South American countries receive more than 1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase helicopters and other military hardware to help them fight the “drug war.” While this spending certainly is objectionable to any American opposed to foreign aid and meddling in foreign affairs, the truth is American companies that provide the helicopters directly benefit from the spending. The rhetoric in Congress about fighting drugs obscures the true goal of satisfying special interests. This represents exactly the type of unjustifiable spending that must be eliminated from the discretionary budget.
     Taxpayers must demand fiscal accountability from Congress. Many members talk about fiscal conservatism, but the reckless year-end spending spree demonstrates a willingness to squander taxpayer dollars. Congress is now rushing headlong into authorizing unprecedented spending levels for 2001. Once again, taxpayers will be forced to pay the bill.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 November 2000 The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
     As this column is written, America still does not know the final results of the 2000 presidential election. After a long and bitter campaign fight, neither party is ready to accept defeat gracefully. The margin of victory for either candidate will be exceedingly narrow, and challenges to the validity of the results surely will follow. Both campaigns may bring legal actions which could take months to resolve. Should Governor Bush prevail despite having lost the popular vote, we may see proposals in Congress to eliminate the electoral college. Angry calls to obey “the will of the people” will be heard in Washington and the popular media. The pundits will argue that it is not fair to deny the presidency to the man who received the most total votes. After all, to do so would be “undemocratic.”
     This argument ignores the fundamental nature of our constitutional system. The Founding Fathers sought to create a loose confederacy of states, joined together by a federal government with very little power. They created a constitutionally limited republic, not a direct democracy. They did so to protect fundamental liberties against the whims of the masses. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
     By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
     Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among the liberal/collectivist elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights. They believe the federal government is omnipotent, and that individual states should not have the power to challenge directives sent down from Washington. Their real goal is the abolition of statehood, because strong states represent a threat to their centralized collectivist agenda. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the President, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
     With the presidential election still undecided, America is at an historic crossroads. Neither candidate will enjoy a public mandate or the usual honeymoon period in the White House. The partisan rancor is likely to increase in Congress. The already narrow Republican majority in the House has diminished, while the Senate may well be evenly divided between the parties. A lame duck congressional session is scheduled to complete the unfinished appropriations bills for 2001, which could not be finalized in the poisoned atmosphere before the elections. Relations between Congressional Republicans and the administration have deteriorated in the aftermath of presidential vetoes of hard fought legislation. This divisiveness underscores the larger issue facing the nation in the electoral college debate, which is the conflict between collectivism and freedom. Perhaps the uncertainty of the recent elections will cause Americans to rethink the role of the federal government in their lives.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 November 2000 Our Foolish War in the Middle East
     The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. Following the British lead from the first half of this century, the United States has attempted to dominate the Middle East since World War II. The U.S. government has not hesitated to use its military might in the region, justifying its actions by claiming a right and need to protect “our” oil.
     The result of our actions has been a growing resentment of America, for obvious reasons. Sadly, our policies make our soldiers across the globe more vulnerable. No one should be surprised by the terrible USS Cole tragedy. If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port. This lack of understanding of Middle Eastern history and religion, combined with our policy of aggression and empire building, has led to a dangerous interventionist attitude.
     It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons, but rather to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.
     To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled by warships of a foreign power. What if that same power proceeded to build air bases in Texas and Florida with our government’s complicity to protect “their” oil? Imagine the rightful anger this would spark among most Americans! This anger would be directed at both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters, and our own government for permitting it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic, and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.
     The USS Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy. This policy has led to a lack of military readiness by spreading our forces too thin, increasing the danger to all Americans and our servicemen in that region in particular. It’s positively amazing we do not have the ability to protect a $1 billion dollar vessel from a rubber raft, despite our $300 billion military budget. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets, and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was brought in to try to figure out what happened. This further intrusion will only serve to increase the resentment of the people of Yemen and the Middle East toward all Americans.
     Our policy in the Middle East cannot possibly be successful. It’s obvious there will be an inevitable conflict between our support for the moderate Arabs–which antagonizes the Islamic fundamentalists in the region–and our special treatment for Israel. It is clear that powerful financial interests in this country want to use our military force to protect their commercial and oil interests in the region, while at the same time there always will be powerful U.S. political support for the State of Israel. The two sides never will be reconciled by our attempt to support both.
     Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. We must end our efforts to police the world. Our failures in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failures yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. Instead we continue to expand our military adventurism into more sovereign nations (this time it’s the 30-year civil conflict in Columbia). Congress and the administration must understand that the greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 November 2000 The Conflict between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
     The controversial presidential election remains unresolved this week, now that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to permit ongoing recounts of votes. The U.S. Supreme Court may well serve as the ultimate arbiter in this controversy. Regardless of the outcome, the popular vote totals for the two candidates will be remarkably close. The contentiousness of the post-election legal wrangling is certain to damage the political credibility of the winner. Even in the popular media, some have begun to question the legitimacy of the incoming administration, citing the deep divisions that seem to exist among voters. Ultimately, of course, the legitimacy of any president or government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
     To an extent, America is indeed politically divided. Most Americans accept one of two general political philosophies. Individualists value liberty above all, and hence believe in individual responsibility, capitalism, limited government, and the Constitution. Collectivists, on the other hand, value “equality” above all, and view government as a benign force charged with redistributing wealth and managing our lives. While these two conflicting outlooks certainly do not define the major political parties, they are adhered to by many members of those parties.
     Unfortunately, the collectivist approach has been gaining ground in American politics and government throughout this century. This is happening even as the obvious failures of collectivism (Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, for example) litter the history books. Ludwig VonMises, the great 20th century economist, predicted decades before the fall of the Soviet system that socialism was unworkable and would collapse upon itself. American policy-makers apparently have decided to ignore this warning as it relates to our own nation.
     As with communism and socialism, the interventionist-welfare system increasingly endorsed by our politicians and popular media is unworkable. Even before the current election fiasco, signs of an impasse within our system have been evident. Inevitably, a system which decides almost everything through pure democracy will sharply alienate two groups: the producers, and the recipients of the goods distributed by the popularly elected Congress.
     The resulting division between American voters is the direct result of Washington’s increasingly collectivist policies. Instead of moving toward a market economy and less dependency on the federal government in the midst of this so-called “prosperity,”each side in Washington continues to clamor for more of the taxpayer loot. The pretended goal of the economic planners has been economic fairness through redistribution of wealth. The real goal always has been an increasingly collectivist system which gives the federal government more and more power over our lives.
     The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs of a fundamental conflict are evident. The presidential election in many ways demonstrates both an economic and political reality. The political stalemate mirrors the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both eventually will cause deep division and hardship. The real problem–preserving the free market and private property rights–will worsen if ignored. The only solution offered by Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increased monetary inflation, more debt, and increased military interventionism throughout the world.
     The financial markets now are nervously watching the impasse reached in the presidential election. Many commentators claim the most recent drop in the market is a consequence of the uncertainty surrounding the election. Although it would be a mistake to dismiss completely the influence of the election as a factor in the economy, it must be made clear that the markets and the economy are driven by something much more basic. We know that the markets have been off significantly for the past several months, and this drop was not related in any way to the presidential election. However, confidence is an important factor in the way markets work, and certainly the confusion in the Presidential election does not convey confidence in American markets to investors.
     Whatever the outcome of the presidential election, the question facing America will remain the same. We must choose between liberty and collectivism. If we continue to choose collectivism, we must expect the inevitable political and economic crises which will result.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 December 2000 Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty The Judicial Coup Began Decades Ago
     The presidential election controversy not surprisingly reached the Florida Supreme Court, which rendered a verdict stunningly at odds with Florida law. Of course both camps in the dispute are guilty of exhibiting a “win at all costs mentality”, using teams of lawyers to piously argue against the “injustices”they have suffered. Both are interested only in the final outcome, despite their shameless references to the Constitution and the “rule of law.” Even in this atmosphere, however, most Americans still expected the Court to issue an impartial decision based on a rational interpretation of Florida law. It appears, however, that the Court simply ignored the plain language of state voting laws (and the Constitution) and imposed its political will on the people of Florida and the nation as a whole. The decision perhaps is not surprising, however, in light of the trend toward activist courts in our country.
     Judicial activism, once decried in politics and the field of law, happens when judges choose to create an outcome rather than follow the laws enacted by the legislature. The legal world once criticized such judges for being “results oriented,” which meant they were not doing their job. Most judges used to take pride in zealously maintaining a proper judicial temperament, never allowing personal or political feelings to influence a decision. In short, judges once simply interpreted and applied the law to effect the intentions of the legislature.
     Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional “right” to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled.
     The real victim, of course, is the Constitution and our liberty. The Founding Fathers created three coequal branches of government so that federal power never could grow unchecked. Their goal was to safeguard liberty. The judiciary was charged with preserving liberty by overturning laws which violated the Constitution; otherwise its role was to effectuate the intent of Congress. Over the past century, however, the unconstitutional notion of judicial supremacy has emerged in American politics. We have come to view courts as omnipotent superlegislatures which can substitute their wisdom rather than follow the law.
     The Florida decision at least brings attention to the unfortunate activist trend; hopefully more Americans will give thought to the proper role of our courts as a result of the presidential election. Liberty cannot be preserved unless each branch of government stays within the confines of its constitutionally authorized powers. The separation of powers created in our Constitution is not an antiquated notion or a rhetorical theory, but rather a critical doctrine which is needed today more than ever.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 December 2000 A Republic, Not a Democracy
     Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred “democracy.” Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the “will of the people” being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our “democratic system” if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. “I’m really in love with our democracy,” one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.
     The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
     In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
     Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the “excesses of democracy.”
     Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation’s republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 December 2000 The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government Promised Tax Reform Should be a Priority
     Texas Governor George W. Bush officially became our president-elect last week, following a series of legal challenges to the exceedingly close certified election results. The election seems to have exposed a deep political division in the country: support for the two candidates is decidedly even, mirroring the 50-50 party split in the Senate and an almost evenly divided Congress. The highly criticized 5-4 final Supreme Court decision shows how equally divided the nation really is.
     With the election finally decided, the media and the Washington pundits have decided that the key to success for the new administration in the aftermath of such a close election is “reaching out across party lines.” Partisanship, we are told, must give way to bipartisan agreement so that the nation may begin to “heal itself.” Of course there is some merit to this argument; certainly Americans are prepared for a unifying presence in the White House. The political rhetoric of this election year, which was more about power than ideology, will not be missed in the coming months. America clearly is eager to forget about politics and enjoy the holidays.
     Still, it is important to understand that the calls for “bipartisanship” really are nothing less than political threats aimed at president-elect Bush. Mainstream media and collectivist politicians want to create an atmosphere where adherence to principles and ideology is mischaracterized as mean-spirited or divisive. In other words, they are warning Bush not to pursue a conservative, limited government agenda. The not-so-subtle threat is that the administration will face a political firestorm unless it continues Clinton era policies, which are incorrectly presented as “bipartisan.” For example, one prominent Senator recently called on Bush to insure passage of a “patient’s bill of rights,” which he insisted was mandated by widespread bipartisan support. This is nonsense, of course; most Americans rightfully oppose the terrible trend toward a government controlled health care system. Yet we are led to believe that Bush must accept and even endorse such proposals to expand the government’s role in medicine in order to demonstrate “bipartisan cooperation.”
     Similarly, president-elect Bush will be advised to drop more “controversial” aspects of his campaign agenda, especially tax relief. However, history shows that voters remember when campaign promises are abandoned. Bush must not allow the post-election atmosphere to soften his commitment to tax relief, which the overwhelming majority of Americans really do support.
     Specifically, he must honor his pledge to end the estate tax and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is far more important, politically and morally, for Bush to keep his campaign promises than it is for him to appease his opponents in Congress. He should be prepared to ignore the chorus of voices, including some Republicans, urging him to abandon tax cuts. Tax relief is the primary reason why many Americans vote Republican. Bush knows this, but the pressure to surrender will become intense. Abandoning tax cuts may make the president-elect more popular with the liberal establishment, but it also would offend his conservative base.
     Finally, it should be noted that many Democrats have indicated a willingness to support a tax cut package. Bush should remind everyone of these promises. Liberals and the media will attempt to characterize tax cuts as “too expensive” or a threat to the “surplus.” The new administration must promote spending reductions as the key to fiscally responsible government. Government spending has reached mind-boggling levels; sane reductions easily could allow for tax relief without deficit spending by Congress.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 December 2000 The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas
     As a strong believer in liberty and constitutionally limited government, I often find myself opposing Congress and the administration on a wide variety of legislative and policy matters. The fight to preserve and restore liberty seems endless, and it is tempting for liberty-minded Americans to feel overwhelmed by the battle. Oftentimes the outlook from Washington appears bleak; new threats to freedom arise constantly. Yet while freedom indeed requires eternal vigilance, we also must remember to take time to reflect upon and celebrate our great fortune as American citizens. The Christmas holiday provides us an opportunity to turn our attention away from the political landscape, and focus on our families and loved ones. It is very important that we appreciate the blessings of liberty we all enjoy as Americans, blessings which are easy to overlook when we are caught up in our daily lives. Our freedom is our greatest national treasure and resource. Countless thousands have died protecting it in wars; countless others have risked everything to reach American soil. As you celebrate the holidays with your families, I urge you to celebrate our freedoms as well.
     America is the only nation truly conceived in liberty. The Founding Fathers, weary of oppression and taxation by a faraway king, made the heroic decision to secede and stake a claim to their own nation. They sought to disavow centuries of tribal warring, medieval feudalism, and collectivist rule by tyrants of every stripe. For the first time in human history they created a governmental system where the state existed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. It is impossible to overstate how radical this notion was at the time (and still is today). They created the first society where individual human happiness was held up as an ideal. The limited state established by the Constitution was charged with fostering that happiness by protecting property rights and preventing aggression. The courage of our Founders, clearly demonstrated in the resulting secessionist war with England, was fueled by their unquenchable desire to be free. Their daring set the stage for the emergence of the America we enjoy today.
     225 years later, our undeniable status as the greatest nation on earth is due to our origins as a free society. America is a place of unequaled prosperity. Our capitalist economic system, which is the only system compatible with freedom, creates affluence far beyond that of any other country. Capitalism provides the incentive for tremendous individual achievement, which benefits society as a whole. Americans of all economic classes enjoy a better standard of living and greater opportunities than the inhabitants of any other nation.
     Innovations in medical science, particularly preventative and emergency care, allow us to lead happier and healthier lives than ever before. These innovations, combined with improvements in diet, have vastly increased our average life expectancy. New drugs permit us to eradicate or lessen the severity of a multitude of diseases. Young Americans today can look forward to leading far longer and more comfortable lives than their parents and grandparents.
     The American information technology industry continues to lead the world. Our software and internet companies dominate the worldwide marketplace (not coincidentally, high tech is our least regulated industry). Talented individuals in technological fields have come to the U.S. from around the globe, increasing our competitive advantage. The technological boom of the past decade, and the resulting rise in technology markets, was largely an American phenomenon. America is poised to continue to lead the world in information technology in the new century, to the benefit of all Americans.
     Liberty is the cornerstone upon which the greatness of America is based. Our prosperity and status as a world leader surely will continue if we strive to foster liberty at home. The challenges before us are great, but we must never forget to appreciate the wonderful liberty we enjoy every day.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 January 2001 A Legislative Agenda for 2001
     The year 2001 has arrived, bringing an end to the period termed by historians as the “American century.” The continued preeminence of America as a world power in the new millennium is not guaranteed. The actions of the new 107th Congress will play an important role in setting the tone for the new decade. The incoming Bush administration has the opportunity to advocate sweeping changes in Washington, rather than simply embracing the political status quo with a new cast of political players.
     Spending reform should be the foremost priority for the new Congress. The fiscal year 2001 budget is bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending. The Clinton administration successfully pushed through spending increases far beyond those of the previous year. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies received even more in funding than originally requested in the Clinton budget. Dangerous foreign aid spending also grew, sending more of your tax dollars overseas and intensifying conflicts in trouble spots like Colombia, Kosovo, and the Middle East. Despite rosy predictions about the federal “surplus,” the truth is that Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. Deficit spending and tax increases will be the inevitable consequences. No reasonable person can argue that our current $2 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress. Government spending not only affects our fiscal health as a nation; it also determines the size and scope of government power over our lives. Congress must show the resolve needed to challenge business as usual in Washington and dramatically cut spending.
     Tax relief remains critical to our future prosperity. The Clinton administration was able to thwart legislation that would have ended the estate tax and the marriage tax penalty, despite bipartisan support for both measures. The new Congress should act quickly to reintroduce such legislation in the wake of endorsements by president-elect Bush. No person should be taxed simply because he saved throughout his lifetime to have something to pass on to heirs, nor should anyone pay higher taxes because of their marital status.
     Congress also must address education reform in 2001. The answer is not more government spending on more failed federal programs. Federal involvement in education must be limited, returning control over schools to parents and local education boards. Federal tax dollars must be returned to parents through tax credits and deductions for tuition and other education-related expenses. No longer can we ask parents to send so much of their paychecks to Washington while their local schools deteriorate. Education standards in this country were much higher when local school boards controlled their own curricula, teacher standards, and discipline. Congress should understand this and focus on legislation which returns control and tax dollars back to parents, teachers, and local administrators. The era of micromanagement of our schools by federal education bureaucrats must end if we are to stop the decline in education standards.
     Health care also will be a defining issue for Congress this year. Again, the answer to concerns about health care costs and quality is not a massive federal program. Schemes for “free” national health care will only result in shortages of drugs and doctors, waiting lists for procedures, and rationing of treatments and pharmaceuticals. Our emphasis should be on restoring market incentives to the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Our current FDA system reduces incentives for the development of new drugs and restricts competition for existing drugs, which results in the very high drug prices borne by consumers. Congress should undo the regulatory burdens that drive prices up, while providing tax credits and deductions for health care and prescription drug costs.
     2001 undoubtedly will be a pivotal year in Washington. The incoming administration and Congress can choose between expanding the size and role of the federal government, with increased spending and taxes as a result, or acknowledging that government is not the solution to every issue.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 January 2001 International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
     The Clinton administration, working overtime during the eleventh hour to consolidate its pitiful “legacy,” has taken another step toward imposing global government on U.S. citizens. On New Year’s Eve, only hours before a United Nations midnight deadline, the President ordered a U.S. ambassador to sign the 1998 U.N. Rome treaty. This treaty purports to establish a worldwide U.N. criminal court, demonstrating the brazen willingness of global-government proponents to move forward with their plans. Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global “laws” against American citizens. The legal apparatus represents the logical next step for ever-expanding U.N. power: first the phony “international laws” were created, and now a court system is needed to give teeth to the laws. International prisons in Geneva or Brussels cannot be far behind. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development. In fact, U.N. expert Henry Lamb recently stated that Clinton’s endorsement of this treaty “may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure.”
     The proposed court will be made up of 18 “judges,” elected by an Assembly of member nations ratifying the Rome treaty. Should the U.S. Senate ultimately ratify the treaty, America will have only one vote among hundreds of nations vying to decide which global visionaries will be anointed to judge us (perhaps Kofi Annon? Bill Clinton??). The court will claim international jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity” and the “crime of aggression.” The Assembly, of course, is left to define such crimes and aggression. Undoubtedly, leftist political correctness, socialist economic philosophy, and environmentalist falsehoods will decide the definition of a crime with the new court. It clearly is no stretch to predict that the court will attempt to continually expand its jurisdiction in both the civil and criminal realms. 20 years hence, will we see U.S. corporations dragged before the court to answer for “environmental crimes?” Or will U.S. soldiers be prosecuted for their actions in wartime? What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches?
     The clear conflict between American life under our Constitution and life under a U.N. world government is intensifying. Although the Rome treaty perhaps is unlikely to be ratified by the Senate, the creation of the international tribunal undoubtedly will move forward regardless of our participation. Once the court is in place, there is every reason to believe it will attempt to assert its jurisdiction over all nations, even those that have not ratified the Rome treaty. The U.N. never has hesitated to exert its authority, militarily or otherwise, over non-member nations; surely the international court will follow suit. Remember, precedents set by the U.N. 40 and 50 years ago, such as engaging in “peacekeeping” wars across the globe, were controversial at the time. Today those precedents have become commonplace U.N. practice, despite the objections of many Americans.
     The Clinton administration has set a terrible new precedent. Even if the Rome treaty ultimately is not ratified by the U.S., Clinton’s signing it further demonstrates our acquiescence to the global-government planners. Many Americans, rightfully concerned by this trend, have begun to question our participation in the U.N. They have begun to question the influence of global elites. The Clinton administration has used secrecy, stealth, and misinformation to thwart the will of the majority of Americans, who still wish to live in a free sovereign nation. In response, I will reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act in the new 107th Congress. This bill will end U.S. taxpayer support of the U.N., remove the organization from U.S. soil, and guarantee that no U.S. soldier ever serves under U.N. command. I urge all Americans opposed to world government to ask their Representatives to support my bill, while also asking their Senators to vote against ratification of the U.N. Rome treaty.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 January 2001 Turn Out the Lights Government Takeover of the Electricity Industry Threatened in California
     In a scene more reminiscent of Soviet Russia or Maoist China than America, central government bureaucrats, economic planners, regulators, and regional government officials met behind closed doors last week in Washington. The purpose of their meeting? To discuss a wholesale government takeover of California’s electricity industry.
     As frightening as this development may be to Americans who believe in free markets, it was not unexpected. California has faced severe energy shortages for more than a year. Residents and businesses in the state have seen dramatic increases in their monthly electric bills, with some paying 200% more than a year ago. Shortages and blackouts are threatened. In response to this crisis, California Governor Gray Davis has become an increasingly vocal proponent of an outright socialist energy system for the nation’s largest state. He decided (not surprisingly) to go to the Feds for help, resulting in the meeting with Energy secretary Bill Richardson and Treasury secretary Larry Summers, among others.
     California’s woes are due in part to its tremendous population growth over the past decade. The influx of residents and businesses, particularly energy-intensive tech businesses, has greatly increased demand for electricity. The problem is that the California government has not allowed the construction of new power plants, in large part because of “environmentalists,” citizens groups, and regulators hostile to property rights. The blatantly obvious result of high demand coupled with artificially low supply must be: high prices. Had the free market been allowed to operate, profit-seeking utility companies would have built new power plants to meet the demand and the situation would be very different today.
     Governor Davis, seemingly oblivious to the real problem (his own government), has accused California’s electricity companies of “price gouging,” and called for stricter price controls. He even threatened (chillingly) to seize the assets of utility companies if they do not lower prices. Ultimately, he wants a new state agency to control the entire industry and even build new power plants if necessary! (new plants apparently are OK if the government builds them). Davis exhibits the classic bureaucratic cycle: first the government creates the crisis, which is blamed on the free market, and then more government is justified to fix the crisis.
     Price controls will never work, because the laws of economics cannot be fooled. Price controls always result in shortages, because no rational business wants to produce something to sell at below-market rates. The California utility companies, which already are forced to sell to consumers at state-mandated prices, cannot do so forever. Their costs have increased dramatically; if they cannot raise prices they will be bankrupt. Utility companies outside the state simply refuse to sell to California because they can sell their power for a higher price elsewhere. This is why Governor Davis sought the meeting with Energy secretary Richardson. He wants the Feds to force utility companies in other states to sell energy to California. Unfortunately for Davis and Richardson, there are no laws (yet) forcing companies to stay in business forever while the government destroys them.
     To politicians like Davis, only the government can save us. Like most politicians, he apparently accepts the myth that some goods and services are too vital to be left to the free market. However, it is precisely because energy is so vital that the government should not interfere in the electricity market. The operation of the market does not create a utopia, but it clearly would have prevented the California crisis. When the price rises in a free market, consumers simply use less energy (which supposedly is the goal of the “environmentalists”). When growth creates greater demand in a free market, the supply of energy increases to meet that demand. These simple principles, which are obvious to anyone studying basic economics, should be clear to the likes of Davis and Richardson. The likely explanation is that their true goal is the expansion of government power, without regard to the well-being of the people of California.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 January 2001 The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
     The Senate conducted hearings this week concerning the nomination of John Ashcroft for the position of Attorney General in the Bush administration. As anticipated, the debate has been rancorous and bitterly partisan. The longstanding practice by the Senate of generally approving cabinet nominees, thus allowing a new President the spoils of his victory, has eroded almost completely in the past two decades. The old standard for Senate approval simply was competence for the job, without regard to a nominee’s personal politics. Mr. Ashcroft clearly is competent and very highly qualified for the job of Attorney General. In the new era, however, his political views are the primary focus of his opponents. Certain Senators, special interest groups, and the media have made it quite clear: the left will attack and characterize as unfit for high public office anyone who adheres to conservative principles. Their true goal is to create a precedent for the automatic disqualification of future cabinet nominees who disagree with their view of the proper role of the federal government. “Will he enforce all the laws?” they intone endlessly. What they really are asking is: “Will he question our efforts to continually expand the size and scope of the federal government?”
     The real question for Mr. Ashcroft or any federal official is simple: will you abide by your oath to uphold the Constitution? The rhetoric from the Senate and the media leads the public to believe the Attorney General has a duty to Congress directly, that he must enforce any law passed by Congress without regard to the Constitution or legal precedents. In truth, however, the Attorney General is counsel for the American people, not Congress or the President. He is sworn to uphold the highest law in the land, the Constitution. Under no circumstances may he enforce a law that clearly contravenes the Constitution, regardless of whether Congress or the President demands it. Would we expect Mr. Ashcroft to enforce a law passed by Congress today suspending First Amendment assembly and speech rights at this weekend’s inauguration? Of course not. The possibility of an independent-minded conservative Attorney General threatens the left, however, because they want a federal administration which will rubber stamp the laws they support, many of which are unconstitutional.
     The code word used by the left to attack Ashcroft’s personal politics is extreme, which is repeated like a drumbeat until it is embedded in the minds of the public. We are told his views on abortion are extreme because he “opposes a women’s right to choose,” despite the utter lack of any such right in the Constitution, and despite the agreement of millions of Americans with Mr. Ashcroft. We are told he is extreme because he opposes some gun control laws, despite the obvious unconstitutionally of all gun control laws. We are told his support for the death penalty is extreme, although millions of Americans and the Supreme Court disagree. Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using “extreme” as a code word for “racist.” The exceedingly thin “evidence” given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left’s efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda.
     The left will continue to attack those who adhere to a belief in limited constitutional government, in an attempt to redefine “mainstream” politics in America. The pattern is simple: the left continually moves its agenda to the left, fooling America that the center must move with them. Americans like John Ashcroft may be the victims of this unfortunate trend.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 January 2001 Education Freedom Legislation Will Provide Meaningful Reform
     One of my main goals in the 107th Congress is to return control over our children’s education to parents and teachers in Texas and across America. Unfortunately, as the federal government continues to increase its influence over education, the role of parents and teachers becomes more and more limited. Over the last 30 years, this increased federal control has proven harmful to education standards while wasting taxpayer dollars.
     I believe that parents and teachers can better educate our children than federal education bureaucrats and politicians. With that in mind, this week I will introduce my “Education Freedom Package.” This education package consists of three bills designed to increase parental control over their children’s education, increase teacher pay, and provide incentives for individuals to make contributions to local schools.
     The centerpiece of my education package is the “Family Education Freedom Act.” This measure will give parents a $3,000 per-child per-year tax credit. The credit can apply to tuition, tutors, books, computers, and other related educational needs. It also applies equally to parents who choose to educate their children in public, private, or home settings. This tax cut is more effective than current voucher plans, which leave the door open to increased government influence on teacher standards and school curricula. Also, the tax credit takes no funding away from public schools.
     The second measure is the “Education Improvement Tax Cut,” legislation allowing individuals to claim up to $3,000 per year in tax credits for cash or “in-kind” donations to schools and scholarship programs. The goal is to encourage people to set up scholarship funds for disadvantaged youth, and also become more involved with their local schools.
     Finally, I will introduce the “Teacher Tax Cut Act.” This measure grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their salary by $1,000 annually without increasing local or federal education spending. Last year, new teachers made an average of $10,000 less than other college graduates. With teachers often ranking at the bottom tier of professional pay, the federal government must recognize that teaching our youth is an honorable and important profession. Many others in Congress agree that teachers deserve this tax credit: the “Teacher Tax Cut Act” already has received bipartisan support from Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-North Carolina), Rep. Dan Miller (R-Florida), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia), Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland).
     Each time we are presented with a new education proposal from Washington, it involves another layer of harmful federal bureaucracy. No big-government spending program can or will solve our nation’s education problems. One-size-fits-all programs simply do not work. I want to give parents the freedom to choose the best options for their children. I want teachers to know that their services are valuable to our nation without making them subservient to federal bureaucrats. And I want to encourage local residents to get involved with their local schools through educational programs and scholarship funds.
     My agenda of returning control over education dollars to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education. These bills represent a common sense, pro-family approach that says “no” to more federal involvement in local education and “yes” to more parental and teacher involvement. I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring these important pieces of legislation, and I call on every member of Congress to support meaningful education reform which once again will make American education the envy of the world.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 February 2001 Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
     An ABC news special entitled Mr. Stossel goes to Washington aired last weekend, documenting waste and inefficiency in government. In one particularly poignant example, the show profiled a woman who started a food kitchen to deliver hot meals to needy families in her small town. She operated with a small budget, using donations of food and money. Area families considered her a godsend, as she often provided the only complete meal they had each day. The success of her efforts, however, was quickly diminished when the federal government began investigating her operation. Because she received some federal funds, she was required to comply with numerous regulations. The stove she used did not have a hood, which federal regulations mandate. Her only choice was to buy a new stove, at prohibitive cost, or stop using her stove altogether. The government refused to make an exception for her, and now she runs a smaller kitchen which delivers only cold bag lunches. Of course, the ultimate victim of the government’s shortsighted policy is the local families who once enjoyed hot meals. This example does not represent an isolated case, but rather is typical of the way government regulations harm our citizens.
     The ABC expose aired just days before President Bush announced his plan to allow private charities and religious organizations a greater role in delivering social services currently provided mostly by the federal government. He certainly is correct in his assertion that private groups do a better job of running food banks, day care centers, drug treatment centers, and other social programs. I applaud his desire to transfer funds away from government agencies and into the private sector. I certainly disagree with critics who misunderstand the First amendment and view the President’s proposal as a sinister endorsement of religion. Bush especially should be credited for offering an alternative to the status quo, because federal agencies simply do a terrible job of providing social services.
     The proposal has risks, however. First, the federal welfare state simply may expand in size and scope. Congress seemingly is incapable of reducing spending, instead adding billions to the budget every year. This excessive spending may expand to fund private organizations in addition to current funding for federal agencies. I doubt seriously that savings created by the substitution of efficient private organizations for inefficient federal agencies will ever be reflected in the federal budget. The more likely scenario is that government spending will grow more than ever.
     Second, religious organizations risk the sanctity of their faith when they involve themselves with government. The government will have to decide what religious organizations qualify for federal funds, which puts it in the untenable position of deciding which faiths are legitimate. Would the pro-abortion Health and Human Services department ever surrender funds to a strongly pro-life Catholic charity? Would American taxpayers support funding for an organization viewed by many as a cult, if it ran an efficient soup kitchen? These uncomfortable questions suggest that some faiths would be tempted to change their message to win favor with the government. The liberal collectivists have the argument against the President’s proposal all wrong: the danger is not that government will be influenced by religion, but rather that religion will be influenced by government.
     The better approach is to abide by constitutional strictures and get the federal government completely out of the business of providing social services. Private charities and religious organizations will flourish in this country if we simply get government out of the way. First and foremost, we must exempt such organizations from regulations which constantly thwart their efforts. Second, we must endorse the proposal by President Bush to allow all Americans a deduction for charitable contributions, regardless of whether they itemize deductions or not. The majority of taxpayers apply the standard deduction, and they should enjoy a tax benefit for giving to charity even in small amounts. We should allow a 100% deduction for all contributions, regardless of whether to a standard charity, a charitable foundation or trust, or a religious organization. Finally, we must massively reduce government spending, so that income taxes can be lowered drastically. Americans are charitable by nature, but they rightfully resent losing nearly half their incomes to various levels of government. American charities would see huge increases in their budgets for providing social services if taxes were reduced to sane levels.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 February 2001 “Buy American,” Unless...
     Members of Congress often encourage us to “buy American” during their speeches on the House floor. Some members regularly place a “buy American” clause in various trade-related bills, seeking to protect domestic jobs by encouraging the purchase of American goods. Ironically, however, many of these same legislators vote to prohibit American companies from gaining access to new markets overseas. They do so by supporting our senseless embargo policies, which simply help our foreign trading competitors at the expense of American companies.
     Of course most politicians claim that they support free trade. Intuitively, most Americans understand that access to foreign markets provides significant benefits to US citizens and American-based corporations. However, we continue to pursue a policy of denying or restricting domestic companies from selling to Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, and other countries. This inconsistency is especially evident when we consider “export financing,” which really is foreign aid designed to help other countries buy American goods. Most Washington politicians support the practice of export financing, arguing that access to foreign markets benefits American companies, and not just foreign consumers. However, the opposite argument is made with regard to our embargo policies. Suddenly, increased trade with countries some want to label as unworthy only benefits sinister foreign consumers, and not domestic producers. This nonsensical position is maintained by many in government who favor government-managed trade which benefits certain chosen special interests.
     Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.
     The ultimate result of our embargo policies is obvious: when our government prevents American companies from selling their goods abroad, it creates an economic hardship for those companies and their employees. Similarly, when the government prevents American consumers from buying the goods or services they want from certain countries, it simply diminishes the living standards of those Americans. Washington intervention in international trade only benefits certain special interests for a short time. In the long run, the vast majority of American citizens and businesses would benefit from unfettered access to all foreign markets. An example is the relatively unregulated software industry, where American companies absolutely dominate the global marketplace. Americans don’t need help competing, but they do need a government which does not hinder their access to foreign markets. By following the current policy of government-managed trade and special interest favoritism, Congress is harming the constituents it was elected to represent. The sooner we adopt policies which promote free exchange with all nations, the better off our nation and its people will be.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 February 2001 Tax Cuts Benefit All Americans
     Last week, several prominent members of Congress held a press conference outside the Capitol to criticize President Bush’s new tax proposal. The usual class warfare rhetoric was marshaled against the President, even though his plan proposes an exceedingly modest tax cut. The tired arguments against tax relief, even in the face of growing single-year tax surpluses, are not only wrong but also inherently deceitful. We’ve heard it all before: tax cuts favor the rich, who ought to pay more so the government can save us with wonderful federal programs. This emotionalist approach should have zero credibility with an informed public, particularly in light of decades of evidence that the economic benefits of lower taxes help far more Americans than any government “benevolence.”
     Beyond the deceit, however, is the unmistakable Washington mentality so clearly exhibited by the assembled politicians. One Member told the audience with a straight face that the Bush proposal needed further study to “see who gets what.” In the surreal world of Congress, your income presumptively belongs to the government, which decides what members of society deserve federal largesse. Any income you get to keep is generously “given” to you by the federal government. Tax cut proposals are studied to determine the “cost” to government, and opposition is rallied with the cry “we can’t afford it.” Perversely, this mentality is touted by politicians who claim that tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible. They endlessly repeat the lie that Reagan-era tax cuts caused deficits, when in truth it was the inability of Congress to control spending which ballooned our national debt. In fact, 1980s tax cuts increased federal revenues, because economic output expands when government takes less. To hear big spending, pro-tax politicians claim they represent fiscal responsibility strains the limits of believability.
     The factual rebuttals to the pro-tax argument seem to receive little play in the popular media. The class baiters are wrong when they claim our tax laws favor wealthy Americans. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of taxes collected in this country. In fact, Americans making over $100,000 annually represent only 6.6% of the population, yet they pay more than 55% of all income taxes! Americans making less than $50,000 annually, who make up 75% of the population, pay only 17% of all income taxes. These figures cannot be challenged by the pro-tax politicians, as they come directly from IRS reports. Our progressive tax rate structure insures that more affluent Americans pay a disproportionate amount of income taxes, yet politicians and the media continue to get way with insinuations that the sinister rich somehow don’t pay their fair share.
     Also, the class argument that average Americans do not benefit from tax cuts cannot be supported by facts. The Bush proposal, though far too modest in my view, is very straightforward. A key feature of the plan simplifies and lowers all marginal rates. Every taxpayer, regardless of income, will pay taxes at a lower rate than before under the plan. An American with a modest income might save $1,000 on his yearly tax bill, which could mean more to him than a million dollars would to a very wealthy taxpayer. This benefit is ignored in Washington and in the popular press. The focus, as always, is on overhyped disparities in wealth. The assumption is that government, rather than individual achievement in the marketplace, should determine who becomes wealthy.
     With more Americans involved in the stock market, however, the politics of envy may fail to attract the average voter. Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the polls.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 February 2001 IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
     February 13th marked a sad day for religious liberty in America, as the federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing a church to satisfy an alleged tax debt. Armed federal marshals forcibly removed parishioners and clergy from the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), bringing an end to years of legal challenges that ended with the Supreme Court refusing to hear an IBT appeal.
     Amazingly, the tax dispute arose not over a failure to pay income taxes per se, but rather over the failure of the IBT to follow tax withholding rules. The tax code forces all employers, including churches, to act as collection agents for the IRS by presumptively withholding a portion of every employee’s paycheck for federal taxes. The IBT steadfastly has refused to withhold taxes from its employees, arguing that religious beliefs prevent it from acting as an agent for a secular government agency. Two important facts have been largely overlooked in the ensuing controversy. First, the IBT (unlike most churches) also refused tax benefits available to it through registration as a tax-exempt religious organization. Second, more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld. So the heart of the dispute really was about IBT’s principled refusal to do the government’s bidding. The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors.
     The IBT tragedy is about religious liberty, not taxes. Churches should not be required to pay or withhold taxes any more than they should be given tax dollars from the government. The First amendment grants churches the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs without interference from government. When tax laws force churches to act as collection agents for the IRS, this precious right is lost. The income tax represents the ultimate entanglement between churches and the government. When churches file income tax returns, the government becomes intimately familiar with their activities. Only those faiths deemed valid by IRS bureaucrats are rewarded with partial tax-exempt status. This entanglement chills true religious expression, because churches may alter their message to quell criticisms of government and avoid audits. When the government has the power to tax churches, it ultimately has the power to control them.
     The state-loving media scarcely mentioned the IBT story, with brief articles predictably portraying the church as a fringe organization that avoided its taxes. This follows an established pattern of characterizing religious conservatives who protest the federal government as dangerous extremists, implicitly associated with militias and racists. Imagine the national media coverage, and resulting public outrage, if a minority church was seized over a refusal to pay taxes. Protestors supporting left-wing causes like abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, feminism, AIDS, and animal rights consistently are shown as courageous martyrs fighting for principle against an unfeeling society and government. Conservative protestors, however, are shown as sinister bigots who selfishly refuse to follow benign laws and politically correct social rules.
     The IBT story has resounded with many Americans, however. A strong undercurrent of dissent has manifested itself below the mainstream media radar, on radio talk shows and websites. My office has received hundreds of angry letters, emails, and phone calls denouncing the government’s actions. People of all faiths understand that the threat to religious liberty affects all Americans. No society can remain free if it lacks strong institutions to challenge an overreaching government.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 March 2001 Spy Scandal Reveals Deeper Problems with Federal Police Agencies
     The recent FBI spy scandal continues to make national headlines, particularly given FBI director Louis Freeh’s statement that the damage done to U.S. intelligence was “exceptionally grave.” While it’s certainly tragic that a veteran FBI agent allegedly sold high-level secrets to the Russians for years, the greater tragedy is our government’s continued intervention in the domestic affairs of virtually every nation on earth. Corrupted spies simply are an inevitable by-product of our own government’s relentless quest to police the world.
     The fundamental question has been ignored by the press. The real issue ought to be simple: Why is a domestic law enforcement agency involved in international espionage at all? In other words, why was the accused FBI agent spying on foreign nations in the first place? Surely the CIA and the Department of Defense are charged with that task. Since the ostensible mission of the FBI is to police crime here in the U.S., how on earth would an FBI agent obtain information that was so valuable to the Russians?
     The answer, of course, is that federal police agencies like the FBI, DEA, and BATF have enormously expanded their jurisdictions. Director Freeh has opened FBI offices around the world in recent years; presumably his agents are involving themselves not only with international crime and terrorism, but also with wholly domestic crime in foreign countries. This deployment of hundreds of agents abroad should trouble any American concerned with the sanctity of national sovereignty. Our government hardly can expect other nations to respect our right to manage our domestic affairs when we meddle so aggressively in theirs.
     It is important to understand that the Constitution contains no express authorization for federal police agencies. Article I section 8 sets out the only federal crimes, namely counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. The Founders intended all other criminal matters to be policed by the states themselves, not by federal agencies. The unconstitutional federalization of purely state criminal matters has enabled the FBI and other federal police agencies to operate far beyond constitutional limits. Apparently the FBI now considers foreign espionage part of its mission, which mirrors the unfortunate expansion of unconstitutional foreign aid and global interventionism by Congress.
     Just as Congress abandoned the Constitution to create the domestic welfare state, so too has Congress sacrificed constitutional principles to advance the global warfare state. The use of domestic agencies to engage in international espionage demonstrates clearly the mentality of our federal politicians and bureaucrats. To them federal power is limitless, to be used without regard to constitutional restrictions. The media plays along by focusing on the lurid details of the accused agent’s activities, rather than the larger constitutional issues. In short, we should expect the federal government to continue intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. We are likely to see more spy scandals. The current news will be forgotten quickly, but similar abuses inevitably will result from our arrogant and misguided foreign policy.
     Washington politicians may not question the wisdom of using domestic federal agents to spy on our neighbors, but many Americans understand the dangers posed by having FBI agents advance an interventionist foreign policy and globalist agenda. Perhaps this latest scandal will cause some of our policy makers to reassess the proper role of our domestic police agencies and the proper approach for our foreign policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 March 2001 Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
     This week, I cast a vote in favor of President Bush’s tax cut proposal which passed the House of Representatives on Thursday. After eight years of an administration set on reckless spending increases with no regard for the hard-working taxpayer, it is refreshing to see the new President pushing for tax relief. The President’s tax plan is very straightforward. It reduces all tax rates, so everyone paying taxes will see some benefit from the plan.
     Those opposing the tax cut said that it would “cost the government too much” and hurt the economy. The truth of the matter is that the economy is hurt when the government takes money out of the paychecks of private citizens that they would otherwise spend, save or invest. The government has never created anything, much less economic prosperity. The government can only take from one and give to another.
     Only the private sector can create growth, a lesson that the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington would be wise to learn. The average American pays about 1/2 of their income in federal, state and local taxes every year. This is a clear and present danger to the liberty of the individual. We need to free people from the chains of over-taxation and allow them to go back to work for themselves instead of the government. The Bush tax plan is a step in the right direction, but we must do more to put money back into an individual’s paycheck.
     Along with reducing tax rates, we must rid ourselves of the estate tax and end the terrible practice of imposing a tax on families when a loved one dies. This tax penalizes thrift and savings, denying Americans the right to pass their property to their children. It forces the sale of many small family businesses when heirs cannot pay the estate tax bill. The estate tax simply takes money away from families and puts it in the hands of the government. There is no moral or economic justification for estate taxes and they must be eliminated.
     The capital gains tax is another onerous tax that must be removed. Like the estate tax, the capital gains tax punishes individuals for saving and investing wisely for themselves and their families. The capital gains tax was once thought of as a tax on the rich. However, with more and more Americans investing in the stock market and relying on IRA’s and 401K’s to fund their retirements, there is growing opposition to this burdensome tax that actually discourages individuals from being self-sufficient.
     Of course, the ultimate goal is the entire elimination of the federal income tax. Regardless of the rate reductions in the Bush plan, the IRS remains an uncontrolled bureaucracy. People have become so disillusioned by its current structure that support for a flat tax or a national sales tax has finally gained momentum. It is important to remember that the federal government operated for more than 130 years without an income tax. It is time to return to a simple, fair method of funding the federal government. An elimination of the income tax, however, would require a drastic reduction of spending in Washington. A responsible federal government that obeyed the limits placed on it by the Constitution could easily operate on a much smaller budget.
     Yes, it is true–I have never met a tax cut I didn’t like. The American people are over-taxed. The average person pays more to their government than they do for the combined cost of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and education in a year. The Bush tax plan is a step in the right direction, but we must continue to chip away at the tax system that threatens the freedoms and liberties of hard-working people in Texas and all over America.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 March 2001 Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
     Last week was tumultuous for worldwide stock markets, some of which ended the week at their lowest levels in years. Our own Dow-Jones and NASDAQ market indices both suffered heavy losses, while the Japanese Nikkei index fell to its lowest level since 1985! Nervous investors scrambled to sell even blue-chip holdings, especially after news that projected 2001 earnings would be lower than expected for many companies.
     The market downturn is not surprising. An economic slowdown began in 2000, accelerating in the last quarter of the year. All indications suggest the U.S. economy is headed for a further slowdown in economic growth, if not an outright recession. Already we have seen thousands of job cuts, and not only in the market-sensitive high tech sector. Economic output, as measured by the gross domestic product, dropped every quarter in 2000.
     Amazingly, some in Washington and the popular media want to blame President Bush and his administration for our current economic predicament. Never mind that growth began slowing fully one year before he took office. Apparently, certain politicians believe that the President is causing a recession merely by talking about the economic data. One prominent Congressman fretted that “we’ve been talking ourselves into this. Now it’s happening.” In other words, Mr. Bush is “talking down the economy,” making a recession more likely simply by discussing reality.
     Such thinking should be dismissed as absurd. Economic recessions are not the result of a gloomy national state of mind; if so, we could create economic prosperity simply by positive thinking. Yet basic education in economics is so badly lacking in America that many will accept this preposterous idea. The same ignorance of economic principles is behind the fallacy that capitalism is to blame for recessions, that a free market system causes an inevitable cycle of booms and busts. In reality, it is government intervention in the economy, particularly in the areas of money supply and interest rates, which creates the precarious financial bubbles that cause economic recessions.
     The Federal Reserve did two things to artificially expand the economy over the last decade. First, it relentlessly lowered interest rates whenever growth slowed. Interest rates should be set by the free market, with the availability of capital (i.e. savings) determining the cost of borrowing money. In a healthy market economy, more saving equals lower interest rates. When savings rates are low, capital dries up and the cost of borrowing increases. When interest rates are set by the market, individuals and businesses make good spending decisions, because they pay an accurate interest rate for their debts. However, when the Fed set rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. Individuals incur greater amounts of debt (evidenced by the record number of personal bankruptcies), while businesses overextend themselves and grow without real gains in productivity. The bubble bursts quickly once the credit dries up and the bills cannot be paid.
     Second, the Fed also steadily increased the monetary supply throughout the 1990s by printing money. Recent Fed numbers show yearly increases of nearly 15% in the M2 money supply. Since 1996, the Fed has poured more than $100 billion in new dollars into the U.S. economy. These new dollars may make Americans feel richer, but the net result of monetary inflation has to be the devaluation of savings and purchasing power. Prices seemed stable over the last decade, but many types of inflation were not reported as such. An obvious example is stock prices, where companies making little or no profit often sold shares at ridiculous price/earnings ratios. Housing and energy prices also rose dramatically, and wholesale price inflation is an increasing threat. So while monetary inflation creates a sense of prosperity in the short run, long-term it simply makes your dollars worth less.
     Only six months ago, market pundits were still proclaiming a new era of unending prosperity. They claimed that the fundamentals no longer mattered, that technology would save us from any more bear markets. Technology is wonderful, but it cannot save us from our own misguided monetary policies. Until we stop permitting the Fed to manipulate the economy, real prosperity will elude us. The Fed received credit for the boom times of the 1990s, yet its policies are responsible for the market correction and economic recession we are experiencing today.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 March 2001 The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
     Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
     Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
     As a physician, I cannot imagine providing my patients’ medical records to police as evidence for a criminal prosecution. Like most doctors, I adhere to a strict policy of maintaining patient confidentiality. Medical privacy has existed for centuries between doctors and patients, without government interference. However, the drug war has provided the ever-growing federal government with new justifications to invade your once-private medical history.
     Unfortunately, the drug war is not the only threat to your medical privacy. Medical privacy also is under assault by Washington health bureaucrats. The federal government wants greater access to your private medical records than ever before. On April 14, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is scheduled to implement invasive new medical rules written during the Clinton administration. The proposed rules require doctors and other health care providers to give patient records to the federal government for very broadly defined purposes and without patient consent. The rules grant law enforcement access to patient records without a search warrant. Patients will have only limited knowledge of who sees their records, and individuals will not be able to sue health care providers or the government for breaches of privacy. Ultimately, your medical history will be readily available to any government agency that wishes to create a national medical database.
     The dangers posed by these regulations are obvious. Patients will hesitate to disclose information to their doctors if they fear such information will end up in a federal database. Doctors will be unable to provide effective care when patients conceal sensitive medical problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and psychiatric problems. The HHS rules threaten to turn doctors into government agents, who are required to divulge information which ultimately could be used against their patients by federal agencies, law enforcement, and health insurers.
     I recently introduced legislation to halt implementation of the new HHS rules. The federal government has no business knowing your private medical history. Don’t believe the bureaucrats who tell us they have innocent reasons for wanting our medical records. The truth is that the federal government wants to eliminate your medical privacy, just as it has eliminated so many of your liberties.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 April 2001 Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
     Last week Congress began its annual budget debate. As usual, big-spending members from both parties took every opportunity to lobby for huge increases in their pet programs. I’m always amazed by the arrogance with which Congress proposes to spend taxpayer funds, but this year is even worse because of the tax overcharge (also known as the “surplus”). The overcharge presents Congress with an obvious opportunity to significantly cut taxes, but the spending frenzy threatens to swallow the tax relief debate. The big spenders are doing their best to confuse America into believing that the government cannot “afford” to cut taxes. In truth, they simply don’t want Congress to face even the slightest spending constraints.
     The tax cut debate is wholly separate from the budget debate. I promised the voters in my district that I would uphold the Constitution and fight to make the federal government smaller. This promise compels me to vote for all tax cuts and against all spending increases. My voting record in Congress shows that I consistently vote to reduce the size of government.
     I certainly support President Bush’s tax cut initiatives, and I will vote (or have voted) for each plank in his tax cut plan. Lowering marginal rates, eliminating the marriage penalty, abolishing the death tax–these are worthy goals for any administration. I also applaud the President for living up to his campaign promises by making these tax cuts a priority. Congress already approved marginal rate reductions and elimination of the marriage penalty; estate tax repeal legislation likely will reach the House floor in April. At this rate the President may enact his tax cut proposals by the end of the year, which would be a great accomplishment for a new administration. Certainly my own legislation would reduce taxes more drastically, but I always support any tax cut proposals as a step in the right direction. Voters in my district know that I am committed to reducing the size of the federal government, and tax reduction is an important step in returning the federal government to its proper constitutional role.
     However, the single greatest threat to our liberty in America is uncontrolled spending by Congress. Americans need to understand the stark reality behind the often boring and confusing budget rhetoric: Congress will spend nearly $2 trillion in 2002. This amount represents almost 11% more than Congress will spend in 2001. This massive spending funds an unbelievable number of federal departments, agencies, programs, and personnel. Most Americans understand that the federal government is far too large, yet most of their representatives in Congress continue to vote for spending increases every year. As a result, the same unconstitutional agencies grow, the same counterproductive programs are perpetuated, and the same military adventurism expands around the globe. In short, this spending insures that the federal government has more and more power over our lives, power never dreamed of nor intended by the authors of our Constitution. The more Congress spends, the less liberty we have.
     I particularly object to proposals to add billions to the federal Education department budget. Every year Congress spends more on education, yet our public schools continue to decline. Now Congress wants to expand the education budget by about 11%, meaning taxpayers will spend nearly $50 billion next year on more failed federal education programs. Those dollars should remain at the local level, where parents and teachers make better decisions than federal education bureaucrats.
     We hear Congress talk about smaller government, but the size of the federal budget increases each year. Huge amounts of federal spending could be eliminated if Congress adhered to the limited enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. I plan to continue my efforts during the summer appropriations process to fight for needed cuts in the bloated federal budget.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 April 2001 “Campaign Finance Reform” Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
     Last week the Senate narrowly passed the highly publicized McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. I certainly understand that many Americans are tired of the corruption in Washington, where special interest lobbies pursue their agendas at the expense (literally) of the nation’s taxpayers. Everyone knows that politicians use federal spending to reward lobbies, certain constituencies, and favored individuals. However, we must recognize that the McCain bill places restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill. The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The problem is not with campaigns, but rather with the steady shift from a relatively limited federal government to a virtually socialist system intent on huge redistributions of wealth.
     We cannot forget that the Constitution grants Congress only limited enumerated powers, and no authority to regulate campaigns is provided. In fact, Article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of any mention of campaigns is glaring. Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of campaign finance legislation based on the First amendment, but few seem to realize that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to enact such legislation.
     Constitutional questions aside, the McCain bill simply will help entrenched powers retain their stranglehold on Washington. Incumbent politicians benefit when challengers cannot spend the amounts needed to unseat them. Name recognition and incumbency are huge advantages in politics. Because contributions by individuals are limited, a challenger must find hundreds or thousands of donors to support a campaign. The incumbent can rely on a much larger base of people. This presents a tremendous obstacle for virtually any challenger candidate who lacks name recognition and elite social contacts. As a result, ordinary Americans rarely bother to run for office. Perversely, very rich Americans are more likely to enter politics because of federal limits on individual donors. Their private wealth frees them from the hard work of raising $1,000 from thousands of individuals. When the challenger spends as much as the incumbent, re-election rates are much lower. So wealthy candidates match the incumbent’s spending and often succeed in winning.
     The liberal mainstream media also benefit from campaign finance restrictions. When lobbies and individuals are limited in what they can give to campaigns and political parties, they instead will spend money on advertisements during election seasons. Media outlets relish the prospect of increased ad revenue. Although the McCain bill places restrictions just prior to elections on issue ads, which only implicitly support one party or candidate, the media know they will sell even more ads before the restriction period starts. Since the issue ad restrictions raise First amendment questions, the media also know that the Supreme Court likely will forbid such restrictions as unconstitutional. The end result is that mainstream media organizations will have more money and influence than ever before. The media will impact the outcomes of elections even more than they do today.
     Grass roots organizations and third-party candidates especially suffer when contributions are limited. Such groups are prohibited from raising needed seed money from sympathetic wealthy donors interested in funding a new political movement. Millions of voters might be attracted to a third party, but they lose interest when their candidate garners very little publicity or is not on the ballot. It is virtually impossible for grass roots campaigns and new parties to match the established parties $1,000 at a time.
     We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 April 2001 Tax Day–A National Nightmare
     The one issue that generates more complaints to my office than any other is the income tax. Everyone has an opinion about taxes. For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. Every April, Americans confess to the IRS their actions of the past year in excruciating detail. It’s an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of withholding taxes, April is the only time each year when most people realize how much money they really send the federal government.
     What do Americans have to say about the income tax? First and foremost, they think federal tax laws are far too complex. They are tired of the incomprehensible rules, schedules, and forms which take hours to complete. They believe income taxes should be much simpler and fairer. They know that deductions are created for purely political reasons, without regard to common sense or clarity. They resent the arbitrary power the IRS has over their lives, especially when it is so difficult to calculate one’s tax liability. Of course they also think taxes are too high, that government wastes taxpayer dollars with excessive and unwise spending. Some favor a flat tax, while others support a national sales tax. Some simply want deductions simplified. In short, Americans want reform. They want a new system of revenue collection, one that is simple and provides accountability. They want to know where the dollars are going.
     Yet tax reform was not a key issue in the 2000 elections. Why no push for a massive overhaul of the tax system? Why trim the edges of the tax code, when so many Americans want the whole system thrown out? Given the tremendous amount of popular support for real reform, why is Congress not clamoring for radical changes?
     The short answer, painful as it may be, is that Congress and the American people do not share the same goals. The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $1.7 trillion in the last Clinton budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.
     It is useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2 trillion, and it is obscene that such a sum is even considered. When the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will take care of itself.
     Other oppressive tax regimes have met their demise in the past, and I fear our government may be as arrogant and wasteful as any in history. Perhaps America is ready to reclaim the proud tax-fighting heritage of our Founding Fathers. I suggest the 2002 ballot box as the first battlefield. Those who support higher taxes and spending deserve to be the first political casualties.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 April 2001 Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
     The recent incident involving our spy plane in China is not without precedent. In fact, the U.S. has flown spy missions in the region for 50 years. 16 Americans died in 1956 when their Navy reconnaissance plane crashed into the China Sea under remarkably similar circumstances. When told of the tragedy, then-President Dwight Eisenhower remarked that “We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not.” Eisenhower knew that if the situation was reversed, the U.S. would have reacted even more forcefully than the Chinese. He understood that our spy flights provoked military conflict. To understand this, simply imagine the outcry for a military response today if Chinese spy planes were flying off the gulf Coast of Texas. When our intelligence gathering actually weakens national security by provoking conflict, we must rethink our policies. It is time to accept that the risk of starting a war with China outweighs the marginal benefits obtained from flying spy missions off its coasts.
     Thankfully, our airmen and women were returned safely. I applaud President Bush for his sober approach to the crisis. Certainly he felt strong pressure from both the media and many in his own administration to take military action against the Chinese. Yet he remained focused on the safe return of the crew, which had to be his first priority. I commend him for not further risking their lives to bolster his own political stature.
     Still, it is difficult to understand the policy that put the crew in harm’s way. Militarily we seem to regard China as an enemy, as evidenced by our need to spy on it. We also sell arms to its enemies, particularly Taiwan. Despite Chinese warnings that such arms sales would be viewed as an act of hostility, the Pentagon appears ready to go forward with plans to sell Taiwan very advanced weapons systems. These weapons include submarines, Apache attack helicopters, and 4 destroyer ships fitted with state of the art Aegis missile-hunting radar systems. Equipping Taiwan with such sophisticated weapons can only mean that the U.S. intends to use it as a frontline military player against China. Taiwan is perhaps a mere pawn in our foreign policy, but to China it is a hostile breakaway nation. We must understand that the Chinese view our military support for Taiwan in the same way we once viewed Soviet arming of Cuba.
     The irony is that we also subsidize the Chinese government and people through the United Nations and our own Export-Import Bank. Americans should be very concerned when their tax dollars are sent to the same regime portrayed as an enemy by our own government. We should not subsidize trade or provide foreign aid to any country, and it is folly to believe those dollars will not be used against us. We just witnessed a terrible example of the danger of foreign aid: the Chinese fighter threatening the lives of our crew carried Israeli missiles built with American aid dollars. Perhaps this incident will make more Americans aware of the perils of arming both our “friends” and our enemies.“
     The best route to a lasting peace with China is true free trade, meaning trade without government barriers, subsidies, or multinational bodies like the WTO. Mao’s China, closed from trade with the world, would have had little incentive to return our captured crew, and every incentive to use them as hostages. Today’s China, while still authoritarian, depends on America to buy billions in goods. The Chinese government thus faced political and economic pressure to settle the dispute peacefully, rather than alienate millions of American consumers. Politics aside, few countries want to go to war with their customers or their suppliers.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 April 2001 Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
     As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined “right to abortion” in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.
     Thirty years later, the pro-life fight goes on. Well-intentioned pro-life advocates supported a bill in Congress last week called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, believing it represented a step toward restoring respect for unborn life. Unfortunately, the bill does not accord any human or legal status to fetuses, but rather creates a new federal penalty for harming the mother of a fetus. The reasoning is deeply flawed: if there is to be a greater penalty for harming a pregnant woman than an ordinary woman, it must be based on the harm to the unborn child. In other words, the enhanced penalty must be for the second offense to the second human life. Yet the legislation evades this fundamental truth by refusing to recognize the fetus as a human person. So the Act is seriously flawed and will not engender new respect for unborn life.
     Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states’ rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.
     The tragic irony is that the proposed legislation specifically protects abortionists from prosecution for harming a pregnant mother and her unborn child. An attacker with no knowledge of a woman’s pregnancy receives a greater penalty for his deed, while the abortionist with full knowledge of his actions is not charged. So much for increasing respect for life.
     Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states’ rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 May 2001 The Case Against the Income Tax
     Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
     Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
     The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
     America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
     Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 May 2001 The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
     The United States recently was humiliated when the UN Economic and Social Council voted by secret ballot to remove us from the UN Human Rights Commission. Ironically, the U.S. was instrumental in establishing the commission; Eleanor Roosevelt was a founding chairman in 1946. Apparently, our fellow member states no longer consider America qualified to judge human rights violations, although brutal regimes like Sudan and Cuba remain on the commission. The U.S. also was voted off a UN counter-narcotics commission, raising questions about how other countries view our self-appointed status as the global drug policeman.
     The Congressional response to these most recent expressions of anti-American sentiment took the form of amendments to a State Department spending bill. One amendment, which passed in the House with my support, requires reinstatement of the US on the Human Rights commission before Congress pays part of nearly one billion dollars in back dues “owed” to the UN. I certainly support any measure that suspends or delays payments to the UN–I don’t want one more penny of taxpayer funds going to the global bureaucrats who hold such disdain for America. Unfortunately, the measure is largely symbolic, as it is unlikely to survive in the Senate.
     I proposed two substantive amendments to the State Department bill, both of which were rejected without debate and without a vote. One would have eliminated US funding for UN “peacekeeping” missions; the other would have eliminated US funding for worldwide abortion and family planning. These proposals were ignored because Congress does not want to address the real issue of whether we should continue to participate in an organization that serves no national interest and threatens our national sovereignty.
     A sovereign nation cannot wage war at the behest of an international body, and our Constitution expressly reserves warmaking authority to Congress. This most serious power cannot be delegated, as no treaty can supersede the legislative function of Congress. Regardless of the Orwellian doublespeak, UN “peacekeeping actions” are indeed wars. The UN sends our young soldiers to fight under its command in wars that don’t involve us. It uses our young soldiers to fight for causes deemed legitimate by international bureaucrats. It escalates deadly conflicts in places like Kosovo and Somalia by inevitably favoring one warring faction over another. More than anything, the UN violates our sovereignty by using our military might in undeclared, unconstitutional wars. My amendment could have eliminated UN war funding and restored proper command over our armed forces. Yet Congress refuses to recognize the problem and end our participation in UN military adventurism.
     Undeclared wars are only one of many threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN. The recently proposed International Criminal Court seeks to subject U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of an unconstitutional world tribunal. Our soldiers are especially at risk, as wartime actions later could be prosecuted as “crimes of aggression” or “crimes against humanity.” One amendment to the State Department bill makes a weak attempt to protect soldiers from prosecution, but the validity of the tribunal itself is not challenged. What about rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? The conflict between our national laws and a global court is clear. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would rescind U.S. approval of the ICC treaty (signed by a Clinton administration official), yet again Congress sidesteps the issue rather than address the central question of whether the Constitution permits American citizens to be brought before an international court.
     The UN unquestionably intends to exert more and more control over both our foreign and domestic policy. The UN wants to tax us, involve us in wars, determine our labor, environmental, and gun policies, and subject us to the jurisdiction of its courts. We cannot ignore this threat to our national sovereignty any longer. Congress must be held accountable whenever it unconstitutionally cedes more of its authority and our freedom to global bureaucrats.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 May 2001 Don’t Blame the Free Market for Energy Shortages
     Political pressure is mounting in Washington as gas prices rise and the California electricity shortage worsens. The national media and politicians from both parties have irresponsibly characterized the situation as an energy “crisis,”thereby generating public support for further unconstitutional and unwise federal intervention in energy markets. Washington appears to have accepted full responsibility for the California problem; hence the one-sided debate centers around a supposed need for a national energy policy. The obvious implication is that the federal government must play nanny to California or any other state which finds itself facing shortages caused by its own bad policies. Never mind that California caused its own problems by restricting supply and freezing energy prices while the population skyrocketed. The real danger is that the federal government may repeat California’s mistakes on a national level, subjecting the rest of the nation to similar shortages. The true crisis facing us is not a physical shortage of energy, but rather the looming threat that socialist economic planning will replace market mechanisms and cause unnecessary shortages.
     The worst idea coming out of Washington (with support even from some supposedly free market politicians) is that the federal government should impose price controls on energy companies that sell to California. The politically favored term is “price caps,” which sounds less authoritarian. The premise is that greedy energy companies charge California too much, so the federal government should set “reasonable” limits on wholesale prices. The accusation of price gouging is never questioned: no one considers the costs involved in producing excess capacity to sell to California. Why should electric companies sell their power at below-market rates? Is it their responsibility to correct the mistakes of California politicians? Why do we presume the federal government has any authority or credibility to determine prices and profits?
     The answer is obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of basic economics: price controls always cause shortages. When government sets a price too low, supply drops. The simplicity of this is apparent to anyone who examines a supply and demand chart, and history consistently proves the folly of centralized government price planning. Producers of energy (or any other good) make less when they are forced to sell at below-market prices. This is exactly what happened in California. Expect energy companies simply to stop selling to California if new federal price controls are imposed. It’s discouraging that basic economic fallacies are still used to justify terribly harmful government practices.
     By contrast, the market price mechanism works to insure that everyone has electricity. In a free market, increased demand naturally causes prices to rise. Two things then happen: people conserve, and supply increases. If California had not chosen to regulate the energy market, new plants would have been built to meet the needs of the growing population. Californians still would have seen price increases, but they would have had a strong economic incentive to conserve energy. Over time, new energy providers seeking to profit from the demand and price increases would have gradually increased supply and driven prices down. Instead, California capped prices and restricted supply. This summer’s blackouts will be the direct result of this exceedingly misguided policy.
     Free markets work. Government, not markets or deregulation, causes the economic woes we face today. Free markets insure that supply and demand are evenly matched, preventing shortages. Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, free markets always promote conservation by increasing the price of precious resources as they become scarcer. Advocates of socialist central planning in Washington may claim to have the solutions to energy shortages, but in truth market forces cannot be ignored any more than the laws of physics. Americans who want to continue to enjoy uninterrupted energy supplies should oppose any federal regulation of energy markets.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 May 2001 The Federal Education Morass
     After more than 40 years of massive federal education spending, the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever. Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in Washington.
     Politically correct sensitivity training substitutes for rigorous coursework in liberal arts or practical vocations. Children learn phony self-esteem, rather than the importance of productive achievement. Teachers are prohibited from maintaining discipline. As a result, our high school graduates enter adulthood less educated and less prepared for responsibility than previous generations. Obviously, ever-increasing federal control over our schools has failed the nation’s children and lowered educational standards.
     Yet while the need for new policies in Washington has never been greater, the approach unfortunately remains the same: more federal spending and more federal control. Last week Congress passed legislation that massively increases funding for failed Education department programs. Although the bill was widely hailed as bipartisan, the truth is that it contained mostly liberal measures promoted by Democratic members of Congress. Key Republican provisions such as school vouchers and unconditional flexibility for local school districts were not included. Regardless of the party stamp, the bill clearly represents a big-spending, big government plan that will only serve to further entrench the wasteful federal education monopoly.
     The bill increases the Education department budget by a whopping 22 percent–more than even the liberals had hoped. The $9.2 billion increase brings the total department budget to more than $50 billion. No one mentions the high tax rates we all pay to finance this spending. We must remember that every dollar parents send to Washington is a dollar they don’t have to spend directly on their children’s education. Most education tax dollars sent to Washington fund the federal bureaucracy; far less than half of each dollar is ever returned to local schools. More importantly, federal school dollars come with strings attached. The more money we give to education bureaucrats, the more power they have to dictate how local schools are run. When federal spending increases, local schools are forced to do whatever it takes to get their share, even if this means adopting one size fits all policies mandated in Washington. In other words, federal money is used as a club to force schools to surrender more and more of their decision making authority to Washington.
     I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in America is returning local control back to our public schools. I have introduced three education tax credit bills which keep more tax dollars and more decision making power at the local level. The first provides parents with a $3,000 per child credit for educational expenses, including tuition, books, computers, and tutors. The second allows parents or individuals to claim up to $3,000 in tax credits for cash or in-kind donations to schools and scholarship programs. The third bill grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their salaries without spending tax dollars. All three of these measures share the same goal of insuring that parents, rather than federal education bureaucrats, decide how their children are educated.
     Congress never seems to learn that Washington does not know what is best for kids. While both parties claim to stand for education, their bureaucratic approach should no longer be tolerated by American education consumers. American parents will spend generously on their children’s education, but Congress must be willing to lower tax burdens and ease the federal stranglehold on education that has destroyed our public schools.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 June 2001 Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
     Last week, a divided Supreme Court declined to hear a potentially landmark case that has tremendous significance to religious believers in this country. The small town of Elkhart, Indiana, has a granite stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments in front of a city building. Predictably, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the decades-old stone removed. City officials fought the case in federal court, but lost at the appellate level. Although Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas disagreed, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case and let the ruling stand. The fate of the stone now lies with a lower federal judge, who undoubtedly will order it removed despite the wishes of Elkhart city officials and local residents. Ironically, the same Ten Commandments deemed so objectionable by the ACLU are depicted in the very Supreme Court building where the decision not to consider the Elkhart case was made! How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
     The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear–Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any “separation of church and state”, although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
     Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
     The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government’s business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
     The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 June 2001 The Bush Tax Cut
     Last week President Bush signed into law the tax cut bill that ultimately emerged as a compromise between competing political interests in the House and Senate. I voted for and fully support the tax reductions contained in the bill, and I appreciate the President’s efforts in making tax relief the first priority in his new administration. However, I am disappointed that Congress was unable to pass far more significant and immediate tax relief. Unfortunately, big spenders from both parties worked hard to characterize the tax cut as a “gift” from government to American taxpayers, as though the money belongs to Congress! These pro-tax politicians believe every penny of the bloated $2 trillion federal budget is essential to their beloved pork programs, hence they always argue that “we” cannot afford a tax cut. Millions of American families, however, certainly can afford a tax cut that leaves more money in their paychecks. So while the final bill passed last week represents a political compromise, I believe there is broad public support outside Washington for much larger tax reductions. Congress should not allow the wasteful spenders to prevent passage of further needed tax cut legislation over the coming months.
     My office has received numerous phone calls and letters asking questions about the specifics of the tax law changes, so a summary of the major provisions may be helpful.
     Individual income tax rates will be reduced slightly over the next five years. The new rate structure eventually will be 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. These rate reductions are very important and should be much larger. Despite the dishonest rhetoric about the benefits of the tax bill going only to the rich, the truth is that high rates for the wealthiest taxpayers leave those individuals with less money to spend and invest. The tax surplus (the result of overtaxing) makes the current economic slowdown much worse, because billions of potential investment dollars are tied up in Treasury coffers. Marginal rate reductions are needed to spur investment and economic activity, but the new rates should have been made retroactive to immediately jump-start our nation’s struggling businesses.
     The marriage tax penalty is reduced over the next decade by ultimately increasing the standard deduction for married couples to twice the deduction for individuals. Similarly, the size of the 15% bracket for married couples is increased to twice the size of the same bracket for singles. On a very positive note, the child credit will be increased over the next 10 years from its present $500 to $1000. This increase will allow American parents to keep more money to spend on their own families.
     Long overdue pension and IRA reform finally has become law. The paltry $2000 IRA contribution increases incrementally to $5,000 by 2008, when it then is indexed for inflation each year. Likewise, the contribution limit for 401(k) and similar pension plans increases from the current $10,500 to $15,000. Americans over 50 are permitted to make larger “catch-up” contributions to both IRAs and 401(k)s. While I certainly believe individuals should be able to deduct unlimited amounts invested in retirement plans, it’s encouraging that Congress finally raised the contribution amounts established decades ago.
     The destructive estate tax gradually will be phased out over the coming decade. The amount an individual may own at death without being subject to the tax increases to $1 million in 2002, $1.5 million in 2004, and $2 million in 2006, while the outrageous top rate of 55% decreases gradually to 45% over the same period. After 2010, the estate tax will be fully repealed. Although I co-sponsored a bill to end the estate tax immediately, retroactive to January 2001, I am pleased that Congress finally is moving toward ending this most counterproductive and immoral tax.
     Finally, most Americans who paid taxes in 2000 will receive advance payment refunds intended to give them the benefit of the new brackets had they been in place for 2001. Individuals will receive up to $300; married couples filing jointly will receive up to $600. This refund is not taxable income for federal tax purposes, although some states will apply their own taxes. Thankfully, Texas has no state income tax! With a return to constitutional government, Texans and all Americans could enjoy life without federal income taxes as well.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 June 2001 Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
     The vast majority of Americans want and expect their medical records to be kept strictly confidential. Recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose giving government the power to create a national health database or issue health ID numbers. People instinctively understand that federal databases and ID numbers only serve to destroy personal privacy by making it easier for both government and the private sector to access their private medical history. Yet federal bureaucrats at the department of Health and Human Services, with the help of Congress, have succeeded in implementing regulations which place every American’s medical records in the hands of the government. Worst of all, they have done so while claiming to protect our privacy! Only in Washington can so-called “medical privacy” regulations actually authorize such blatant invasions of privacy by the government.
     The most dangerous aspect of the new regulations is the implementation of a national medical record database. All health care providers, including private physicians, insurance companies, and HMOs, will be forced to use a standard data format for patient records. Once standardized information is entered into a networked government database, it will be virtually impossible to prevent widespread dissemination of that information. If the federal government really seeks to protect medical privacy, why it is so eager to have its citizens’ medical records easily available in one centralized database? The truth is that a centralized database will make it far easier for both government agencies and private companies to access your health records.
     HHS officials have sought to reassure the public that the new rules require patient consent before physicians may release medical information. Unfortunately, however, the consent protection has very limited effect. First, your physician likely will refuse to treat you if you decline consent to share your records. This is almost certain to happen, because heavy fines (and even jail sentences!) will be imposed on physicians who don’t exactly follow the new regulations. Furthermore, there are very broad exceptions to the consent rule for ill-defined categories such as “oversight of the health care system,” “public health,” “law enforcement activities,” “judicial and administrative proceedings,” and “national defense and security.” These exceptions give the government almost unlimited justifications to access your private records not only without your consent, but also without your knowledge. The law enforcement exception is particularly troubling, because the 4th Amendment clearly prohibits warrantless searches of medical records by government officials. So while on the surface the new rules may seem to give patients some control, the reality is that the consent protection is largely meaningless.
     We should remember that private physicians have maintained patient privacy for centuries without government involvement, relying instead on personal conviction, the Hippocratic Oath, and professional standards. Patients once knew without question that anything they told their doctor would remain confidential. However, the physician/patient relationship is certain to change for the worse when control over patient records is transferred from medical professionals to government agencies. When patients know that their sensitive medical information will be turned over to government agencies or placed in a national database, they inevitably will be less open and honest when seeking medical care. Patients with drug and alcohol problems, mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, or other stigmatized health concerns will be especially reluctant to seek treatment. The inevitable result will be a decline in the standard of care delivered by doctors and an increase in health care costs.
     As a physician, I have vigorously opposed the new HHS rules since they first were proposed by the Clinton administration. I introduced legislation earlier this year to prevent their implementation, but unfortunately the deadline for Congress to act on my bill expired last week. However, the fight is not lost, as the rules do not become legally enforceable until 2003. Congress still has time to pass new legislation which prohibits the federal government from gathering your private medical information. I urge every American concerned with medical privacy and quality health care to join me in the fight to keep government out of our medical records.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 June 2001 End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
     Last week the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Representative stated: “We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.
     I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked–when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
     Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these areas. The department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.
     Still, support for sanctions continues in Congress. The House International Relations committee last week considered legislation that will extend existing economic sanctions against Iran and Libya for another 5 years. While I certainly oppose this legislation, I did agree with the President that we should at least limit the time period to 2 years, so that Congress could reassess the policy sooner. I introduced an amendment to this effect, but the majority of committee members voted to continue “punishing” Iran and Libya for 5 years; presumably some members would agree to maintain sanctions indefinitely. Interestingly, the bill focuses on preventing oil exploration and development in the region, even when new sources of oil are sorely needed to reduce prices at the pump for American consumers.
     I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein’s rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America’s position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 July 2001 “Patients Bill of Rights” or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
     For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of privately-funded charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans once paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than a third-party insurance company or government program. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. Somehow, however, the clear connection between government involvement in medicine and the decline in our once-proud healthcare system has been lost in the current debate.
     Today most Americans obtain health care either through an HMO or similar managed-care organization, or through government Medicare and Medicaid. Since it is very hard to make actuarial estimates for routine health care, HMOs charge most members a similar monthly premium. Because HMOs always want to minimize their costs, they often deny payment for various drugs, treatments, and procedures. Similarly, Medicare does not have unlimited funds, so it generally covers only a portion of any costs. The result of this system is that doctors and patients cannot simply decide what treatment is appropriate; instead, they constantly find themselves being second-guessed by HMO accountants and government bureaucrats. When a third party is paying the bills and malpractice lawsuits loom, doctors have every incentive to maximize costs and order all possible tests and treatments. At the same time, patients suffer when legitimate needed treatment is denied. HMOs have become a corporate, bureaucratic middleman in the healthcare system, driving up costs while undeniably degrading the quality of our medical care.
     So what should we do about the HMO mess? Before we call for government action, we should recognize that the federal government has virtually mandated HMOs on the American people First, the tax code excludes health insurance from taxation when purchased by an employer, but not when purchased by an individual. Second, the HMO Act of 1973 forced all but the smallest employers to offer HMOs to their employees. So while many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking managed care is on record in the 1970s lauding HMOs as “effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality.” As usual, government intervention in the private market has caused unintended consequences, but Washington blames only the HMOs themselves–not the laws that created them.
     Not surprisingly, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill now calling for a so-called “patients bill of rights” don’t want to abolish the HMO mandate. Instead, more government is proposed to fix the problem. Congress wants to micromanage the system, deciding what treatments and drugs should be paid for by health insurers. Congress also wants to create new rules allowing lawsuits against employers when the HMO refuses treatment to an employee! Surely the trial lawyers will support the new laws, but Americans certainly should understand that more federal involvement will only increase the cost of health insurance for everyone. Undoubtedly, lower-paid workers will find themselves completely uninsured when their premiums increase beyond affordable levels. The truth is that any new legislation will only serve to increase government involvement in our health care system, to the detriment of us all. Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a socialized medicine system. It’s politically expedient to slap a “patients rights” label on legislation which simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine.
     We can hardly blame the market for our current healthcare woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and patient responsibility keeping costs down. Government has neither the constitutional authority nor the wisdom to determine appropriate contract terms between individuals and health insurers. Congress needs to abolish the HMO mandate and allow favorable tax treatment for individuals paying for health care directly. Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which are tax-deductible and tax-exempt accounts used to pay medical expenses, should be made available to all Americans. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. No “patients bill of rights” will help us when the money runs out.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 July 2001 UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace
     Former Yugoslav President Milosevic appeared last week before the UN war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands, despite his insistence that the court has no authority to prosecute him. UN leaders, particularly those from NATO aligned countries, have been eager to promote his arrest and pending trial as a victory for international peace. The problem, however, is that longstanding ethnic feuds in the region (both the former Yugoslavia and northern Greece) have not been resolved. The west can congratulate itself that Milosevic has been removed from power, but it cannot guarantee that the vacuum will not be filled by another equally bloodthirsty leader.
     UN-initiated wars, even when followed by UN war crimes trials, cannot simply create peace in troubled nations. Time and time again, we have witnessed the folly of intervening in the domestic conflicts of sovereign countries. The US did so in Korea and Vietnam with disastrous results, and now the UN has supplanted the US as the world’s policeman (although largely with US tax dollars). Kosovo undoubtedly will not be the last example of this pattern of UN “peacekeeping,” where the UN chooses sides in a domestic war, intensifies the conflict, engineers a winner, and puts the loser on trial. Yet history demonstrates that respecting the sovereignty of individual nations does far more to promote peace than military intervention, even when such intervention is undertaken for humanitarian reasons. Nations have every right to criticize and denounce foreign governments, but they have no right to initiate aggression against such governments simply because they muster up a gang of allies who share their view. The UN, as a collective body, cannot make moral acts of aggression that clearly would be immoral if initiated by a single nation.
     We should recognize that the Yugoslav people themselves are far more ambivalent about the Milosevic trial. In fact, the CNN bureau chief in Belgrade recently characterized the local reaction as mixed, stating that most Serbs would have preferred to see Milosevic tried in a Serbian court, for crimes such as embezzlement and corruption against the Serb people. He also stated that many Serbian people see themselves as victims of NATO and UN aggression, and that most feel the tribunal in the Hague is biased against Serbs. In fact, he states that most feel the recent pledge of money from western nations for rebuilding was simply a direct pay-off for Milosevic’s extradition. So while the UN loves to congratulate itself as the world’s peacemaker, it rarely is viewed that way by the citizens it claims to have rescued from their own corrupt leaders. Most people understandably resent having foreign armies invade their countries to determine the outcome of disputes within their own borders. We cannot expect nations defeated by UN armies to simply accept the subsequent verdicts rendered against them in UN war crimes courts.
     We also should not deceive ourselves that the rest of the world necessarily will accept UN-ordained outcomes in future conflicts. The Chinese reportedly have criticized the Milosevic trial as evidence of western desire to assert hegemonic power and interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. One high-ranking Chinese leader flatly accused “hostile foreign powers” of using the pretext of international humanitarianism to interfere in domestic Chinese matters. The UN is a highly political body, and it is naive to believe that it does not favor certain national interests over others. Violent conflicts inevitably will arise when some nations refuse to accept the UN role as the arbiter of the world’s geo-political conflicts.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 July 2001 UN Plans for Global Gun Control
     A UN conference on small arms trading began last week in New York, with the goal of creating global standards for the manufacture, sale, export, and possession of guns. While UN spokesmen claim that any proposals arising from the conference will not be legally binding, the organization’s own website details an earlier conference in Vienna (March 2001) where delegates agreed to a “ legally binding protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms” (italics added). Furthermore, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been outspoken in advocating global gun laws, even proposing that small arms be supplied to governments only, and not individuals (as though governments use weapons wisely!). So it’s obvious that the UN ultimately seeks to impose global gun control on individuals everywhere, despite any benign rhetoric. Clearly, every American who cares about the 2nd Amendment and the steady erosion of gun rights should be very concerned by this latest UN outrage.
     The gun control conference merely represents the newest UN threat to our national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly requires Congress to enact U.S. domestic laws. No treaty or international agreement can transfer this legislative power from Congress to UN bureaucrats, and the 2nd Amendment plainly prohibits restrictions on private gun ownership by U.S. citizens. Yet the trend toward unconstitutional international laws already is firmly established. The UN wants to generate the same acceptance for global gun laws that it has established for global environmental and labor laws. As the global government trend intensifies, the conflicts between internationalism and sovereign constitutional government will only increase. The UN gun control conference provides Congress and the American people with an opportunity to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment over the dictates of global gun-grabbers.
     The role of small arms in defending against aggression should not be overlooked. Gun control proponents like to characterize light weapons as ineffective in wartime, but history proves they are critical to the self-defense of nations. For example, badly outnumbered and outgunned Afghan rebels succeeded in creating havoc for the massive invading Soviet army using only light rifles and even handguns. By contrast, Jewish civilians in Germany who had been stripped of all weapons were unable to mount any resistance to Hitler’s terror. UN gun control advocates ignore history when they attempt to link guns only with crime, and never with heroic resistance to tyranny.
     The simple truth is that the UN is not concerned with our Constitution or our system of government. It is concerned only with expanding its power. It’s hardly surprising that global government planners seek to impose global gun control, because disarmed nations will be that much easier to rule. Remember, the UN has much more power today than anyone could have imagined 50 years ago. So while it may seem far-fetched today that the UN could ever force U.S. citizens to turn over their arms, the current gun control conference could be planting the seed for such tyranny in decades to come. UN supporters like to ridicule the notion that the UN represents the beginning of one-world government, but what other label can be applied to an organization that seeks global laws, global courts, centralized legislative power, and a worldwide army?

Texas Straight Talk, 23 July 2001 Congress Sends Billions Overseas
     Congress recently plunged headlong into its summer appropriations period, making decisions about how to spend nearly two trillion dollars in 2002. Every year, Congress considers 13 massive appropriations bills that fund the federal government, and every year I’m amazed by the staggering amounts spent. The real problem, of course, is that so much of the spending funds agencies and programs not authorized in the Constitution. I especially object to foreign aid spending, which clearly is unconstitutional under the enumerated powers clause. In short, Congress has zero authority to send your tax dollars overseas, and the Founders would be dismayed by the extent of our intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. Yet few in Congress or the media ever question the wisdom of sending literally billions of U.S. tax dollars overseas.
     Last week Congress approved two separate appropriations measures that fund the State department and various foreign operations. Both are replete with foreign aid spending that either fails to achieve policy goals or actually harms American interests. The carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy never works; we only end up with dependent allies and increasingly hostile enemies (who resent our failure to fund them). The State department bill contained nearly $1.7 billion in UN funding; $844 million for U.S. dues payments, and $850 million for so-called “peacekeeping”operations, which really are acts of war. I offered amendments to block this UN funding, which were supported by more than 60 of my colleagues. However, far more support is needed to end U.S. taxpayer funding of that most anti-American organization.
     The foreign operations bill similarly sends a whopping $15.2 billion overseas. Here are just a few examples of how your money is being spent:

$2.8 billion for Israel, and $2 billion for Egypt. Our ongoing aid to both Israel and various PLO countries only serves to intensify the conflict in the region. U.S. money has been instrumental in the incredible militarization of Israel. Why are we fanning the flames of this ancient conflict?
$676 million to continue the failed drug war in Colombia. Time and time again, we have seen our drug interdiction escalate violence in Latin American countries. Our military aid could easily spark a war.
$768 million for the former Soviet republics, which are politically unstable and armed with the nuclear arsenal of the USSR.
$600 million for Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo, despite the failure of our previous UN-led intervention in the region.
$90 million for electric power plant construction in North Korea. Why are we building power plants for brutal communist dictatorships?
Millions for Iraq, Cambodia, and Sudan, all of which have oppressive governments. Do we really think the citizens will get the money?
$1.4 billion for the IMF and World Bank, which simply make bad loans to questionable governments at U.S. taxpayer expense.
$753 million for the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes big U.S. corporations by giving risky loans to foreign buyers of American exports, again at the expense of taxpayers.

     It’s ironic that Congress is sending more money abroad even as the U.S. economy limps toward recession. Those foreign aid dollars should have been returned to taxpayers to spend, save, invest, or donate to charity. In the fight against big government, we should start by demanding that Congress abide by the Constitution and stop sending U.S. taxpayer funds overseas.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 July 2001 Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
     Congress recently considered several trade-related measures containing massive subsidies for American corporations that sell their products overseas. For example, the Export-Import bank received more than $750 million in appropriations funding last week. The biggest beneficiary of this money is China, which has used Ex-Im funds to build nuclear power plants, expand its state-run airline, and even build steel factories that compete directly with our own struggling domestic steel industry. Undoubtedly the American companies who benefit from contracts with China are happy with these trade subsidies, but American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for corporate welfare that simply benefits some politically favored interests. I introduced an amendment to completely defund the Ex-Im bank, because true free trade cannot flourish when subsidies interfere with healthy market competition. Unfortunately, however, the debate in Washington tends to focus on which nations and companies should be subsidized, rather than whether American taxpayers should pay for trade subsidies at all.
     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.
     The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes–I want to get the federal government out of your pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.
     When Congress attempts to punish certain nations by imposing tariffs on their products, it really simply punishes average Americans who end up paying more for the goods they buy every day. Tariffs especially harm the poorest American families, who spend roughly half of their income on just two things: food and clothes. These basic necessities are the most highly-taxed items imported into the United States. Of course many families don’t realize that they pay very high import tariffs, because the taxes are buried in the cost of everyday items. Yet estimates show that most poor families pay $1,100 annually because of import taxes. So while it’s easy for Congress to impose self-righteous tariffs as a political statement, we forget that our own poorest citizens pay the real price.
     Finally, I always oppose trade sanctions against foreign nations. Sanctions are terribly ineffective foreign policy tools that harm the people, rather than the governments, of nations we hold in disfavor. Sanctions also hurt American exporters, including Texas farmers, who are prohibited from selling their products overseas. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed sanctions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in those nations. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I recently voted to against continued trade sanctions against Iran and Libya, and I have introduced legislation to end our trade embargo against Cuba. All Americans benefit from both sides of the free trade equation, and Congress should not interfere with exports any more than it should tax imports.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 August 2001 Congress Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
     The intensifying debate over cloning reached the House floor last week, in the form of legislation that not only bans the practice, but also criminalizes it. Meanwhile, the President has indicated that he soon will set forth a national policy regarding stem cell research. The controversy surrounding these issues certainly is understandable, as both involve very difficult and profound moral, legal, ethical, and religious questions. It is a mistake, however, to assume that the answers to these ethical dilemmas can be provided by Congress or the President. The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide a monolithic solution to the cloning and stem cell debates is not only misguided, but also not in keeping with our Constitution. Remember, the republic was established to allow very decentralized, local decision making by states. Because the cloning and stem cell issues are so complex, we should not expect a blanket federal edict to resolve them without further dividing the American people.
     In America, the President does not act as a king. The executive does not have the authority to declare stem cell research legal or illegal, valid or invalid. So it’s disheartening to hear the media tell us that the President will decide “whether to allow stem cell research.” Our society has become too focused on federal approaches to every perceived societal ill, while ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
     Morally complex issues require flexible approaches. The states have successfully dealt with the capital punishment issue for decades without an overriding federal law. The states also crafted their own abortion laws until 1973. Cloning and stem cell research issues likewise should be determined at the state level. Congress forgets that the Constitution grants only certain limited powers to federal lawmakers, reserving all other matters for the states under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, the constitutional approach would be to allow a mixture of moral standards, medical ethics, and local laws to determine the permissibility of cloning or stem cell research in each particular state. Unfortunately, however, neither political party has paid much attention to the Constitution during this debate, preferring instead to focus only on federal mandates and federal funding. No mention is made of states rights, even though state governments would do a much better job of reflecting local sentiment on these ethical issues.
     First and foremost, we should insist that no federal funding be used for cloning or stem cell research. Most people don’t realize that much of the cloning research performed to date has been funded with federal tax dollars. We can’t know whether private money would have been spent in the same manner, because federal funding reduces the incentive for private companies to invest their own research dollars–especially when there is no guarantee that cloning technology will produce worthwhile results. Indeed, my own suspicion as a medical doctor is that the potential benefits of cloning have been overblown. So cloning almost certainly would not be the pressing issue it is today if the federal government had not become involved in the first place. Now, of course, Congress wants to ban the very thing it has been funding for years.
     It is especially immoral to force Americans who oppose cloning and stem cell research to fund those activities with their tax dollars. Apparently Congress has not learned from the abortion debate that forcing taxpayers to fund very controversial programs creates tremendous resentment and dissension. In a free society, citizens are not forced to support practices that they abhor. Congress should remain neutral by following a strict policy of not subsidizing research, which encourages private funding while respecting the rights of those who do not want to pay for practices that offend their moral or religious sensibilities.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 August 2001 Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
     Are the political beliefs of churchgoers the business of the IRS? Not according to North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, who recently introduced legislation that addresses the very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches that engage in conservative political activity. Specifically, the bill changes the tax code to clarify that no church or religious organization will lose its tax-exempt status because it participates in political campaigns or works to influence legislation. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector. The “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” (HR 2357) will end this political favoritism and government interference with free speech. I’m pleased to report that the Act already has been sponsored by more that 50 members of Congress.
     The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any “separation of church and state,” yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine. The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never intended a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
     Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths. The collectivist left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. People of faith tend to put their religious convictions ahead of any allegiance to the government, particularly when that government displays such hostility towards religion in general. In other words, the collectivists fear that some Americans’ deeply held religious beliefs will stand in the way of the continued growth of secular big government. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
     The Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of “politics.” We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 August 2001 What Happened to the Surplus?
     The congressional budget office recently released figures showing that the projected federal budget surplus for this year will be $75 billion less than originally forecast. Some economists and politicians believe the federal government could slip into deficit spending in 2002, and that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds could be threatened if revenues do not increase. Yet the facts about federal revenues and spending are often obscured in the debate, and the reality of government irresponsibility goes unreported.
     First, any budget surplus is a single-year surplus only. The federal government remains trillions of dollars in debt, and interest payments on that debt represented a whopping 17% of all federal spending in 2000. So we should not kid ourselves that the federal government is fiscally stable simply because a booming economy greatly increased federal revenues over the last few years.
     Furthermore, even the single-year surpluses are illusory when we consider that the Clinton administration raided Social Security and Medicare funds to claim a balanced budget. In reality, even the record revenues of the 1990s could not keep pace with the voracious spending appetites of Congress and the administration. So Social Security and Medicare funds were moved around to cover the difference between what was collected and what was spent each year. These unconscionable raids on your retirement and health care dollars should never be allowed, yet the practice has become commonplace in Washington. The sad truth is that the so-called Social Security and Medicare trust funds do not really exist at all, and taxpayers have every reason to be anxious about the future viability of both systems. Many Americans still believe that the FICA portion of taxes withheld from their paychecks has been set aside for them, but in fact the government holds nothing but IOUs that depend completely on future revenues. Congress and the administration should be forced to keep Social Security and Medicare funds completely separate before ever declaring that the budget is balanced.
     Some want to blame the shrinking surplus on the modest Bush tax cut, but declining revenues cannot be the result of rate reductions that do not take effect until 2002. Others point to the slowing economy as the source of the problem, as federal revenues for 2001 are expected to be $50 to $75 billion less than 2000. Yet the real reason the supposed surplus is disappearing is quite simple: Congress spends far too much. In fact, Congress will spend nearly $2 trillion in 2002, 11% more than it spent in 2001. Until the spending spree is brought under control, we should fully expect Congress to exceed its budget and resort to accounting tricks year after year.
     American voters should understand that Congress will always find a way to spend every last dollar sent to Washington. Remember, politicians get votes by promising everything to everyone, always at the expense of some other invisible taxpayers. Most politicians are unashamed of their unconstitutional pork-barrel spending, even highlighting during campaigns their “accomplishment” of spending more and more of your money. The federal government cannot maintain a budget surplus any more than an alcoholic can leave a fresh bottle of whiskey untouched in the cupboard. We must change our perception that a budget surplus is healthy for the economy, because every dollar parked in the federal treasury ultimately is spent by Congress. Those dollars could have been spent, saved, or invested in the private marketplace. With a spendthrift Congress, high federal revenues simply mean more federal spending. The only way to end the unconscionable waste is to drastically reduce federal revenues by cutting taxes. Voters need to regain control of the nation’s finances by rejecting the big spenders at the ballot box.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 August 2001 Congressional Spending Threatens your Retirement Decades of Waste are Responsible for the Threat to Social Security
     President Bush has been criticized in recent weeks over forecasts that the federal budget surplus will be smaller than expected at the end of 2001. Some in Congress and the media have even attempted to assert that the president’s modest tax cut is somehow threatening the Social Security trust fund! This is preposterous–the economic slowdown causing the decline in federal revenues unquestionably began in the last year of the Clinton administration. The hypocrisy of the president’s critics is especially galling when so many of the same politicians are the biggest spenders in Congress. After all, it is their massive unconstitutional spending which is the real threat to your Social Security dollars.
     Unfortunately, the American people have been misled about how Congress spends Social Security funds. When FDR implemented the system in the 1930s, it was touted as a sensible pension plan for the working class. Most believed that Congress would put their money away for them, let it grow, and pay them a monthly retirement benefit roughly comparable to a private pension plan. In other words, the system was supposed to be a retirement savings plan, not a tax. It certainly was not supposed to serve as a massive slush fund for Congress.
     The problem, however, is that Social Security is not run like a private pension plan–it’s run like a pyramid scheme by a Congress that cannot stop spending. Every dollar collected is spent. There is no account full of money with your name on it–indeed, the Social Security trust fund exists only on paper. Your federal retirement benefits are nothing more than a Treasury department IOU. The money withheld from your paycheck goes to pay current retirees–and there’s no guarantee that revenues will exist to pay your benefits when you retire.
     The spendthrift Congress also raids Social Security to pay for a wide variety of completely unrelated pork barrel programs. In fact, this practice has become commonplace over the last decade. Congress consistently wants to spend more than the Treasury collects in general revenues each year, even in boom times when revenues are very high. At the same time, every administration is eager to claim a balanced budget. So Congress uses simple accounting tricks and spends your retirement dollars to fund an ever-growing list of programs, agencies, and federal employees. This practice amounts to nothing more than stealing from our nation’s senior citizens, who spent their entire working lives paying into the Social Security system.
     Fortunately, however, the public has become aware of the unconscionable spending of their Social Security dollars. Congress finally passed “Lockbox” legislation last year, although many members undoubtedly jumped on the bandwagon only when public pressure and scrutiny became intense. I’m pleased that the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union named me as one of only seven in Congress who voted not to spend even one penny of Social Security funds on other government programs in 1999 and 2000.
     When your Social Security payments are spent rather than saved, the viability of the entire system is threatened. We need to understand that the nation’s demographics do not bode well for the future. The World War II generation has a much larger generation below it (the baby boomers) paying into the system. However, 20 years from now the situation will begin to be reversed, with millions of retired boomers relying on a much smaller generation of workers. Those same boomers also can be expected to live longer than any previous generation, putting further strain on the system. It’s time to reexamine the system and force Congress to keeps its hands off of Social Security revenues. Remember, you deserve to get back every penny you pay into Social Security over decades of your working life.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 September 2001 The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
     Last week Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan discussed the state of the US economy during a conference held in Wyoming. He was quite candid in his admission that the economic outlook remains gloomy, especially given the sobering numbers recently released in the media. Economic growth, measured by GDP, has fallen to .2%, the lowest in 8 years–meaning the economy is nearly in a recession. The Dow and Nasdaq averages suffered losses throughout August. Consumer spending, supposedly the one bright spot in the outlook, is also wavering. American families undoubtedly know first-hand that the job market is very shaky, and it was only a matter of time until purchases of new houses, cars, and retail goods declined. A tumble in the real estate markets may be the last straw that sends the economy into a tailspin.
     All of these economic problems have developed despite the massive interest rate-cutting measure taken by the Fed over the past two years. Chairman Greenspan has cut interest rates 7 times in 2001 alone, most recently in mid-August. However, the markets have not responded, and Wall Street continues to pressure the Fed to reduce rates even more. This trend developed steadily throughout the 1990’s–each time the economy showed signs of a downturn, the Fed cut rates. Yet it is becoming apparent that this practice cannot work forever, and that every short-term fix simply puts off the inevitable painful correction that must follow.
     The Japanese economy provides a vivid example of the futility of manipulating interest rates. Japan’s central bank began cutting rates more than a decade ago, but the country remains mired in a stagnant economy. Ultimately, interest rates were cut to zero, where they have remained for several years. This rate-cutting has failed to stimulate the economy, however. The Nikkei stock market index remains at 1980s levels, while Japanese unemployment recently reached 5%, the highest rate in decades. The Japanese experience should tell us that prosperity cannot be created out of thin air by a central bank.
     Still, while some in America have begun to challenge the wisdom of Alan Greenspan, few seem to question the concept of the Fed bank itself. In fact, the financial and political press never discuss the dangers of a fiat currency system managed by a centralized bank. Remember, every time the Fed cuts interest rates, it expands the amount of money in the economy. Economists have a simple word for this increase in the money supply: inflation. Inflation means your money has less buying power and your retirement savings are worth less. Yet we never hear the Fed criticized for its inflationary measures–on the contrary, Greenspan was widely praised throughout the 1990s as the all-knowing sage responsible for the good times.
     The truth is that the good times may be coming to an end. The Fed, far from being our savior, is actually the cause of the current economic troubles. The Fed’s easy credit policies flooded the economy with cheap money over the last decade, but the bills are coming due. With lots of artificial investment capital in the marketplace, businesses and individuals spent with less discipline and incurred more debt. The stock market became wildly overvalued, with many companies trading at outrageous prices. We should expect both personal and business bankruptcies to continue to climb as the bubble bursts.
     In a truly free society, interest rates should be set by the market. The laws of supply and demand work better than any government bureaucrat in determining the correct cost of money, and without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution. The turbulent period we are entering may serve to remind Americans that the Fed cannot suspend the laws of economics. The key to lasting prosperity is a return to true private banking, where interest rates are set by the free market and dollars are backed by gold.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 September 2001 Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
     Most liberty-minded Americans already know that the United Nations seeks to impose global government on all of us in the future, but now the organization is attempting to rewrite the past as well. Its recent week-long “World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance” demonstrates just how broadly the UN views its own authority. Even though the stated goals of the conference–to map out an international strategy to combat racism and right the wrongs of the past–might seem laughably far-fetched, it’s unsettling to think that the conference might be setting a precedent for more UN expansion and more phony international laws.
     The idea that certain countries should pay reparations to compensate for the ills of slavery and colonialism cannot be taken seriously. First, it’s clearly impossible to determine exactly who was harmed and who benefitted from past actions, with so many generations having passed since the times in question. The vast majority of Americans for example, have no connection whatsoever to slave owners. Furthermore, who decides what wrongs are corrected? If we go back 100 or 200 years, why not 500 years? Once reparations lawsuits are allowed, the potential liabilities are endless. The only real beneficiaries of the reparations furor are the UN and the trial lawyers.
     Of course a serious rift developed at the conference between the Israelis and the Palestinians over a proposed condemnation of Israel’s recent attacks on Arab settlers. Once again the United States was caught in the middle of this ancient conflict, both sides of which we already militarize with billions in foreign aid. If the UN really is so effective at promoting peace, why are some of its own member nations at war with one another? The Arab/Israeli conflict is a clear example of how global government not only fails to resolve localized conflicts, but instead makes them worse by angering one side.
     These kinds of disagreements will intensify as UN power grows, and winners and losers in regional conflicts are increasingly decided by globalist bureaucrats. Whenever the UN chooses a victor in a dispute, the defeated nation understandably feels resentment. This animosity naturally is directed at the United States, as we are seen as the greatest world power in the UN. So our involvement in the UN does not create a perception that we are neutral. On the contrary, our involvement in the UN forces us to choose sides in every hostility. We should never kid ourselves that the United States is seen as a peacemaker by the rest of the world simply because we conduct wars sanctioned by the UN.
     I hope the highly publicized infighting at this latest conference will demonstrate how truly political the UN really is. Like all political organizations, the UN exists to serve the interests of certain parties at the expense of others. It is no more impartial or altruistic than the governments and people it now wants to condemn for the sins of the past. In fact, it acts precisely as the colonial powers did–by constantly expanding its global governance and waging war to conquer nations that resist its authority. The UN’s plans for control over every nation on earth make the imperialists of past centuries pale in comparison.
     More than anything, the UN is anti-American. It’s happy to take our tax dollars and send our young people to fight undeclared wars under foreign command, but it does not respect our Constitution or our national sovereignty. More and more Americans now understand that the UN is not an instrument for creating world peace, but rather an emerging global government with an agenda of its own. This agenda truly is incompatible with the freedoms earned and enjoyed by millions of Americans.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 September 2001 Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
     Mr, Speaker,
     Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.
     To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
     The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.
     There are a couple of serious points I’d like to make.
     For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.
     It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.
     Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
     Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
     Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
     We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
     Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 September 2001 What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
     In the aftermath of the September 11^th terrorist attacks, our nation’s economic outlook has deteriorated. Although many industries are suffering, perhaps the greatest damage has been done to America’s airlines. Almost all of the major carriers have announced layoffs of tens of thousands of workers, and many are losing millions of dollars every day.
     The airline business was not doing well even prior to the attacks. The slowing economy caused a big drop in business travel compared to recent years, while labor disputes and rising fuel costs have further reduced profits. The industry perhaps had too much capacity; takeovers and bankruptcies were likely among some carriers regardless of the recent disasters. As a strong advocate of free-market capitalism, I would never support government subsidies or bailouts for any industry simply because its companies could not survive in the marketplace.
     However, the airlines do have a valid claim for compensation for lost profits from the government-imposed shutdown in the days following the attacks. First, remember that the government has made airline security almost purely a federal matter. The FAA and federal law enforcement agencies are charged with preventing terrorism, and the airlines in effect are not expected nor allowed to provide security. Second, the federal government utterly failed to provide that security on September 11^th. Third, the federal government shut down the airlines for several days, limited flights for several more days, and undoubtedly made millions of Americans reluctant to fly because of its massive security lapse. So the airlines have been actively harmed by the government, and deserve compensation limited to their lost profits resulting from the recent disasters.
     Accordingly, I voted for the administration’s requested $40 billion emergency relief bill largely because I believed some of the money should go to the airlines as economic victims of the government’s security failure. However, any relief must not be in the form of a bailout that makes the airlines better off than they were before September 11th or solves their pre-existing financial problems. I cannot vote to support future legislation that simply gives taxpayer dollars to the airlines without reference to their actual losses caused by the terrorist attacks.
     I also cannot support proposed legislation that simply provides corporate welfare for the airlines at the behest of industry lobbyists. The federal government has no business insuring that massive CEO salaries remain in effect while rank-and-file employees face layoffs and loss of medical benefits. It would be outrageous for the government to give taxpayer dollars to the airlines without insisting that the money be used for basic operations and safety issues. This is no time for the government to be protecting executives at your expense.
     There are steps the government can take immediately to enhance airline security. It should undo regulations that have in effect disarmed pilots, and create a clear policy that permits airlines to establish their own rules regarding the arming of flight crews. Many commercial pilots once carried firearms, but federal rules now require that airlines go through a process of FAA-administered training classes that literally have never been conducted. It is ludicrous to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit. A federal air-marshall program may be needed in the short run, but ultimately we should insist that pilots and flight crews be allowed to defend themselves and their passengers so that any future hijacking attempts can be thwarted.
     Congress also should consider privatizing more aspects of airline and airport security. Many security-intensive private industries do an excellent job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves.
     Even after the huge failure by the FBI, FAA, CIA, and many other federal agencies to provide security and prevent the recent tragedy, some in Congress simply are calling for more money for these same failed agencies. Why should we increase funding for a system that is not working? Now is the time to change our approach and look for new solutions to make the flying public safe. We must reject the easy impulse to pour more federal dollars into the same failed policies.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 October 2001 Why Leave Pilots Defenseless?
     In the days since the September 11^th tragedy, hundreds of Americans have contacted my office concerning airline security. Most are angry and appalled that our planes were left so vulnerable to hijacking, especially considering the terrorists needed only simple boxcutting knives to carry out their depraved plan. The American people understandably are shocked at the ease with which the airplanes were overtaken and the defenseless pilots removed from the cockpit. The resounding message that people have conveyed to my office is very clear: the federal government should allow pilots to be armed.
     The case for arming pilots is simple. The fundamental duty of any pilot is to ensure the safe operation of his aircraft. Safety is utterly compromised if a terrorist takes control of a plane, or violently attempts to do so. Our commercial pilots fly very precious human cargo, in very dangerous and expensive machines capable of killing many people on the ground. Whether we like it or not, part of a pilot’s job in this modern era is to guard his plane, which is every bit as valuable to our enemies as a bank vault is to a criminal. So why do we guard the bank vault, but not the plane in flight? Pilots clearly must be able to defend themselves and their passengers, and the most direct and sensible approach is to permit them to carry firearms in the cockpit.
     We should recognize that pilots themselves overwhelmingly favor having the choice to carry a gun when they fly. In fact, some have refused to return to work until they are permitted to do so. The airline pilot’s unions, including the large Air Line Pilot’s Association, recently urged Congress to allow arming of pilots. Congress, the administration, and the FAA should not second-guess the actual pilots who ultimately stand in harm’s way in the event of a hijacking attempt. Surely pilots know better than any of us how best to maintain security in the skies.
     FAA regulations effectively prohibit flight crews from carrying weapons. Although airlines technically may send employees to FAA-conducted seminars to obtain permits, no such seminars have ever been held. I recently introduced legislation which establishes a clear federal rule that allows airlines to decide for themselves whether to arm pilots, without interference from the FAA or other federal agencies.
     No amount of law enforcement efforts or heightened airport security can guarantee that a terrorist will never again board an aircraft with a weapon. Terrorists can bribe airport personnel, impersonate police, or even get jobs working in airport security. They can work for the many private contractors that maintain, clean, fuel, and stock planes parked at the gate. They can become baggage handlers. Ultimately, pilots must be still be able to defend themselves against a weapon smuggled onto an aircraft.
     Cockpit doors can be strengthened, but putting more weight in the nose of a plane may require expensive structural retrofitting, and the doors have to be opened for pilots to eat or use the bathroom. Heavy cockpit doors also cause pressurization problems between the cockpit and the main cabin. Emergencies could arise that require access to the cockpit, such as the illness or incapacitation of one or both pilots. So simply sealing off the front of the plane is not an easy remedy to the hijacking threat.
     In the short term, of course, some federal action may be necessary. Armed sky marshals can serve to reassure the flying public while the airlines work to rebuild ridership. Military monitoring of the skies is needed to provide a rapid response if another hijacking were to occur. However, we must allow the private airlines to implement their own security measures to protect their crews, their passengers, their aircraft, and people on the ground. Arming pilots is a small but critical first step in making air travel safe.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 October 2001 America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
     The tragic events of September 11th have led to renewed calls for the expansion of global government. Terrorism, we are told, is an international problem–and therefore the United States must subordinate its interests and defer to the international community before taking military action. Of course it’s certainly commendable that President Bush is trying to build an international coalition to fight terrorism, and we should be enormously grateful to our allies for their support during these trying times. Yet we must never allow our national sovereignty to be eroded in the name of international cooperation. We cannot forget that our Constitution grants Congress and the President complete authority to provide for national defense and declare war. International support for our efforts against Bin Laden is desirable, but we do not need anyone’s permission to act. Remember, the terrorists attacked on American soil and killed mostly American citizens. No international coalition can or should attempt to dictate our response.
     However, the United Nations already is working to position itself as the international body responsible for addressing terrorism. UN secretary-general Annan has called for a worldwide treaty against terrorism, as though suicidal terrorists would honor such a treaty! Many supporters of global government, even some in America, believe that the US must present its military plans to the UN for approval before we act. The underlying premise is obvious: according to the globalists, we are all part of one big nation–and America has no sovereign right to use military force unilaterally.
     Similarly, the unconstitutional UN international criminal court is being touted by many globalists as the appropriate forum for trying terrorists charged with crimes against humanity. Remember, the ICC would attempt to exert jurisdiction over every American, without affording them constitutional due process rights or 4th and 5th amendment protections. The ICC is a dangerous idea that directly threatens our constitution and our sovereignty, and we must not let the recent tragedy blind us to these dangers.
     Furthermore, would you as an American be satisfied to see the ICC deal with Bin Laden? Do you think he deserves legal counsel and a trial, without the threat of a death sentence (as the UN is opposed to capital punishment)? What legal standards would apply? Would you accept his acquittal if it happened? If not, do you want your tax dollars to pay for a lifetime of meals in his prison cell in Brussels or Geneva?
     UN defenders seem to forget that the organization lacks credibility as a neutral arbiter of disputes. If anything, the UN acts as a forum for anti-American sentiments. Last week, after New York mayor Giuliani spoke eloquently before the UN general assembly, a parade of speakers from various Muslim countries followed him with denunciations of American policy. Some made veiled threats about the likelihood of more terrorism if the US does not work for “social justice,” which really means they want more money from American taxpayers. Clearly, the UN is not an organization that we can sensibly consider an ally under any circumstances.
     We should remember that the image of the United Nations as a benevolent peacemaker is a myth, as evidenced by the sad history of its military actions over the past 30 years. In virtually every instance its so-called “peacekeeping missions” have done nothing but intensify regional conflicts. Kosovo and Somalia are poignant examples of UN policy gone bad, creating lasting resentment and instability rather than peace. The truth is that the UN cannot create peace or end terrorism, but it can vastly expand its power over the lives of US citizens. We must resist any attempt by the UN to advance its agenda in the wake of the September 11th tragedy.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 October 2001 Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures
     Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.
     Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:
     Arm Pilots : It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.
     Immigration Restrictions : Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
     Better intelligence gathering : Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.
     Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists : The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
     Letters of marque and reprisal : This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.
     End legal preferences for terrorist suspects : Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called “extralegal” preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 October 2001 U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil
     The tragic events of the past month have forced both President Bush and Congress to reassess the priorities of our federal government. The obvious consensus is that we have to do a better job of protecting Americans against future acts of war here on our own soil. Indeed, the President has promised that his administration will use every available resource to fight the war on terrorism. Yet our most potent resource, the U.S. military, is spread far too thin around the world to adequately protect us from growing terrorist hostilities and the possibility of a full-scale war.
     The sober reality is that on September 11^th millions of foreigners abroad were better protected by American armed forces than were our own citizens at home. In fact, on that fateful morning we had tens of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars in weapons deployed worldwide–all standing by helplessly while our citizens were savagely attacked in New York and Washington. It is beyond frustrating to consider that there are literally dozens of places around the globe where an unauthorized commercial jet straying off course would have been confronted by American fighters, yet the New York skyline and even the Pentagon were left almost completely unprotected. The American people have a right to know, for example, why the Iraq-Kuwait border, the DMZ between North and South Korea, and the skies over Serbia were better defended that morning than our own cities, borders, and skies.
     We must understand that U.S. troops currently are permanently or semi-permanently stationed in more than one hundred countries. As one prominent columnist recently noted, the 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the end of the Cold War have hardly been peaceful for the United States. Our armed forces have been engaged in dozens of conflicts, including Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. We currently maintain active military commitments throughout the Middle East, Colombia and Central America, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, central Asia, and the Taiwan Strait. We undoubtedly are involved in more regional conflicts than any other time in our history; in fact, our present obligations make the east vs.west Cold War seem relatively manageable! Yet our military is only half the size it was during the Reagan era. This imbalance between our shrinking armed forces and our ever-growing military role in foreign disputes leaves our own borders woefully unprotected.
     Examples of the ill effects of our misguided policies are not hard to find. Consider the Coast Guard, whose seemingly obvious mission is to secure America’s coastlines. So why are Coast Guard vessels busy patrolling Mediterranean waters and the shoreline of Colombia? Similarly, why do we need the help of German NATO AWACS planes to patrol American skies when we have 33 of our own? Are all 33 being used overseas?
     The simple solution is not huge increases in defense spending. The federal budget is not unlimited; taxpayers cannot be expected to pay infinite amounts of money for national defense. While non-defense spending certainly should be cut drastically, the most realistic approach is to reassign most of our troops currently overseas to stateside duty defending our borders.
     Clearly our efforts in playing policeman to the world have failed to make us more secure. This does not mean that we are in any way responsible for the barbaric acts of Bin Laden or any other fanatical murders who hate the U.S. Yet we have no choice but to honestly assess the threats we now face here at home in the wake of these terrorist attacks. The most basic and important function of our government must be to provide national defense, and our overseas commitments directly interfere with the government’s ability to defend you and your family.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 October 2001 Business as Usual in Washington?
     The first wave of shock and sadness over the events of September 11th has begun to pass, and now many Americans are looking to Washington for new policies designed to make us all safer. Yet Congress should be careful in its rush to enact new laws that may result in dangerous unintended consequences for American citizens.
     We should remember that the policies of the American government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the government holds a monopoly on defining. America’s heart and soul is more imbedded in our love for liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution.
     Throughout our early history, a policy of minding our own business and avoiding entangling alliances–as George Washington admonished–was more representative of American ideals than those we have pursued for the past 50 years. We have an absolute right and duty to fight terrorist threats to our nation, but we also have a responsibility to honestly examine our history in the Middle East.
     I happen to believe that our battle against the current crop of terrorists can be won in a relatively short period of time. But winning the war over the long term is very different. This cannot be accomplished without a better understanding of the enemy and the geo-politics of the entire Middle East. Even if relative peace is achieved with a battle victory over bin Laden and his followers, other terrorists will appear indefinitely from all corners of the world if we do not understand the issues.
     Here at home, many Americans are very concerned that the civil liberties we enjoy will suffer as the government demands new and broader powers in the name of providing security.
     Daniel Webster once warned: “Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly, in popular governments, under pretense of public safety.”
     While Congress debates airport security, we are not even seriously considering restoring the right of pilots to carry weapons for self-defense. Even though pilots once carried guns to protect the mail, and armored truck drivers can still carry guns to protect money, protecting passengers with guns is prohibited on commercial flights. The US Air Force can shoot down a wayward aircraft, but a pilot cannot shoot down an armed terrorist. Pilots need a last of defense in the cockpit.
     Any talk of spending restraints is now a thing of the past. Countless groups have descended on Washington with their hands out. As usual with any disaster, this crisis is being parlayed into an “opportunity,” as one former big-spending member of congress phrased it. The economic crisis that started a long time before 9/11 has swollen the ranks of those now demanding federal handouts.
     There is one business that clearly will not go into a slump-the Washington lobbying industry. Last year it spent $1.6 billion lobbying Congress. This year it will spend much more. The bigger the disaster, the greater the number of vultures who descend on Washington. When I see this happening, it breaks my heart, because liberty and America suffer. It’s all done in the name of justice, equality, and security.
     Emotions are running high in our nation’s capital–and in politics, emotions are more powerful tools than reason and the rule of law. The use of force to serve special interests and help anyone who claims to be in need is now an acceptable practice. Constitutional restraints are seen as archaic and insensitive to people’s needs. Yet far too often the claims cloaked as relief for human tragedies are nothing more than politics as usual. While one group supports bailing out the corporations, another wants to prop up wages and jobs. Envy and power drive both sides–the special interests of big business and the demands of the welfare redistribution crowd.
     One thing for sure (as a consequence of the recession and the 9/11 tragedy) is that big spending and deficits are alive and well. Even though we are currently adding to the national debt at the rate of $150 billion per year, most politicians still claim that Social Security is sound and hasn’t been touched. At least the majority of American citizens are now wise enough to know better.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 November 2001 U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
     Even before September 11th, most Americans were well aware of the hostility that many Middle Eastern nations have for the U.S. Our experiences with Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have understandably soured many Americans on the entire region. Indeed, the majority of anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War era originates in the Middle East. What many Americans don’t realize, however, is the extent to which their own foreign aid tax dollars are spent funding our current and future enemies in the region.
     We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today’s brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today’s dollars.
     Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency’s military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA. Once again, the stark result of our foreign aid, however well-intentioned, was the arming and training of forces that later become our enemy.
     Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world’s single largest donor to Afghanistan. Rest assured the money went straight to the Taliban, and not to the impoverished, starving residents that make up most of the population. Do we really expect a government as intolerant and anti-west as the Taliban to use our foreign aid for humane purposes? If so, we are incredibly naive; if not, we foolishly have been seeking to influence a government that regards America as an enemy.
     Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing “against the will of God.” They weren’t serious, of course. Although reliable economic data for Afghanistan is nearly impossible to find (there simply is not much of an economy), the reality is that opium is far and away the most profitable industry in the country. The Taliban was hardly prepared to give up virtually its only source of export revenue, any more than the demand for opium was suddenly going to disappear. If anything, Afghanistan’s production of opium is growing. Experts estimate it has doubled since 1999; the relatively small country is now believed to provide the raw material for fully 75% of the world’s heroin. How tragic that our government was willing to ignore Taliban brutality in its quest to find “victories” in the failed drug war.
     U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we’re getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO. Afghanistan is in chaos, its people starving, and its government is now an outright enemy of the United States. As we yet again find ourselves at war with forces we once funded and supported, the wisdom of foreign aid must be challenged. Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 November 2001 Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
     America’s founders, having survived a violent and protracted struggle to break away from England, shared a belief that their fledgling nation should be free from foreign entanglements. Thomas Jefferson’s well-known quote–“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none”–encapsulates perfectly their view of the wisest foreign policy for America. A famous portrait of George Washington depicts him holding a sheaf of paper emblazoned with the admonition: “Beware foreign influence.” Yet our modern lawmakers reject the non-interventionist principles of our founders, choosing instead to involve America in conflicts around the globe.
     Consider our participation in NATO, which commits American military forces to conflicts that serve no national interest. Congress voted last week to expand NATO and increase the number of countries we are obligated to defend, even while our own military forces are stretched far to thin around the globe. Department of Defense figures show that 250,000 American troops are deployed on 6 continents and 141 nations. When we suffered the September 11th attack on our own shores, we were forced to call on foreign nations to supply AWACS planes and defend our domestic airspace! Our military entanglements, especially NATO, have left us relying on foreigners to defend us–yet this is exactly what the globalists want. They want us to lose our sense of national sovereignty, so that America’s national defense becomes a matter of international consensus. Only by removing ourselves from NATO and the UN can we reassert our fundamental right to defend our borders without the approval or participation of any international coalition.
     NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the “new NATO” began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, “nation building.” The new game was interventionism, not defense.
     The new approach manifested itself in Yugoslavia in the late 1990s. The defensive alliance became a military aggressor, in direct violation of its own charter. When NATO bombed Yugoslavia, a country that had neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, it turned its back on its stated purpose and lost any credibility it once had. Predictably, the NATO strikes failed to produce peace or stability in the former Yugoslavia, and UN occupation forces likely will remain in the Balkans indefinitely.
     Now Congress has endorsed the expansion of this purposeless alliance, of course taking the opportunity to grant 55 million of your tax dollars to the former Soviet bloc countries that want to join. This expansion may be profitable for weapons manufacturers and bureaucrats, but it represents another example of U.S. taxpayers subsidizing foreign governments and big corporations. It is time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own military defense.
     As the world’s foremost military power, it always seems that our money, our weapons, and our troops play the primary role in any NATO military action. It’s a one-way street, however, as our NATO partners are not so enthusiastic about defending us. Some NATO states have refused outright to participate in our campaign in Afghanistan, while presumably reliable allies like France and Germany have expressed serious doubts. Only England, with whom we share a very strong kinship regardless of NATO, fully supports our actions. It’s time for America to recognize that the interests NATO serves are not our own.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 November 2001 The Feds at the Airport
     After a few weeks of trivial arguments between congressional Republicans and Democrats, Congress voted last Friday to pass a very bad aviation bill that vastly expands the scope of the federal government. The two parties really had very little to argue about, as the only real issue was whether airport security would be fully nationalized sooner or later. Sadly, only a handful of Republicans (and no Democrats) abided by the Constitution and opposed this latest federal power grab. The bill grants the airlines billions of taxpayer dollars in new subsidies, imposes new taxes on travelers, and rewards the federal unions by creating thousands of new government jobs. What the bill does not do, however, is create innovative approaches to safety in the sky.
     A constituent of mine who happens to be an airline pilot put his opposition to federalized airport security quite succinctly: “I don’t want the same people who bring me the IRS and the ATF to be in charge of airport security.” In other words, federal agencies are not exactly known for their efficiency and excellence, to put it mildly. So why are we convinced that a federal takeover of airport security is such a good idea? I have spoken to many commercial pilots since the events of September 11th, and hundreds more have called, written, and emailed my office. I can assure you that not one agreed that airport security should be federalized. These men and women spend their working lives in airports and in the air; they are more vulnerable than any of us to terrorist hijackings. We should listen to their ideas about airport security before we let Congress create a massive new federal bureaucracy.
     Remember, several federal agencies failed to prevent the September 11th attacks, including the FBI, CIA, and FAA. Now Congress wants to pour billions into the creation of a new federal workforce at airports. No doubt the federal union bosses are excited at the prospect of thousands of new members, but there is no reason to believe that an expansion of the Transportation department will produce better results. The pattern is always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.
     Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security. The free market can and does produce excellent security in many industries (including most European airports). Many security-intensive industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies. In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.
     I’m happy to report one small victory in the aviation bill, however. Legislation I introduced to allow the arming of pilots was included in the final version (despite the efforts of anti-gun forces in both the House and Senate). I plan to closely monitor the Transportation department to insure it moves forward with programs certifying pilots to carry firearms.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 November 2001 Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
     It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution&ndashlbreak the law–in the name of law enforcement.
     The “anti-terrorism” legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.
     Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism” for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
     The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.
     The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
     In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union–its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization–all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 December 2001 Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
     Suddenly the fix for terrorism seems to be secret military tribunals on American soil. Have so many Americans really lost confidence in our institutions? Well, I am happy to report that there is nothing broken about our system of justice. Executive orders authorizing secret trials on American soil, however, send a very different message to America and the world. That is a shame. It is one thing to hold a military-style trial for an enemy captured in conflict abroad, and I don’t think many would argue otherwise. It is entirely different, though, when government asserts a right to take people off the streets of our own country and try them in secret–where in some cases death is to be the punishment.
     There have been many arguments for why setting up military tribunals on U.S. soil is a good idea. None of them are compelling. Many have cited three-ring circus celebrity trials in the past as justification for secret trials of suspected terrorists. Secret trials might be more orderly, that is true, but ask anyone who has suffered under a totalitarian regime whether is it worth sacrificing justice for “efficiency.”
     Others have warned that civil trials of terrorism suspects will result in leaks of intelligence information. This too is unconvincing. There are already mechanisms in place to protect sensitive information from being compromised in trial, and many such trials have been held.
     Some, even conservatives, have offered the example of President Franklin Roosevelt’s use of a military court to try a group of Nazi saboteurs during World War II. It is curious to see FDR as a model for conservatives, but nevertheless we were in a declared war and those captured were agents of a country with which we were in an active state of war. We are not currently in a state of war, despite what pundits might claim.
     Also worth consideration is the fact that this executive order does not prescribe standard military trials held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for suspects. Whereas the UCMJ requires unanimity in capital cases, this new military court requires only two-thirds agreement, even to deliver a sentence of death. Also, Fifth Amendment guarantees are compromised in this new court, as is the right to appeal and other due process guarantees.
     Finally, it is argued that only terrorists are to be subjected to these secret courts. But how do we decide someone is a terrorist before a trial? That sounds an awful lot like government deciding guilt before a show trial. More troubling, under recently passed “anti-terrorism” legislation, the definition of “terrorism” for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded. A person can now be considered a terrorist for belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. How long before these “terrorists” are subject to secret trials?
     Who cares, supporters will say. After all, only foreigners are to be tried under these courts and we all know only American citizens are afforded the benefits of our judicial system. Fortunately our founding fathers saw things differently, as they drew up a system that recognized the fundamental rights of all humanity and created a model for constitutional governance. Do Americans really expect Germany or Holland, for example, to disregard their own laws when trying Americans suspected of crimes in their countries? Of course not.
     Again, supporters of military tribunals promise that only foreigners are to be tried in these secret trials. But what is to come next? What if a U.S. citizen is suspected of working closely with terrorists in one of their cells? Would it be a huge leap in this case to include him in the military trials of his partners in crime?
     Americans now more than ever must trust the great constitutional institutions that have served us well for more than 200 years. The separation of powers and rule of law are cornerstones. Remove them and our way of life will quickly crumble.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 December 2001 Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
     The events of September 11th understandably made Americans far more concerned about their safety here at home. All of us want action taken to diminish the threat of future terrorist attacks, and President Bush is doing a very good job of pursuing bin Laden and his cohorts overseas. The proper focus should be on identifying those responsible and using limited military force to bring them to justice. We should arrest or kill the perpetrators abroad, use our armed forces more wisely to defend our borders, and reform immigration laws to keep terrorists out.
     Unfortunately, the focus in Congress seems to be on a domestic agenda that will adversely affect millions of ordinary Americans without making us any safer. An example can be found in a Customs Service bill slated for a vote in the House this week. This bill gives customs and postal agents new authority to open and inspect outgoing U.S. mail without probable cause or a warrant. I don’t think many Americans are comfortable with having federal agents open and search the mail they send! Of course it’s easier to pass such a measure when the public is in a fearful mood and demanding action. Ten or twenty years from now, when the recent attacks are a distant memory, federal agents will still be opening mail–mail sent by American citizens, not terrorists.
     Americans face an internal threat every bit as dangerous as foreign terrorists: the loss of domestic freedoms. Every 20th century crisis–two great wars and a decade-long economic depression–led to rapid expansions of the federal government. The cycle is always the same, with temporary crises used to justify permanent new laws, agencies, and programs.
     The cycle is repeating itself. Congress has been scrambling to pass new legislation (and spend billions of your tax dollars) since September. Most of the news laws passed and dollars spent have nothing to do with defending our borders and cities against terrorist attacks. I have already written and spoken at length concerning the dangers to our civil liberties posed by the rush to pass new laws. I do not believe that our Constitution permits federal agents to monitor phones, mail, or computers without a warrant. I do not believe that government should eavesdrop on confidential conversations between attorneys and clients. I certainly do not believe “terrorism” should be defined so broadly that American citizens expressing dissent against their own government could be investigated and prosecuted as terrorists.
     Remember, President Bush will not be in office forever. History demonstrates that the powers we give the federal government today will remain in place indefinitely. How comfortable are you that future Presidents won’t abuse those powers? Politically-motivated IRS audits and FBI investigations have been used by past administrations to destroy political enemies. It’s certainly possible that future executives could use their new surveillance powers in similarly unethical ways. The bottom line is that every American should be very concerned about the unintended consequences of policies promoted to fight an unending, amorphous battle against terrorism.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 December 2001 Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
     The recent bankruptcy filing by Enron has shaken the economy, with investors, employees, and creditors losing billions in a few short months. The shocking and sudden demise of America’s seventh-largest company raises serious issues about stock valuations and the financial health of America’s big companies. Questions are being raised about improprieties on the part of Enron management and its accounting firm. If evidence of fraud or other criminal activity exists, management and auditors should of course be held responsible. People are understandably angry, especially those who suffered serious financial losses. However, we should be careful not to blame the free market for the actions of a few in what is actually a very highly regulated market.
     It is a mistake for Congress view the Enron collapse as an justification for more government regulation. Publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosure rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything? The real problem with SEC rules is that they give investors a false sense of security, a sense that the government is protecting them from dangerous investments.
     In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.
     The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC and to question its existence. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong.
     Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit.
     The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market–not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level for the markets.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 December 2001 STIMULUS OR SPENDING?
     Congress adjourned for the year last week, leaving an economic stimulus bill in the hands of the Senate. Partisan spending interests in that body killed the bill, however, leaving the President without the jump start for the flagging economy that he sought. I certainly supported the President’s efforts to pass tax relief this year, and it’s unfortunate that the political climate in Washington prevented passage of even a very small tax cut. I only wish new spending measures were as contentious and difficult to pass through Congress!
     It’s important to cut through the rhetoric surrounding the stimulus debate over the last few weeks. The only real and lasting way to stimulate the economy is to reduce the amount of money government takes out of the private economy. The only way to do this is by cutting taxes. When taxes are reduced on individuals, they have more money to spend, save, or invest. When taxes are reduced on companies, they have more money to hire new employees, increase wages, or pay dividends to investors. Since all economic growth depends on private capital, the goal of any economic stimulus plan must be to leave more private capital in the hands of investors. When too much American wealth is tied up in government coffers, investment and job growth suffer. This is exactly what we have seen over the past 18 months–the Treasury “surplus” touted by the last administration actually represents a tax overcharge that dragged the economy down well before September 11th.
     These obvious economic realities are lost on most Washington politicians, who either fail to understand basic economics or choose to ignore the long-term harm they cause. Many in Congress fought to add billions in wasteful pork spending to the stimulus bill. Of course the lobbyists and the special interests love any new spending, because it “stimulates” certain industries and groups. It’s easy for politicians to point to the benefits of such spending; for example, a government contract certainly creates new jobs, right? The fallacy, of course, is that we never see the economic growth that would have been created if those tax dollars had never been sent to Washington in the first place. Remember, the private marketplace is always far more efficient that any government program. You know better than the government how to spend your own money, and the same principle applies to the economy as a whole. Spending is spending, even when politicians call it “investing in America” or “stimulus.” Government cannot simply spend us into prosperity.
     Even when small tax cuts are discussed, there is misplaced debate over how best to structure things so Americans will be sure to spend the extra money and satisfy the supply-side believers. This social engineering has no place in our government. The only legitimate purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues needed to run the government. It’s not the government’s job to determine how you should use your money.
     Liberty-minded Americans must continue their efforts to change the climate in Washington. It is still possible for tax cuts to be enacted in 2002; unfortunately, it appears the Senate won’t act until the economy gets even worse. This is unfortunate, because a deeper recession could be avoided with some obvious steps. An elimination of corporate income taxes would immediately spur job growth. Despite the claims of the class warriors, corporate income taxes are paid by all of us in the form of higher prices for goods and services. A capital gains cut for individuals, coupled with a significant decrease in marginal tax rates, would cause a huge increase in investment. Such measures would represent real stimulus; our hardworking and entrepreneurial citizens would do the rest. The American people should not wait for a severe economic crisis before they demand that the government cut taxes and return needed capital to the legitimate private economy.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 December 2001 Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
     The events of September 11^th, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and economic troubles at home all serve to make 2002 a year of great uncertainty for America. The President already has warned the nation that 2002 will be “a war year,” and economic recovery in the near future seems unlikely. It is easy for us to lose sight of the primary responsibility of our government during troubled times, because we naturally are anxious to have Washington eradicate terrorism and “fix” the economy. Yet we should not forget that peace and prosperity are best secured by a government that secures liberty for its citizens. The best formula for securing liberty is limited government at home and a noninterventionist foreign policy abroad.
     Nonintervention in the self-determination of the Afghan people should be our goal as that nation begins to rebuild its government. While we certainly were justified in our military actions against bin Laden and his network, we must not allow ourselves to engage in nation building in Afghanistan. Neither America nor the UN should seek to install a government, and we certainly should not allow ourselves to become involved in another endless UN “peacekeeping” operation similar to Kosovo. Our goal should be to get our troops out of the country as soon as possible and remain neutral toward the various factions still vying for power. The best solution may be for Afghanistan to break up into several countries based on ethnic and religious differences, with a Pashtun government in Kabul and the south and various mujahidin governments in the north. Regardless of the outcome, we must recognize that history teaches us time and again that we should not involve ourselves in the internal conflicts of foreign nations. Prosperity at home can only be achieved if we do not allow government to engage in the kind of runaway spending that marked the final months of 2001. Congress allowed terrorism to serve as an excuse for billions in special interest spending that had little or nothing to do with September 11^th or fighting terrorism. The fiscal year 2002 budget, already bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending before September 11^th, has become a grab bag for every group or industry seeking a handout. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies needlessly receive more funding than originally requested by President Bush. Dangerous foreign aid spending also grows next year, sending more of your tax dollars overseas to fund dubious regimes that often later become our enemies–the Taliban being a poignant example. Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. Deficit spending and tax increases will be the inevitable consequences. No reasonable person can argue that our current $2 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress, especially when we are confronted with terrorist threats and an economic crisis.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 January 2002 Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power SANE AND SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICIES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
     The terrible events of September 11^th brought the issue of immigration reform squarely into the public spotlight. Most of the terrorist hijackers involved in the attacks were in the country illegally, having gained entrance using student visas that had later expired. The INS now admits that potentially tens of millions of aliens in the country are unaccounted for, many having simply disappeared after passing through customs. This in turn leads to fears that numerous terrorist cells may be operating within the U.S. and plotting future acts of terror. No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities.
     Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
     We also must do a better job keeping track of the noncitizens who already have been admitted to America. Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country.
     It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.
     Finally, meaningful immigration reform can only take place when we end the welfare state. No one has a right to immigrate to America and receive benefits paid for by taxpayers. When we eliminate welfare incentives, we insure that only those who truly seek America’s freedoms and opportunities will want to come here.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 January 2002 Argentine Default and the IMF
     Imagine a hypothetical bank run by a group of international executives operating behind closed doors, making decisions of enormous international importance. Imagine the bank consistently made high-risk loans to shaky governments with weak economies and currencies. Imagine it made those loans at substantially below-market interest rates, even though the risks involved warranted high interest rates. Imagine it knew that certain corporate interests would benefit directly from contracts awarded by the borrowing nations. Finally, imagine the bank schemed with governments around the world to have taxpayers foot the bill for the predictable losses stemming from bad loans. Surely no reasonable person would invest his money in such an institution, right?
     Believe it or not, such an institution exists, and it’s called the International Monetary Fund. The IMF is an international organization comprised of member states, much like the UN, that takes your tax dollars and sends them overseas. It’s expensive, too, just like the UN, enjoying a $37 billion line of credit provided by American taxpayers.
     Why on earth would Congress fund such a lousy scheme? IMF supporters claim the organization exists to fight poverty in developing countries, but the evidence shows otherwise. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
     In truth, Congress funds the IMF because of the corporate interests it subsidizes. The huge multinational banks and corporations love the IMF. Big banks used IMF funds–taxpayer funds–to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.
     The recent financial collapse in Argentina provides a perfect example of the folly of IMF “assistance.” Although the Argentine economy has been in serious trouble for several years, IMF loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% kept pouring into the country. According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.” Yet unless Congress acts this year, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to pay for even more bad loans to equally unstable countries.
     The IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning–economically, constitutionally, and morally. There is no justification for taxing working Americans so the federal government can bail out foreign leaders and Wall Street. Participation in the IMF costs us billions every year, billions that should be returned to taxpayers. Hopefully the Argentine debacle will cause Congress to rethink our foolish participation in the IMF.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 January 2002 WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
     Many Americans already have grave concerns about the loss of sovereignty inherent in our participation in global government organizations like the UN and the WTO (World Trade Organization). Few understand, however, the extent to which Congress already capitulates to the globalists when it writes the laws that affect all of us.
     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.
     The sad irony is that Congress already changed our corporate tax rules last year in an attempt to appease the Europeans, who had filed a complaint with the WTO about our treatment of corporate overseas earnings. The Europeans accuse us of “subsidizing” U.S. companies by not taxing every last penny of their foreign income. Yet virtually all European countries have what is known as a “territorial” tax system, meaning they do not tax their citizens and companies on income earned outside the country at all. By contrast, America has a “worldwide” tax system, which imposes tax on income earned anywhere. Even so, the WTO continues to accuse of us maintaining an unfair practice, setting the stage for Europe to seek billions of dollars in sanctions.
     The solution to the WTO complaint is obvious–we should stop taxing foreign income altogether. Surely the Europeans could not object if we changed our system to more closely resemble theirs. After all, the IRS should not be taxing activity outside the U.S. anyway–it’s outrageous that American citizens are actually less free than the socialist Europeans when it comes to income earned abroad. Prominent members of the Republican congressional leadership have stated they would prefer a territorial tax system, and I intend to hold them to it by introducing legislation that will end the taxation of foreign income.
     This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America’s Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 January 2002 Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
     New revelations concerning wrongdoings at Enron seem to surface every day, and the scandal took a tragic turn last week with the suicide of a top Enron executive. In Washington, Congress has been scrambling to assemble hearings that will make various members look properly outraged and committed to reform. The popular media and some politicians want to portray Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. Already legislation has been introduced to force all publicly traded companies to submit to federal audits.
     In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.
     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.
     One such project, a power plant in India, played a big part in Enron’s demise. The company had trouble selling the power to local officials, adding to its huge $618 million loss for the third quarter of 2001. Former president Clinton worked hard to secure the India deal for Enron in the mid-90s; not surprisingly, his 1996 campaign received $100,000 from the company. Yet the media makes no mention of this favoritism. Clinton may claim he was “protecting” tax dollars, but those tax dollars should never have been sent to India in the first place.
     Enron similarly benefitted from another federal boondoggle, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC operates much like the Ex-Im Bank, providing taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for overseas projects, often in countries with shaky governments and economies. An OPIC spokesman claims the organization paid more than one billion dollars for 12 projects involving Enron, dollars that now may never be repaid. Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers.
     The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most in Washington are busy devising ways to “save” investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to Congress and the Clinton administration. It’s a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.
     This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. Yet we should not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. We certainly should not allow the Enron collapse to be characterized as a failure of capitalism or free markets, because the opposite is true. The Enron collapse provides an example of how government does so much to prevent the market from working properly in the first place.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 February 2002 Why Is There So Much Money In Politics?
     “Campaign finance reform” is a hot issue on Capitol Hill again in the wake of the Enron collapse. One very prominent Senator, who has championed the reform cause from the beginning, embarrassingly received thousands for his own campaign from the failed company. Oblivious to his hypocrisy, he recently appeared on national television lamenting that “Enron has tainted all of us. This shows why we need campaign finance reform.”
     If the Senator and so many others in Congress believe so strongly in campaign finance reform, why is money in politics such a big problem? In other words, why don’t these politicians simply put their money where their mouth is, act with integrity, and do a better job of policing their own campaigns?
     I agree with him that a big problem exists. Special interest money has a huge influence in Washington, and it has a tremendous effect on both foreign and domestic policy. Yet we ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interest groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests. Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money. The only true solution to the campaign money problem is a return to a proper constitutional government that does not control the economy. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.
     The so-called reform legislation being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. While some in the media have raised First amendment questions, few seem to understand that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to regulate campaigns at all.
     Campaign finance reform really means more regulations, more controls, more telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress. Your freedoms should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. The problem is that there are members of Congress who yield to the temptation and influence of money, who effectively sell their votes to those who can give them money and keep them in office. If enough members did not yield to the temptation, they would not have to posture with phony campaign finance reform bills and they would not have to undermine the Constitution.
     We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 February 2002 Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty?
     The dangers facing America in this new era cannot be overstated. Our national security and our economic well-being have been shaken. The prospects for the future of liberty and prosperity seem uncertain.
     No one challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks, but we must be very careful before we relinquish more of our personal liberty here at home. We must consider whether our efforts overseas might escalate the crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of Americans are becoming concerned that the war on terror will have the unintended consequence of permanently damaging our constitutionally protected liberties.
     In the area of personal liberty, we face some very real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been threatened and the Constitution has been flaunted. Our government has grown with each national crisis, curtailing many freedoms in the process. The current war on terrorism has no easily defined enemy, and no real end in sight. This means that a return to normalcy with regard to our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive government surveillance, rubber-stamped search warrants, and the loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.
     A danger also exists that the United States is becoming a police state. Just a few decades ago, this would have been unimaginable. The American republic was not designed with federal police powers, which should be the sole prerogative of the states. The military should not be used as police. Unfortunately, many Americans now welcome the use of military troops to police our public places, especially airports. Even before September 11th, more than 80,000 armed federal bureaucrats patrolled the countryside, checking for violations of federal laws and regulations. That number since September has increased by nearly 50%–and it will not shrink anytime soon. Meanwhile, a military takeover of homeland security looks certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state continues to expand? History demonstrates that Congress must not ignore this threat.
     The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are also quite serious. Although the recession certainly cannot be blamed solely on the September 11th attacks, the huge increases in federal spending and the effects of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs, and the costs of new regulations, it is certain that deficits will grow significantly. The Federal Reserve will remain under great pressure to continue its dangerous monetary inflation by printing dollars and expanding credit. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar, and rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control cannot be dismissed.
     Given these sober realities, what does the future hold for Americans who care about liberty and prosperity? Should we become increasingly discouraged and defeated in the face of such great leaps forward in the size of the state? Or should we take courage in the knowledge that the basic human desire for freedom cannot be extinguished, and fight for what we know is right?
     Many Americans who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the growing tide of statism. Others who share the same concerns are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Personally, I remain firmly optimistic about the future of liberty. Maybe next month, maybe next year, maybe ten years from now, the cause of liberty will be rejuvenated. We owe it to the brave revolutionaries who founded this country to remain positive and unwavering in our efforts. After all, we have enjoyed so much prosperity and material affluence, and so little hardship compared to the generations before us.
     The Roman poet, Horace, spoke of adversity more than two thousand years ago: “Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of prosperity would have lain dormant.” It is time for liberty-minded Americans to display their talents in opposing the political trends of the day. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when times are tough and a false government security blanket beckons.
     Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20^th century, advised optimism:
     In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to figure out the requirements of liberty, and the character to walk in its ways. This is a scattered fellowship of individuals–mostly unknown to you or me–bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the plain truth of things.
     He was convinced that brave people would rise to the occasion and do the things necessary to restore virtue and excellence to a people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail.
     Let us be similarly convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty, or to extinguish the flame of justice and truth.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 February 2002 “Campaign Finance Reform” Serves Entrenched Interests
     Serves Entrenched Interests
     The long-awaited “campaign finance reform” vote finally took place last week, with the House ultimately passing the measure. The debate was full of hypocritical high-minded talk about cleaning up corruption, all by the very politicians of both parties who dole out billions in corporate subsidies and welfare pork. It was quite a spectacle watching the big-spending, perennially-incumbent politicians argue that new laws were needed to protect them from themselves!
     “Reform” should mean a change for the better–an improvement over the way things are. In Washington, however, words often represent the opposite of their plain meaning. Can you name one government reform that actually improved anything? How many times has Social Security been reformed? How about public education? Health care? Let’s not forget the IRS! In Washington, “reform” always means more spending, more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucrats, and less freedom.
     The injury to our Constitution cannot be overstated. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew that government should stay out of the political process. Furthermore, the First amendment clearly prohibits government interference with the expression of political views. Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus explains exactly how campaign restrictions are government censorship:
     “By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign (as the campaign reform bill does with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign), these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government ‘censorial power over the people,’ instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government.”
     Outrageously, the new reform bill virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election. Do you think citizens need to know about one prominent New York Senator’s plan to confiscate firearms? Any gun rights group that speaks out between Labor Day and the November election–precisely the time when most Americans are becoming informed about the candidates and the issues–will be violating the law. Do you think voters need to know if a senior member of the important House International Relations committee puts his allegiance to the United Nations before that of his own country? An opponent making this point in a commercial during the 60-day period could end up in jail. Do we honestly think this kind of muzzle should be put on the American people?
     The corruption inherent in our big-government political system is as repugnant to me as it is to you. Yet none of us should believe for one second that the parties in Washington intend to clean up the system and make themselves less corruptible. In truth, the legislation passed last week will only serve to deny a voice to average Americans, while ensuring the reelection of the fat cats. Name recognition and incumbency are huge advantages in politics. Incumbent politicians benefit when challengers cannot raise or spend the amounts needed to unseat them.
     Virtually all of my campaign support comes from individuals, the vast majority of whom give only small amounts. I have never allowed a special interest, corporation, or lobbyist to influence my vote in Congress. Yet Members who voted for last week’s reform bill essentially are saying: “Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups. We just can’t control ourselves.” They will continue to succumb, of course; they just want you to think otherwise.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 February 2002 The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
     The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the now-infamous Cleveland school vouchers case. At issue, at least in the Cleveland case, is whether publicly-funded vouchers can be used by children attending private and parochial schools. While the court will focus on the tenuous argument that a “separation of church and state” renders vouchers unconstitutional, the larger issue for all of us is whether the federal education system needs to be scrapped. After all, if centralized Washington control of education was working, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for vouchers in the first place.
     I applaud the proponents of vouchers for having the initiative to try something new that challenges the federal government’s virtual monopoly on education. It’s admirable to apply a market approach to schools. Forty years of Great Society federal programs have done nothing but make our public schools worse. Fifty years ago, before the federal government became involved in public education, American grammar and high schools were the best in the world. Students faced a demanding curriculum of math, hard sciences, geography, literature, western civilization, spelling and grammar, Latin, and useful trades. They even learned American history, which is sadly lacking in today’s schools. Teachers were respected, and free to enforce discipline without fear of lawsuits or being undermined by school administrators and parents.
     The stark contrast between our public schools then and now shows that federal control of education has failed. Today’s public schools often produce graduates who lack even basic reading and writing skills. Politically-motivated multiculturism and leftist indoctrination take the place of rigorous learning. Teacher unions fight to protect their turf and save jobs, rather than focusing on the education of our kids. Many public schools are dilapidated and dangerous, with teachers afraid of students and discipline nonexistent. Given this reality, we can hardly be surprised that parents are demanding vouchers to get their children out of a failing system. The federal bureaucrats may claim that vouchers will undermine public schools, but the truth is that federal education already has failed miserably, and competition could only improve matters.
     However, the voucher debate really ignores the more important question of whether public schools should be run by federal or local government. The Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education; Article I grants Congress no authority to create, fund, or regulate schools at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment public education should be purely a state and local matter. This means Congress should not be taxing you to fund a huge federal education bureaucracy that exercises dictatorial control over curriculum and standards nationwide. Those tax dollars should be left with parents and local voters, who can best decide how to allocate precious education resources. Public schools should be funded at the local level with local tax dollars, where waste is minimized and accountability is greatest. The failed federal system of public school funding has become a bureaucratic black hole, where the majority of tax dollars never reach the classroom.
     The Supreme Court, like Congress, should simply follow the Constitution. The Constitution allows states and local governments to decide for themselves whether to have a voucher program. It does not, however, allow the federal government to fund, regulate, or control those voucher programs. The emphasis on local control established in the Constitution is especially important when it comes to education, and it is no coincidence that our schools have declined as federal control has increased. It’s time to end the 40-year Washington stranglehold on education by returning control–which means returning tax dollars–to parents and local school systems. The best immediate approach is to give parents a federal tax credit for amounts spent on education. Ultimately, however, we can only resurrect our public schools by following the Constitution and ending the federal education monopoly.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 March 2002 Before We Bomb Baghdad...
     With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.
     Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It’s simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks–and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.
     First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our “police action” in Korea. This most sacred legislative function–the power to send our young people into harm’s way–must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.
     The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the “imperial Presidency” that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I’m always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I’m afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of “supporting the President,” nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.
     Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions–all for more than a decade. We haven’t done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we’ve done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we’ve made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.
     Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 March 2002 The Truth about Government Debt
     Deficit spending is back in the news lately, largely because the Democrats want to blame any projected 2003 deficits on the very modest Bush tax cut. Of course tax cuts, which stimulate the economy and generally produce increased revenues, are not the problem at all–but nobody wants to focus on the real problem, which is runaway spending.
     The bottom line is that our federal government almost always manages to spend more than it brings in each year in revenues. This is particularly troubling when we consider that taxes take more out of the legitimate private economy (as a percentage of GDP) than at any time since World War II. Still, Treasury Secretary O’Neill recently asked Congress to raise the “debt ceiling,” which is based on a federal law that sets a limit on the total amount of debt the US government can have. The current debt ceiling is about $5.9 trillion (roughly the current national debt); O’Neill wants it raised to $6.7 trillion. The reason is that Congress is expected to increase spending even faster than usual over the next few years due to the war on terror.
     Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. We last raised it during the Clinton era, despite that administration’s claims that the budget was balanced each year. This can be refuted quite simply, because the national debt continued to rise throughout the 1990s. Obviously, if federal spending truly was being outpaced by revenues, the debt would not have increased. So how did the Clinton administration make it appear that annual spending did not exceed annual revenues? Mostly by using Social Security revenues to cover the difference, even though Social Security taxes are supposed to be held in a trust fund and not spent on other federal programs. Yet few Americans know that their Social Security taxes are never segregated or saved by the federal government, but rather spent immediately as general funds. Your Social Security benefits are nothing more than IOUs that are completely dependent on future revenues.
     Federal Reserve chairman Greenspan recently endorsed a political trick to make the debt seem smaller simply by redefining those IOUs. The current law treats certain government obligations such as Social Security payments and veteran pensions as debts, meaning they must be included within the permitted debt ceiling. Of course they are debts, just like any other bill that will have to be paid in the future. Greenspan would have us redefine these obligations as “intergovernment accounts,” which magically changes them from debts to “accrued liabilities.” This semantic shift would free up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing. Congress could even use this approach to lower the ceiling and claim a victory for fiscal responsibility while still borrowing more! The reality, of course, is that those old debts will still exist, but we won’t have to think about them for a few more years.
     Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. After all, individuals often want to expand by starting families and buying houses, while businesses want to expand by hiring more employees and increasing their capacity. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private sector business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes 40% of the most productive economy in the world and still can’t balance its books is a government that vastly overspends. A cursory examination of the annual appropriations bills reveals incredible amounts of unconstitutional, wasteful, and truly unnecessary spending. This uncontrolled spending allows government to grow far beyond its proper constitutional parameters, while also threatening the very solvency of future generations. So I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn’t matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much is leading us to ruin. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.
     When government borrows money, the actual borrowers–big spending administrations and politicians–never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly-paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with fat pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by the politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however–and nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.” For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We should hardly be surprised that such a government racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will someday have to pay the money back. It’s time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 March 2002 Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
     The administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports was disappointing to free trade advocates. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.
     It’s easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.
     We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. The tariffs will especially affect Texas, where building trades use large amounts of imported steel. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained–and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat.
     If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.
     What happened to the wonderful harmony that the World Trade Organization was supposed to bring to global trade? The European Union and other steel-producing nations are preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect their own steel industries, setting the stage for a potential global trade war. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re seeing instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
     It’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom–the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 March 2002 UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
     April 15th is coming, and you’re getting ready to file your tax return. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes every time you bought something, and you paid numerous miscellaneous taxes such as vehicle license fees and federal gas taxes. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these city, county, state, and federal taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations now wants to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us.
     The UN is meeting this week in Monterrey, Mexico to discuss exactly such a tax. The meeting is billed as a “Conference on Financing for Development,” which is a nice way of saying it’s a conference to consider the best ways to shake down rich nations for money. UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations–a lot more–simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
     Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us–laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
     Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The “Tobin tax,” named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
     The Tobin tax is not the only idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we’ve all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority.
     The Bush administration thus far has been firmly opposed to any global UN taxes, and the State department has officially voiced our opposition. We should all be very thankful for that, because another administration might not have had the same response. It would be a mistake, however, to think the UN tax idea will go away. Some usually sensible nations like Britain and Germany support the concept, and the drumbeat for global government in general has been growing louder since September 11th. Hopefully, this latest bogus UN conference will make more Americans aware of exactly what the organization really intends, which is the imposition of worldwide income taxes. We need to focus the nation on how truly anti-American the UN is, to generate public support for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the organization. The history of the past 50 years clearly shows that our national sovereignty is incompatible with participation in the UN.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 April 2002 American Foreign Policy and the Middle East Powder Keg
     The situation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank territories deteriorated into virtually all-out war in the past week, with both sides escalating the rhetoric and the violence. The continued leadership of PLO Chairman Arafat seems doomed. The administration now finds itself in an uncomfortable but familiar role as peacemaker for the Middle East conflict; Presidents from Carter to Clinton have tried and failed to create lasting peace. Yet while our diplomatic efforts are well-intentioned and needed, we must resist efforts by the UN and some in the administration to go beyond diplomacy and impose our political will in the Middle East.
     Remember that American tax dollars have been instrumental in the incredible militarization of the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in Palestinian hands. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid, though debatably well-intentioned, only intensifies the conflict.
     Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. So while Israeli Prime Minister Sharon understandably touts his close alliance with the U.S., many average Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
     This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other.
     Just as our money never satisfies Israel, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. Foreign aid or not, the Islamic world sees America as a constant aggressor in the Middle East. Muslims resent our role in bringing the Shah of Iran to power, and they resent our permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. They view our ongoing bombing and sanctions campaign in Iraq as wholly unjustified, believing it harms innocent Iraqis but not Saddam Hussein. They especially resent our tremendous financial support for Israel. In the eyes of many Muslims, to be at war with Israel is to be at war with America.
     It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement in this deadly and ancient dispute. We cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Solutions” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
     Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right. The interventionist approach that has dominated American foreign policy since World War I has produced an unmitigated series of disasters. From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. Washington and Jefferson had it right when they warned against entangling alliances, and the history of the 20th century proves their point. The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. If we care about the self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian people, and if we care about the Constitution, we must adopt a neutral, diplomatic role in the conflict and stop funding both sides.


Texas Straight Talk, 8 April 2002 A Court of No Authority
     You may have heard about the International Criminal Court, which was first proposed in 1998 at a UN treaty conference in Rome. The treaty purports to establish a worldwide UN criminal court that will have jurisdiction over every nation on earth. Once created, the ICC will give the UN the legal apparatus it needs to enforce its global “laws” against American citizens, in direct violation of our own Constitution and national sovereignty.
     You may not have heard, however, that the ICC is about to become a reality. The ICC treaty created a completely arbitrary standard to establish the court. Specifically, the Rome treaty states that the court will come into existence when 60 UN member nations ratify the treaty. Why 60? Apparently because ICC proponents thought the number would sound official, and that a ratification period would create an appearance of legitimacy. Never mind that the 60 nations represent a tiny percentage of the world’s population, or that many of the ratifying nations lack any real economic, political, and military power. The globalists simply don’t consider American support particularly important, because it’s much easier to convince countries like Nauru (!) and Gabon to sign up. Apparently ICC bureaucrats are approaching the magic number of 60 ratifications, because a “solemn ceremony” is planned in New York this week to commemorate the new court.
     Two fundamental questions have not been answered by the globalists: What authority permits the ICC to exist, and what authority permits the ICC to exert jurisdiction over the US? The answer to both questions is that NO such authority exists. ICC proponents claim the court was authorized by UN General Assembly “legislation,” but the UN charter explicitly states that the General Assembly has no legislative authority whatsoever. In fact, when the UN was created, this lack of lawmaking authority was emphasized–to assure nervous heads of state that the body would never be able to pass laws. The UN diplomats in Rome flatly ignored their own charter, which means the ICC is not valid even under the UN’s phony international laws.
     The more important point, however, is that the ICC clearly has no legitimate authority over American citizens. The US Senate has not ratified the ICC treaty, and constitutionally it cannot–because the Constitution does not permit the judicial function to be surrendered to an international body. Remember, the Constitution guarantees every American various protections–such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches–and any treaty that denies American citizens those protections by definition is unconstitutional. Furthermore, President Bush thankfully may rescind the US signature to the ICC treaty, undoing the symbolic damage done by Clinton’s acquiescence to the idea of a superior international court.
     ICC proponents claim that the court will address only “crimes against humanity” and “crimes of aggression.” Remember, however, the UN continually has expanded its role in the decades since World War II. When the UN was created, we were assured it would never become a global government, never establish laws, never employ military forces, and never undermine national statehood–yet it has done precisely all of those things. Why should we believe that the ICC will not similarly seek to expand its jurisdiction? Already there have been discussions about the court’s ability to prosecute far more ordinary–and domestic–criminal activity. The inherently political nature of the court will insure that the definition of “aggression” expands to apply to the actions of those in politically disfavored nations. Are we really so naive that we believe American soldiers will not one day be prosecuted for their actions in wartime?
     The United Nations and the ICC are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the conflict between adhering to the rule of law and obeying globalist planners is now staring us in the face. At present we fortunately have a President who opposes the ICC, but ultimately it is up to Congress–and concerned citizens–to insure that no American ever stands trial before an international court.


Texas Straight Talk, 15 April 2002 Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs?
     Last week I appeared on a national television news show to discuss recent events in the Middle East. During the show I merely suggested that there are two sides to the dispute, and that the focus of American foreign policy should be the best interests of America–not Palestine or Israel. I argued that American interests are best served by not taking either side in this ancient and deadly conflict, as Washington and Jefferson counseled when they warned against entangling alliances. I argued against our crazy policy of giving hundred of billions of dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid and military weapons to both sides, which only intensifies the conflict and never buys peace. My point was simple: we should follow the Constitution and stay out of foreign wars.
     I was immediately attacked for offering such heresy. We’ve reached the point where virtually everyone in Congress, the administration, and the media blindly accepts that America must become involved (financially and militarily) in every conflict around the globe. To even suggest otherwise in today’s political climate is to be accused of “aiding terrorists.” It’s particularly ironic that so many conservatives in America, who normally adopt an “America first” position, cannot see the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into an intractable and endless Middle East war. The empty justification is always that America is the global superpower, and thus has no choice but to police the world.
     The Founding Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none.” How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated.
     In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that “We don’t live in George Washington’s times.” Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
     It’s easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 April 2002 Are Your Taxes Too Low?     “(The Republican) mandate to cut taxes, it’s complete. Taxes have been cut as much as is humanly, or inhumanly, possible.”                                                                             Margaret Carlson, CNN
     You may be tired of thinking about and paying taxes after April 15th, but many in Washington think you’re not paying enough. In fact, the preposterous idea that Americans are undertaxed is accepted as truth by a significant number of the members of Congress. These members believe today’s taxpayers are perpetrating an injustice by not paying more taxes, and that most of the money you make presumptively belongs to the government. Since your money really belongs to the government, tax cuts represent a government “giveaway.”
     This mindset revealed itself last week during a vote on the House floor. At issue were the exceedingly modest tax cuts passed by Congress last year, which the Senate modified to expire in 10 years. The bill voted upon would remove the expiration date and make the cuts permanent (at least until Congress tries to raise taxes again). This simple measure was stridently opposed by almost 200 members, many of whom subjected us to lectures about the “irresponsibility” of not revisiting tax cuts often to make sure the government has plenty of money. These lawmakers (apparently) really believe taxes have been cut to the bone and government starved to its limits.
     Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal spending is wildly out of control, as evidenced by an annual budget that doubled between 1990 and 2000. Congress will spend $2.3 trillion in 2003, an astounding 22% more than 1999. Federal taxes now consume more of the legitimate private economy (as a percentage of GDP) that at any other time in our nation’s history except WWII. The federal budget is full of billions in unconstitutional and wasteful pork, and no serious person can argue otherwise. Those who oppose tax cuts simply use populist arguments to mask their support for the special-interests that benefit from uncontrolled spending.
     No tax debate in Congress would be complete without some members pointing out the terrible fact that some Americans make more money than others. The tired class warfare argument, namely that the rich somehow don’t pay their fair share, remains endlessly popular on the Hill–even though it is demonstrably false. IRS statistics show that the top 1% of earners pay a whopping 36% of federal income taxes, while the top 5% pay 55%! In fact, earners in the top half account for 96% of income tax revenues, while the bottom half pays only 4%. Surely Marx would approve of this tremendously progressive tax system, yet the media and the left continue to perpetuate the myth that wealthy Americans use an unfair tax system to enrich themselves.
     What the collectivists in Washington always seem to forget is that wealthy Americans are not a static group, but rather a dynamic one–because we still have class mobility in our relatively capitalist society. In other words, some taxpayers in the bottom 50% intend to move into the upper 50%, where they quickly will be thrust into higher tax brackets and deemed “rich” by the IRS. In fact, a family needs only an income of about $53,000 to find themselves in the top 25% of all taxpayers. These upwardly mobile Americans, whom Congress ought to be encouraging, presumably won’t be too excited about tax hikes for the rich when they find themselves labeled as such and footing the bill for a spendthrift Congress.
     An income tax would be wholly unnecessary if Congress restrained itself and spent your tax dollars only on legitimate constitutional functions like national defense. Remember, the federal government operated for more than 120 years without an income tax, using excise taxes to raise necessary revenues. Rather than squabbling about tiny changes in the existing tax code, Congress ought to be drastically reducing spending and scrapping the incomprehensible tax code altogether.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 April 2002 Predictions for an Unwritten Future
     The months since September 11th have been unsettling for our nation. The twin specters of war and economic recession weigh heavily on the national consciousness. The Middle East conflict intensifies, with no peaceful end in sight. Government intervention–in the economy, in the private affairs of citizens, and in the internal affairs of foreign nations–has accelerated. Federal spending is growing wildly, and annual deficits will be larger than expected in the coming years. Despite any rhetoric otherwise, tax cuts are off the table in this new era of war funding and unchallenged government growth. As one prominent Washington Democrat put it, “The era of limited government is over.”
     This rapid growth in the size and power of the federal government will have very serious consequences for America if the trend is not reversed. Freedom and prosperity cannot coexist with socialism and endless war. Yet socialism and endless war are exactly what most in Washington are promoting.
     If we continue on our current path, I predict the following consequences for our republic:
     ABROAD:
     Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East but will be short-lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons for Israel and those Arab countries allied with the United States. American troops, of course, will be used to monitor the “peace.”
     U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine–both the West Bank and Gaza–as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them.
     The Karzai government will fail, and the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan eventually will end.
     In time, an oil boycott will be imposed–with oil prices soaring to historic highs.
     Current Israeli-American policies will harden the resolve of Arab/Muslim nations in their efforts to avenge the humiliation of the Palestinians. Muslim nations that in the past fought against each will become allies, at least temporarily. Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.
     Some European countries will provide clandestine support for the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.
     The United States–with Tony Blair as head cheerleader–will attack Iraq without proper congressional authority; and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.
     Political leaders and high-ranking military officials from Middle Eastern nations will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The Arab world, along with some European leaders, will call for the prosecution of Ariel Sharon by the ICC. American military and political leaders will not be tried by the ICC, although many of our enemies in the U.N. will advocate such prosecutions. The vicious debate will set the stage for wider politically-motivated revenge prosecutions of western leaders by the ICC in the future.
     China–ironically assisted by American aid–will align herself with the Arab nations and openly sell them weapons.
     China, India, Russia, and Pakistan will take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages they have sought for years in central Asia.
     AT HOME:
     An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.
     Price inflation and a major economic downturn will decimate the U.S. Treasury.
     Inflationary Federal Reserve policies will accelerate, with massive credit creation worsening the dollar crisis. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic monetary role.
     Erosion of civil liberties will continue as our government responds to fears of terrorist acts by making generous use of unconstitutional powers obtained through the Patriot Act.
     The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment.
     Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the federal government. This will satisfy both the liberals and conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.
     This is the most important of my predictions: policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from happening. I hope and pray that Congress will prove me wrong and work to save our republic. The actions Congress takes now will determine whether America can return to an era of peace and prosperity in the foreseeable future.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 May 2002 Pilots vs. Bureaucrats
     More than 20,000 airline pilots presented a petition to Congress last week, demanding the right to carry guns in the cockpit to prevent future terrorist hijackings. Pilots from all of the major unions, including the large AirLine Pilots Association, overwhelmingly favor having the choice to carry a gun when they fly. These pilots are the men and women who actually stand in harm’s way in the event of future hijacking attempts, and surely we should trust their judgment over the judgment of armchair bureaucrats and pundits in Washington. Yet the Transportation department continues to ignore both the wisdom of pilots and federal law by refusing to implement rules allowing firearms in the cockpit.
     Pilots already fought this fight last November. Congress passed an armed pilots provision as part of a larger airline safety bill, and the President signed the legislation. Transportation Secretary Mineta, however, has a long history of opposition to gun rights as a Congressman–and his anti-gun bias is interfering with his ability to do his job. He is no longer a lawmaker. His job now is to implement the laws passed by Congress. Yet like the IRS, the Transportation department simply won’t follow laws it doesn’t like. This illustrates perfectly how we have come to be governed by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats who constantly undermine the legislative process.
     The case for arming pilots is simple: the fundamental duty of any pilot is to ensure the safe operation of his aircraft. Safety is utterly compromised if a terrorist takes control of a plane or violently attempts to do so. Armed pilots act as a last line of defense for themselves, their passengers, and people on the ground. Firearms in the cockpit also serve as a strong deterrent against hijacking attempts.
     The arguments against arming pilots are very weak and motivated by an irrational fear of guns. Our pilots are entrusted with the safety of very precious human cargo every time they fly. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women with the skills, temperament, and judgment to fly incredibly complex planes cannot be trusted with simple handguns–and also highly insulting to professional pilots. The arguments about bullets piercing the fuselage are silly, because small bullet holes clearly are less of a worry than a takeover of the flight deck by terrorists! Furthermore, aircraft engineers can point to dozens of incidents where commercial aircraft landed safely even with much larger holes in the cabin.
     Legislation I introduced last September simply repeals current Transportation department regulations that prevent airlines from training and arming pilots. This approach puts the decision to arm pilots directly in the hands of the private individuals and companies that actually fly and own the aircraft that are at risk from hijacking. The weaker legislation already passed by Congress allows the Transportation department to establish and run a certification program for pilots wanting to carry guns, which requires active participation by the foot-dragging Mineta. Clearly he will do everything possible to prevent implementation of any government-run armed pilots program.
     Pilots, airlines, and understandably nervous travelers deserve more from the federal government. No amount of airport security can guarantee that a terrorist will never again board a domestic flight with a weapon. Since armed marshals can’t be on every flight, pilots are the last line of defense against future terrorist acts in the skies. Why on earth does our government insist on disarming the same pilots we otherwise trust with our lives?

Texas Straight Talk, 13 May 2002 President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
     The American people won a great victory last week in the ongoing battle to preserve our national sovereignty. On Monday, the administration formally announced President Bush’s bold decision to withdraw the United States from the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. UN bureaucrats have been working quietly for several years to create the ICC, with the ultimate goal of installing an international tribunal that claims jurisdiction over every human on the planet–and judicial supremacy over our own Supreme Court. Given the steady progress of ICC planners to date in convincing about 60 nations to ratify the treaty, the American withdrawal represents a stunning setback for those intent on establishing an international legal system that undermines our Constitution–and a rare but important triumph for American national interests.
     On the heels of the Bush administration decision, I introduced legislation aimed at prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for the unconstitutional tribunal. I wanted to make sure that Congress took advantage of the moment and supported the administration by ensuring that your tax dollars aren’t used to pay for another UN scheme, especially one that the our President expressly rejected. My bill was supported by the House leadership, and several of my congressional colleagues joined as co-sponsors. The bill, which expressed that Congress should prohibit appropriations for the ICC, passed overwhelmingly as an amendment to a larger defense bill.
     We should be perfectly clear about what the ICC really represents. The UN does not respect our domestic laws or our national sovereignty. On the contrary, UN ministers view our laws as obstacles to their goals. It is no exaggeration to say that the UN wants to create international laws that override our domestic gun, labor, environment, and tax laws–just to name a few. In fact, the UN states its goals quite openly on its website. We should remember that the ICC, like the UN itself, will be inherently political. Although the court purports to address only criminal matters, it will serve to establish a permanent international legal apparatus used to enforce an ever-growing list of international laws. The ICC can only further erode national sovereignty by undermining the authority of national courts and overriding national laws.
     We must reassert that the Supreme Court is the court of highest authority for our nation, and that every American citizen enjoys protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. President Bush gave notice to the international community last week that the United States will not participate in a global court that undermines the checks and balances of our Constitution. He deserves our praise and our support for bravely standing against the ICC and against UN bureaucrats who have so little regard for our laws. Congress should follow his lead and respect the Constitution by refusing to send even one penny of taxpayer funds to the ICC bureaucrats.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 May 2002 Federal Intelligence and Terrorism
     Last week ended with a flurry of news stories alleging that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The President’s political opponents wasted little time in seizing the opportunity to accuse him of a coverup, implying that he allowed the terrible events of that day to happen through inaction. Most Americans rightfully dismiss these accusations and recognize them as partisan opportunism, knowing that President Bush would never willfully allow such a tragedy to take place if he could have prevented it. We need to raise the tenor of the debate in Washington and place national security interests before party interests.
     Clearly the President did not know anything about particular dates, or that hijacked planes would be used as missiles and flown into buildings. In fact, it appears that many of the terrorists themselves did not know the true nature of their mission until the planes were in the air. The administration did know that Bin Laden rabidly hated the U.S., and that Al Qaida had threatened terrorist action, but this vague and generalized information could have applied to dozens of terrorist organizations. What exactly would we have the President do with this knowledge? Do we really think he should he have shut down the nation’s air travel system and caused widespread panic? Had he done so, the same politicians criticizing him now would have accused him of overreacting. Hindsight gives us easy wisdom now, but our focus should be on preventing terrorism in the future. We should take the present opportunity not to criticize the President, but rather to take a hard look at both our intelligence practices and our foreign policy.
     It is perfectly reasonable to question the failure of our federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. We should remember that the most of our knowledge about the Al Qaida threat was gathered, or should have been gathered, by the Clinton CIA. Both the CIA and the FBI knew Bin Laden was active during the 1990s, particularly after our bombing of his facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Yet despite the $40 billion annual intelligence budget, our convoluted system of intelligence gathering has not made us more secure.
     Since September 11th we have heard predictable calls for vastly increasing the budgets of those agencies charged with intelligence gathering–including the CIA, FBI, ATF, INS, DIA, and NSA–but perhaps those agencies need to consolidate rather than expand their efforts. The current system involves too many bureaucrats, too much overlap, too many turf battles, too little information sharing, and no clear accountability. Why do we insist on perpetuating failed agencies and policies, throwing more and more money at problems that stem from bureaucratic culture rather than funding problems? Why do we think $60 or $80 billion will change what $40 billion could not?
     The finger-pointing blame game also obscures the deeper problem of our interventionist foreign policy. If we are serious about preventing future terrorist attacks, we must have the character to honestly examine our own role in creating enemies around the world. This does not mean we can ever excuse terrorism, or that we should not retaliate against those responsible for September 11th. It does mean, however, that we must critically reexamine our policy of stationing hundreds of thousands of troops abroad while our own borders and skies remain unprotected.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 May 2002 No Taxpayer Funds for Nation-Building in Afghanistan
     Whenever I discuss the issue of foreign aid with my colleagues, I always remind them that in all my years serving in Congress, I’ve never once had a constituent ask me to send more money overseas. Most Americans instinctively understand what the Constitution makes clear: Congress has no business sending tax dollars outside the country. Yet once again Congress has ignored the Constitution, this time voting to send $1.2 billion of your tax dollars to Afghanistan–even as our own troops engage in ongoing combat with hostile Taliban forces that many Afghans still support. It’s frankly almost schizophrenic to send billions in aid to the same country that harbors some of our most virulent enemies.
     Perhaps the legislation Congress passed last week should have been named the “Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act,” because it essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I doubt we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years, so maybe we should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a “coordinator.” This coordinator essentially has the task of making sure the new Afghan government meets with our approval; never mind what ordinary Afghan wants. We say we want the Afghans to freely and democratically elect their own leaders, but only if we approve of the choices. In effect, we want to install a new government of our choosing.
     The President promised that we would not engage in nation-building in Afghanistan, and he did not sponsor or seek support for the bill passed by Congress. Yet when we fill a nation’s empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose our standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs.
     The Russians must be laughing at the irony. Their problem has become our problem. For years they sought to dominate Afghanistan and impose their will upon it, at a cost of millions of dollars and thousands of lives–Russian and Afghan lives. We propped up the Afghan resistance with our weapons, money, and training, planting the seeds of the Taliban in the process. Now the former Soviet Union is gone, its armies long withdrawn from Afghanistan, and we’re left cleaning up the mess–yet we won’t be loved for it. No, we won’t get respect or allegiance from the Afghans, especially now that our bombs have rained down upon them. We will pay the bills, however. Afghanistan will become a tragic ward of the American state, another example of an interventionist foreign policy that is supposed to serve our national interests and gain allies, yet which does neither.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 June 2002 Congress Spends, Future Generations Pay the Bills
     Congress recently passed the so-called “supplemental” spending bill, wasting billions of your tax dollars supplementing the already swollen $2.3 trillion 2003 federal budget. Congress loves the annual supplemental bill, because unlike other spending bills, the supplemental does not fund any particular federal departments or agencies. This means members and the administration can find a home for pet spending projects that would not be permitted in a defense or education bill. This year, however, the supplemental also provides convenient cover for the big-spenders to quietly increase the federal debt ceiling.
     The problem is simple: Congress spends way too much. 2002 federal revenues are down compared to previous years, but Congress needs money to fund the post-September 11th spending spree. Faced with this pesky economic reality, Congress must do what any other organization does when spending exceeds income: borrow money. However, federal law sets a limit on the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry, and the limit–a whopping $5.95 trillion–has been reached. Since Congress apparently cannot control spending, the debt limit must be raised, this time by $700 billion. Yet no member, especially those who promote themselves as fiscal conservatives, wants to be on record as voting to increase the national debt.
     The solution was to hide the debt limit increase as a single provision in a huge appropriations bill. Members can defend their vote for the supplemental based on their support for other measures in the bill, many of which were falsely cloaked in patriotic rhetoric More importantly, members avoided a naked up-or-down vote on the debt limit alone.
     This new debt directly threatens your Social Security retirement dollars. Americans are starting to learn that there is no Social Security trust fund, that Social Security tax revenues are spent immediately to pay benefits to current retirees. This means the Treasury holds nothing but IOUs promising to pay your benefits when you retire. These IOUs are debts owed to the American people, and the more the federal government borrows, the greater the chance it will default on those debts. In other words, if the government borrows too much, it may not have enough revenues in the future to both pay Social Security benefits and service its other debts. If you are depending on Social Security to fund or supplement your retirement years, you should be very concerned about any increase in the national debt.
     Some Washington pundits, including many supply-side economists, claim that federal debt really does not matter. These pundits want government to use debt as a financial tool, much like a large business might. They argue that the only real issue is whether the debt can be serviced. This argument ignores a critical distinction, however: expansion is a proper goal for business, but not for government. Businesses service debt by increasing their revenues in the legitimate private economy, while government can service increasing debt only by increasing taxes or printing more money.
     Of course debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for families and businesses. Yet when government borrows money, the actual borrowers–big spending administrations and members of Congress–never have to pay the bills. Instead, they enjoy the political benefits of delivering endless unconstitutional pork programs to their constituents and special interests, while future generations of taxpayers are stuck with the bill. It is time for voters to think about their grandchildren and stop rewarding spendthrift politicians with 97% reelection rates. Debt does matter, and it’s cowardly to ask future generations to pay for our extravagance.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 June 2002 Gold, Dollars, and Federal Reserve Mischief
     The mainstream financial press is now reporting the weakening of the U.S. dollar as measured against other currencies. This is unsettling news, as a relatively strong dollar was considered a hallmark of the economic boom of the 1990s–a boom that had far more to do with rapid credit expansion than real increases in productivity. The value of the dollar is down 18% this year compared to gold, which acts as a bellwether for the health of paper money. Gold prices historically rise when faith in paper currencies erodes, as investors seek the intrinsic value of gold to protect themselves from the arbitrary actions of the world’s central banks, including our own Federal Reserve.
     Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. This expansion costs money, and the big-government politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now produce all of the world’s major currencies.
     Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. So even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception. Should the dollar continue to decline in value, America will find itself struggling to service our already massive debt load even as our foreign creditors become less interested in our dollars.
     America once enjoyed a stable dollar backed by gold deposits, a “gold standard” system. This system gradually was undermined throughout the last century, until President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Fed has employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The “value” of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the total amount of dollars in circulation (the money supply), and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
     What does all of this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses. Inflation acts as a hidden tax levied disproportionately on the poor and fixed-income retirees, who find the buying power of their limited dollars steadily diminished. The corporations, bankers, and wealthy Americans suffer far less from this inflation, because they can take advantage of the credit expansion that immediately precedes each new round of currency devaluation.
     Brilliant Austrian school of economics scholar Murray Rothbard asked a seemingly complex question in the title of his essay: “What has Government Done to our Money? ” The answer turns out to be pretty simple: Government consistently debases our money. How and why it debases our money has everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with the laws of economics.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 June 2002 A Stay of Execution for the Death Tax
     Opponents of the estate tax suffered a setback last week when the Senate voted down a measure that would have repealed the immoral and counterproductive tax permanently. Thanks to 44 senators, the death tax likely will remain a thorn in the side of American families.
     The estate tax, more accurately known as the death tax because it is levied when a taxpayer dies, confiscates anywhere from 37% to 55% of a individual’s assets. While these rates are unconscionable, the death tax also represents an especially galling form of double taxation. Americans already pay federal and state income taxes throughout their working lives. They pay income and capital gains taxes on money they save and invest. They pay local property taxes on their homes. They pay various sales taxes whenever they buy something. They even pay steep federal taxes on gasoline and telephone use. Yet after a lifetime of burdensome taxes, the death tax punishes Americans one last time simply because they worked hard, saved, and invested to pass something on to their families.
     Last year the House debated an outright repeal of the tax as part of the Bush tax plan. Although liberal members prevented the passage of a immediate repeal, a slow ten-year phaseout compromise bill did pass in both the House and Senate chambers. Incredibly, however, the Senate added a provision that would cause the tax rules to revert back to the current system after the ten year period. In other words, the death tax will return after 2011! So a taxpayer dying in 2010 would pay no estate tax, while his unfortunate neighbor dying the next year would get a whopping bill from the IRS. The accountants and tax attorneys might support this crazy system, but it creates an estate planning nightmare for American families. Some doctors even warn that it could give elderly people a morbid incentive to time their deaths out of concern for their loved ones. Yet although the House recently voted to make the death tax repeal permanent, the aforementioned 44 senators decided the government should remain the unwelcome heir to millions of American estates.
     The tired argument that the estate tax only affects the rich simply false. Many of my constituents are farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. They are hardly rich, but some of them have built up valuable businesses they would like to pass on to their children. Yet when they die, their children rarely have the liquid cash needed to pay the death tax bill. Often the business must be sold or divided to raise money for the IRS. Many family farms across this country have been bought by large corporations because of the estate tax.
     Ultimately, the argument against the death tax is a moral one. People should not be punished for working hard, saving, and building wealth. Our society should respect the most basic property right, namely the right to dispose of one’s property as one wishes. The American dream is based on making a better life for one’s children, despite the empty rhetoric of the class-warfare politicians in Washington. Building wealth is not sinister, it is admirable. Our tax rules should encourage the decidedly American virtue of saving for the future.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 June 2002 Imperial Transportation Bureaucrat says Yes to Lavish Offices, No to Armed Pilots
     Undersecretary John Magaw, the chief of the new Transportation Security Administration, has been very busy lately. He just spent $410,000 of your tax dollars installing lavish fixtures in his new office suite at the Transportation department headquarters. The Washington Post reports that “With its plush carpeting, mahogany stained doors, crown molding, and state-of-the-art conference room equipped with $109,000 worth of audio equipment, it has struck some visitors as ‘a little bit over the top.’” Incredibly, Magaw managed to spend about $132 per square foot on his new digs, more than the cost of new construction from scratch in the most expensive locations!
     Of course this is nothing new in Washington. Self-indulgent bureaucrats routinely get away with wasteful extravagance. It’s rare, however, when they are caught red handed, and it’s important to expose such behavior whenever possible. Taxpayers deserve better and should demand his resignation.
     Mr. Magaw is no stranger to bureaucratic excess. He worked for Clinton and Janet Reno as director of the hated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the agency responsible for the Waco tragedy.
     This is the same Mr. Magaw who recently announced at a Transportation committee hearing that he “would not allow” pilots to carry guns. That’s right, he would not allow it. In other words, the undersecretary believes that he, rather than Congress, will determine federal policy regarding armed pilots. This incredibly arrogant assumption of legislative power by an unelected bureaucrat should outrage every member of Congress, and every American who cares about the separation of federal powers. Apparently Mr. Magaw cares little for a Constitution that authorizes Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, to make the laws.
     His pompous display on national television angered many pilots, who recognized Magaw’s disdain for their abilities. The undersecretary made clear his belief that the men and women we entrust to fly our families cannot be trusted with simple firearms. His ludicrous statement–that pilots cannot fly the plane and defend the cockpit at the same time–utterly ignores the reality that pilots can’t fly at all if they’re left defenseless as terrorists overtake them! The bottom line is that guns in the cockpit might have changed the outcome of September 11th.
     We’ve already seen the Transportation department, headed by anti-gun Secretary Mineta, refuse to implement the armed pilots program passed by Congress last fall. The department must be learning from the IRS, which often simply refuses to allow new deductions passed by Congress. Both agencies demonstrate the disturbing trend toward lawmaking by unaccountable administrative agencies.
     Arming pilots remains the smartest and sanest approach to making the skies safer immediately. Pilots themselves overwhelmingly support having the option to carry arms in the cockpit, and we should listen to them rather than self-appointed policymakers in federal agencies. While the usual anti-gun forces predictably oppose armed pilots legislation, the supposedly gun-friendly Bush administration should not stand in the way of pilots defending themselves and their passengers. Mr. Magaw should be fired if he refuses to implement the law.
     A new armed pilots bill recently passed in the Aviation subcommittee, and may see a vote later this year. While I support this bill, which essentially makes pilots federal deputies, my own legislation is more direct. My bill simply allows the airlines and pilots to decide for themselves whether to allow guns in the cockpit. This approach respects both the Second amendment and the private property rights of the airlines. While no amount of security can guarantee another terrorist won’t again board an aircraft with a weapon, Congress can make sure pilots are not left defenseless by passing a direct armed pilots bill and overseeing its immediate implementation.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 July 2002 What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
     The entire nation seemed to condemn last week’s federal court ruling that the pledge of allegiance cannot be recited in schools. The notion that the phrase “one nation under God” renders the pledge unconstitutional is ridiculous to most Americans, who strongly believe that expressions of religious belief should be an integral part of public life. Yet although the public outcry against this terrible ruling is understandable, the real issue of religious freedom has not been addressed by Congress or the media.
     The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.
     It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with “Congress shall make no law...” This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.
     Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment–Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry–and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.
     I previously introduced legislation entitled “The First Amendment Restoration Act” to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 July 2002 Securing the Homeland?
     Various congressional committees will spend the summer drafting the Homeland Security Act, legislation that will create the largest new federal bureaucracy in several decades. Only broad proposals exist at the moment, but the debate over details may reveal how special interests and power hungry bureaucrats stand in the way of common sense. We certainly don’t need another federal jobs program that does nothing to make us safe from terrorism, nor should we be eager to pour more money into the same agencies and policies that failed us on September 11th.
     Real homeland security must focus on consolidation of federal agency resources, better intelligence gathering, and elimination of red tape and bureaucratic turf battles that prevent proper sharing of information. Proposals to merely hire thousands of new federal employees and throw money at new agencies–without changing the bureaucratic culture–are doomed to fail.
     There are commonsense measures Congress can take to make America safer immediately, measures that do not require the creation of new bureaucracies or the trampling of constitutional liberties.
     First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that enables our worst enemies to live among us.
     As a member of the House International Relations committee (which has jurisdiction over visa rules in the new bill), I will propose immediate changes to our current immigration policies. Specifically, I believe we must stop granting student and diversity visas to individuals from terror-sponsoring states, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of the very countries that openly despise America and refuse to cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism. Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11th attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to live in the U.S.
     Congress also should urge the administration to take a hard look at some of our so-called allies in the Middle East. Several of my colleagues recently joined me in requesting that Secretary Powell add Saudi Arabia to the State department list of nations “not fully cooperating” with our anti-terrorism efforts.
     Evidence that Saudi Arabia fosters and promotes terrorism is overwhelming. The majority of al-Qaeda members are Saudis, as were most of the September 11th hijackers. Indeed, most of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo hold Saudi passports. This is hardly surprising, as the nation is home to the radical Islamic Wahabbi sect–a sect that calls for the wholesale destruction of America and the West. The Saudi government clearly has played a role in incubating and spreading radical anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, yet the administration continues to treat the Saudis as allies, largely because of our oil dependency. Congress should demand an end to this hypocrisy, and the administration should demand that Saudi Arabia stop harboring our enemies while claiming to be our friend.
     Ultimately we cannot make ourselves safer simply by creating new departments, spending more taxpayer money on federal police, or sending more troops into yet another foreign land. Real homeland security requires a reexamination of our policies and priorities abroad, and a commitment to the Constitution at home.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 July 2002 What About Government Accountability?
     Accounting scandals dominated the headlines last week, and publicity-hungry politicians from both the House and Senate enjoyed acting self-righteous while grilling WorldCom executives. However, the message that Congress will clamp down on corporate accounting practices rings hollow with at least one journalist. Neil Cavuto from Fox News recently offered a very important question that desperately needs to be asked of Congress: “Who the heck are YOU to judge? Given the incredible fiscal mismanagement that pervades the federal government, Congress is “throwing stones from a very big glass house,” as Mr. Cavuto puts it. It’s refreshing to hear Mr. Cavuto point out the hypocrisy of politicians standing in judgment of executives whose misdeeds pale in comparison to their own reckless spending.
     This does not mean corporate America is innocent. Many big corporations soak taxpayers for billions in government subsidies every year, while using political influence to avoid fair competition in the marketplace. Criminal conduct by executives at Enron, WorldCom, or any other company should be prosecuted vigorously under state fraud laws. If these executives indeed lied to investors, presented false earnings statements, or otherwise stole from shareholders, they should return the stolen money and serve jail time.
     Yet Mr. Cavuto is absolutely right. No corporation on earth comes close to the accounting fraud practiced year after year by the federal government. In fact, there is no real accountability at all for the trillions in tax dollars raised and spent annually by Congress and our entrenched federal agencies. The official “accounting” that does take place is a sham. Every year Congress creates a meaningless budget, the Fed prints phony money, the Budget office issues false revenue forecasts, and the administrative agencies waste billions in the most unproductive ways imaginable. Literally tens of billions of dollars go unaccounted for every year, simply disappearing down bureaucratic black holes. This hardly represents a standard against which corporations should be judged!
     None of the free-market restraints against financial mismanagement apply to government. The federal government doesn’t need to raise money by meeting a market demand or raising investment capital–it simply takes what it wants through taxes, which can be raised at will. It never has to operate profitably or efficiently; witness Amtrak and the Postal Service. It also has no incentive to cut costs. In fact, federal agencies scramble to spend every last penny of their budgets to justify more the next year. There is no stock price to worry about, and nobody tracks government ”performance“ against earlier years. Nobody ever gets fired. Simply put, the money is not hard-earned, so it’s not well-spent.
     So why is there not more outrage about government financial accountability? Of course we read the occasional news article lamenting $400 hammers at the Pentagon, but for the most part Congress gets a free pass on its own fiscal mismanagement. What we hear instead are calls for more regulation of our already heavily regulated mixed economy. Few suggest that federal interference in the market, especially Federal Reserve expansion of credit, creates the distortions that make it possible for corporations to become so overvalued in the first place. No one mentions that market forces ultimately cut through the distortions, causing the stock prices of fraudulent corporations to plummet. Instead we hear denunciations of the free market, and calls for more regulations from the very career politicians who are so completely unfit to manage anything.
     Of course Congress could clean up its financial mess, but ultimately it is voters who must demand accountability for their tax dollars. Remember that you give government at all levels nearly half of everything you earn. If you invested that much into a private company, don’t you think you would keep a close eye on it and demand accountability as a shareholder? The only thing we know for sure about the federal budget is that it will go up each year unless and until voters remove the politicians who insist on taxing, spending, and borrowing us to death.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 July 2002 Monitor thy Neighbor
     Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.
     Now the Justice department wants to extend the new investigative powers to private citizens. It recently unveiled Operation TIPS–Terrorism Information and Prevention System–as part of President Bush’s Citizen Corps initiative. The goal is to enlist thousands or even millions of Americans to act as spies for the government, reporting suspicious activity to officials using a handy toll-free hotline. The Justice department especially hopes to enlist mailmen, delivery drivers, plumbers, gas-meter readers, and the like, as they have access to private homes and businesses in their daily work. As usual, the war on terror is offered as justification for this proposal.
     This almost might be funny if it were not real. Imagine the rampant abuses possible with a national spy program. Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they don’t like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity. I certainly hope the Justice department employs some very patient people to field the flood of useless calls.
     If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you’re not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious–that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society–invites denunciations and sharp reminders that “we’re at war.” Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on terror to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy.
     I applaud Congressman Dick Armey for adding a provision to the homeland security bill that would prohibit the Justice department from implementing the TIPS program. His opposition brings needed public attention to this terrible idea. But even if Congress supports him, there is no guarantee another informant proposal will not surface soon thereafter. Congressional oversight of administrative agencies (consider the Treasury department and its renegade IRS) is nonexistent. The Justice department almost certainly will seek another way to implement the program, with or without congressional approval.
     Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what kind of society we hope to leave our children and grandchildren. A civilized and free society would not be discussing, much less seriously debating, any proposal to enlist private citizens to act as federal neighborhood snitches.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 July 2002 The Homeland Security Non-Debate
     Late Friday evening, after only a few short hours of debate, Congress passed legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security. The new department represents the biggest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, and potentially the single biggest expansion of the federal government in our history. Over 175,000 federal employees will be part of the new DHS, and if history is any guide, it will take decades to get all of them working together even marginally. In fact, some estimate that the process of buying and leasing new offices, moving existing offices, and getting all of the new DHS personnel using the same computer and phone systems could take twenty years. So much for streamlining the intelligence gathering process.
     Every American should know how quickly and thoughtlessly this massive new bureaucracy is being created. A special House committee made up of just a handful of members began writing the bill only one week before the vote. In that short time they managed to transform the President’s 50 page proposal for consolidation of certain agencies into a 250 page spending spree filled with unnecessary provisions to satisfy scores of special interests. Most members did not see the final bill until Wednesday, nor did they see many of the 100+ amendments to the bill until Friday. The House debated the body of the bill itself late Thursday night for only two hours! This may serve the interests of members looking to highlight their “accomplishments” at election time, but the American people deserve far more serious consideration of possibly the most important legislation passed during their lifetimes. Without question, the new DHS will have a profound impact on the freedom, prosperity, and safety of every American and their grandchildren for decades to come.
     I did vote for several amendments to the bill that would maintain the strength and independence of federal agencies that are vitally important to the 14th congressional district in Texas. However, I voted a resounding NO on final passage. This legislation will have an even greater negative impact than the terrible Patriot Act passed shortly after September 11th.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 August 2002 Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?
     The Senate Foreign Relations committee spent much of last week hearing testimony about Iraq. A second U.S. invasion of Iraq seems a foregone conclusion, as the testimony focused not on the wisdom of such an invasion, but rather only on how and when it should be done. Never mind that our own State department and CIA have stated that Iraq is not involved in terrorism; never mind that we’re not discussing some of our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia, which actually funded and harbored those responsible for September 11th. None of those testifying questioned for a minute the President’s absolute authority to order a military invasion at will.
     One expert not invited to testify at the Senate hearings was Scott Ritter. Mr. Ritter is a Republican, a twelve-year veteran of the Marine Corps, a former intelligence officer, and a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He is a widely respected expert on the region, having dealt directly with Iraqi officials–and he is a very harsh critic of Saddam Hussein. The only problem is that he disagrees with the President and Congress about our war plans, arguing that Iraq poses no military threat to the United States. So although he is perhaps the most qualified person in Washington to speak on the subject, his viewpoint was not heard.
     On C-SPAN last week, Mr. Ritter called the Senate hearings nothing less than a “sham,” likening them to a “Stalinist kangaroo court” rather than a real inquiry designed to educate Senators with facts about Iraq.
     Whether one agrees with Mr. Ritter’s views or not, it’s clear the Senate conducted nothing more than show hearings designed to support the predetermined conclusion that America must invade Iraq.
     The fundamental question before Congress–whether the legislative branch once again will ignore its constitutional duty to declare war–remains unasked. The undeclared wars of the last 50 years–including Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq–represent nothing less than congressional cowardice, an unwillingness by members to carry out their sworn legislative duties. The result is an increasingly powerful presidency, and a terrible violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
     War is war, no matter what we call it. When we bomb another country, when we send troops, planes, and warships to attack it, we are at war. Calling war a “police action” or a “peacekeeping mission” does not change the reality. War constitutionally cannot be waged by executive order–the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war precisely because the founders wanted the most representative branch of government, not an imperial President, to make the grave decision to send our young people into harm’s way. We owe it to those young people and the Constitution to have a sober congressional debate before we initiate war in Iraq.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 August 2002 Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
     You may have seen minor media coverage last week focusing on the economic problems in South America, particularly Uruguay and Brazil. The U.S. Treasury, acting through the Exchange Stabilization Fund and without congressional approval, gave Uruguay $1.5 billion to ease the impact of a bank shutdown. While $1.5 billion barely raises an eyebrow in Washington anymore, and scarcely attracts media attention, this latest bailout provides a telling example of the real priorities of our federal government.
     This money, we are told, is just a “bridge loan” to give Uruguay a little breathing room until it receives its next cash infusion from the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the plan for Uruguay is to pay off one loan by getting a bigger loan, like a hapless spendthrift using one credit card to pay off another. What’s worse is that American taxpayers already fund the IMF with a $37 billion line of credit, so Uruguay will be paying us back with our own money! The same goes for Brazil, which just received a record $30 billion from the IMF to deal with its own looming bank collapse.
     Why the sudden interest in Uruguay? Treasury Secretary O’Neill’s statement on the matter makes it sound like Uruguay is a real financial powerhouse. In fact, he tells us “Uruguay’s approach to bank reform should encourage confidence of depositors in the financial system. Uruguay has effectively implemented sound economic policies and embraced free markets.” Apparently, those sound economic policies led to outright collapse and a run on the nation’s banks, while their commitment to free markets involves billions in welfare bailouts courtesy of American taxpayers. If Uruguay is indeed so financially and politically stable, why in the world would it need billions in foreign welfare?
     The truth is that our government officials are not particularly concerned about economic hardship in Uruguay. Uruguay, like many South American countries, is economically unstable because of its government’s bad policies. Our loans and bailouts simply keep their unstable system running a little longer, while miring the Uruguayan people further in debt. We’re not doing the people any favors. On the contrary, our “aid” just makes the inevitable collapse all the more serious.
     The real concern behind schemes like the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the International Monetary Fund is the corporate interests they subsidize. American banks and corporations have a great deal of money invested in South America, and a bank default by any country there directly threatens those dollars. The multinational banks especially fear a chain reaction of economic meltdowns, beginning with Argentina and spreading to Uruguay, Brazil, and beyond. So they use political influence to thwart the free market process and prop up bankrupt economic policies in Uruguay.
     But why should taxpayers subsidize the risky business practices of multinational lenders? The banks themselves should bear the risks of investing in unstable nations, just as surely as they enjoy the rewards when investments in foreign markets prove profitable. They want taxpayers to protect them from risk, but never share in the rewards.
     What a shame that our government continues to fund risky overseas bailouts and unconstitutional foreign aid, even as our own nation faces serious financial problems here at home. Congress has lapsed into uncontrolled deficit spending, and billions more will be spent creating the Department of Homeland Security and funding an unwise war in Iraq. The private economy sputters along with little or no growth, while the stock market bubble loses more air almost daily. The pension and retirement plans of millions of Americans have suffered heavy losses, and the very solvency of Social Security is threatened by the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. Meanwhile, our military families and veterans are allowed to live in poverty. In the midst of all these problems at home, how in the world can we justify another nickel for foreign bailouts?

Texas Straight Talk, 19 August 2002 Does Government Run the Economy?
     President Bush received some criticism last week after holding an economic forum in Waco. The forum was intended to bring business and civic leaders together with the President to discuss America’s economic problems, but the press dismissed the whole affair as nothing more than a photo-op for the President with a hand-picked friendly audience. The message from the pundits was clear: the President is all talk, but we need action by the government to restore prosperity.
     So what exactly would critics have the President do to “fix” the economy? Presumably they believe he should propose some new laws and regulations, thereby protecting us from greedy CEOs and the risks of the free market. The belief is that government brings about economic prosperity, and that the current economic malaise represents a failure by government to act. In other words, the government somehow caused the economy to sour through inattention and neglect.
     Notice that while our economic problems are always blamed on corporations, greed, capitalism, or a mysterious “business cycle,” the solutions are always presumed to come from government. When the economy falters, the public clamors for the government to do something–and when the economy does well, politicians take credit for the good times caused by their sound economic policies. This reflects the pervasive attitude in America that government should “run” the economy.
     But should government run the economy in a free society? Remember, there is a simple description for government control of the economy: socialism. America, however, was founded as a capitalist country. The Constitution grants Congress exceedingly limited regulatory and tax powers, because the founders were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown. So they created a strictly limited government, which allowed freedom and capitalism to flourish.
     In a capitalist economy, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and prohibiting force and fraud. Because our modern federal government has strayed so far from its limited constitutional powers, it controls the economy far more than the founders intended. As a result, our economy is becoming more and more socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, and price controls, along with Fed manipulation of interest rates and the money supply, all represent socialist government intervention in the economy. No matter what the Democrats or Republicans want to call it, socialism is socialism. We should have the honesty to identify exactly what is being advocated when some call for even more government control of the economy.
     Centralized economic planning is disastrous for every society that employs it. From the former Soviet Union to present day China, planned economies have produced little but hardship and bloodshed. The reason for this is simple human nature, because individuals have little incentive to produce when the fruits of their labors are stripped from them. Both history and economic theory demonstrate conclusively that government-run economies lower the standard of living for everyone except government elites charged with the “planning.” By contrast, capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone in a society. More importantly, free market capitalism is the only moral economic system because it is the only free economic system. Socialism, communism, and authoritarianism–variants on the same collectivist theme–all use immoral government force to control the economic lives of individuals.
     If we ever hope to enjoy real and lasting prosperity in this country, we must redefine our view of the proper role of government. It is tempting during difficult times to demand that the government “do something,” but a free society is defined by what its government does not do.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 August 2002 War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?
     War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? The chorus of voices calling for the United States to attack Iraq grows louder. Recent weeks had seen growing controversy concerning the wisdom of such an attack, including controversy over the need for congressional approval for an invasion. The war hawk TV pundits have been busy working to quell the controversy by insisting the President has complete authority to wage war without congressional involvement.
     The crux of their remarks is that we should not question whether the U.S. will go to war with Iraq, but only how and when the war should waged.
     Yet whether to invade Iraq is precisely the question, and only Congress can answer it. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. The President cannot wage war legally without a congressional declaration. His status as commander-in-chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The law in Article I, section 8, is quite clear. The undeclared wars of the 20th century may provide precedent for unilateral action by the President, but it is an illegal precedent.
     It appears that most in Congress would support an invasion of Iraq, so why can’t we simply agree to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war?
     The rule of law separates civilized societies from despotic societies. Unlike Iraq, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. We are blessed to live under the Constitution, rather than under a King or dictator. Yet if we blatantly violate the Constitution by pursuing an undeclared war, we violate the rule of law. We invite the President, and future Presidents, to act in an imperial manner. We damage the separation of powers that is so critical to our freedom. We act more like Iraq than the United States of America when we ignore the Constitution.
     I’m puzzled that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers. Why do members of Congress from both parties, most of whom work incessantly to INCREASE the scope of congressional powers, suddenly refuse to wield power in one area where they have legitimate legislative authority? It mostly has to do with cowardice and politics. You can bet Republicans would be demanding congressional involvement if Clinton was in office.
     The solution is simple. Follow the Constitution, debate the wisdom of a war in Iraq, and publicly record a vote on a declaration of war. Let Congress do its job. The young men and women who will be called upon to fight for the Constitution in Iraq deserve to see it followed at home.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 September 2002 War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?
     As Congress reconvenes this week, the possibility of war with Iraq looms larger than ever. I believe the Constitution clearly requires a declaration of war by Congress before a military invasion of Iraq can take place. I also believe that Congress and the American people need to engage in a sober and thorough debate over the wisdom of such an invasion before we commit our young soldiers to a new war in Iraq. At a minimum, the following questions should be carefully considered:
     Why do so many knowledgeable military experts, including former generals Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, caution against war in Iraq? These men understand the geopolitics and military realities of Iraq and the Middle East from their service during the first Bush administration. Are the brilliant military minds of a decade ago suddenly irrelevant? Note that those who actually have experienced war are the most reluctant to call for war, in stark contrast to the mostly non-veteran pundits clamoring to “take Saddam out.”
     Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation?
     Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?
     What would you give up at home to provide the billions of dollars necessary to prosecute the war? Would you support a huge tax increase, or give up your Social Security benefits for a decade? I know many Americans would be happy to sacrifice, but we should be honest about what this war might cost us and judge whether it’s worth it.
     Everyone wants a regime change in Iraq, but who exactly will replace Hussein? Will we support a handpicked successor who later turns on us, much like bin Laden did after we funded his resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Remember that the Kurds, our supposed friends in northern Iraq, have fundamentalist factions that are aligned with bin Laden and are allegedly hiding al Qaeda. We risk replacing the secular Hussein regime with a more fundamentalist Kurd regime that hates western values.
     How long will we be in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is ousted? Will we be nation-building for decades, as we almost certainly will be in Afghanistan? We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made in Korea and Vietnam by entering another conflict without clear objectives and a definite exit strategy.
     Does an invasion of Iraq play into bin Laden’s hands by turning the entire Islamic world against us? Will an Iraq war expand into a Middle East war against Israel? Will Islamic terrorists mount attacks in America and around the world to protest the war?
     If we are justified in attacking Iraq, what about the dozens of other countries that pose much more of a threat to us? Why aren’t the war hawks calling for an invasion of Iran or especially Saudi Arabia, which harbored most of the September 11^th terrorists?
     With American forces stretched thin in the Middle East and the administration preoccupied, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will India and Pakistan engage in a full-fledged war? Will adversaries like Russia consider us weakened and move against us?
     Finally, do the American people, and not just a handful of advisors to the President, really want this war?
     All of these questions, and many more, need to be asked and answered in a full and robust congressional debate.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 September 2002 The Case against War in Iraq
     For weeks I have been arguing that Congress needs to debate the wisdom of a war in Iraq. Recently I gave a speech before the House of Representatives outlining why I believe such a war would be exceedingly unwise.
     First, there are practical military reasons not to initiate a war in Iraq. Our military has been severely weakened over the last decade. Conservative estimates call for 200,000 troops to mount a successful invasion of Iraq. Placing 200,000 soldiers in Iraq–with hundreds of thousands already deployed around the globe–will further dilute our ability to defend our own shores.
     Remember, we do not know exactly how long this conflict will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.
     There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our already faltering economy. An invasion of Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars, especially when we cannot know the outcome or duration of the conflict. Our national debt is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, yet we are talking about spending a hundred billion dollars pursuing another nation-building adventure in Iraq. What will happen to the economy if oil skyrockets to $30 a barrel and lines form at gas stations? Will the current recession deepen? What will happen to the deficit? We must not kid ourselves about the economic ramifications.
     There are clear philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. “War is the health of the state,” as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime “emergencies” and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.
     Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new “preemptive first strike” doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.
     If we once again wage war without a clear declaration of war by Congress, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, we further damage the Constitution. I fear we will engage our troops in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with the lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. When Congress evades its responsibilities and allows war to be declared by the President or an international body, it ceases to represent the very people for whom the war supposedly will be fought.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 September 2002 Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
     As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the “entangling alliances” another President George–George Washington–warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter.
     America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war.
     I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American “education” agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN–especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans.
     Meanwhile, Russia and France have made it known that they might be persuaded to support our war effort if the American government guarantees payment for commercial debts owed them by Iraq. This amounts to nothing less than buying allies. Incredibly, the U.S. Treasury may make good on Saddam Hussein’s bad debts, with American taxpayers settling his unpaid bills! Who can possibly believe these kinds of unholy deals represent an acceptable foreign policy?
     The root of the problem is our insistence on accepting the concept of one-world globalist government while pursuing unilateralist goals. We participate in globalist institutions like the UN, sign globalist treaties, and send our sons and daughters to fight in globalist wars that have nothing to do with our national interest. Yet we also demand the right to act unilaterally when it suits us, to set all policy in the global arena, and to exclude ourselves from many of the international rules.
     This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds. We give up our sovereignty, but fail to win any real allies. We pay all the bills, risk the lives of our young people, and invite UN meddling in our domestic laws, yet still we sow the seeds of discontent and future hostility with the world community. All because we have abandoned our Constitution and the founder’s ideal of noninterventionism in favor of globalism. What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 September 2002 Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?
     A year has passed since the terrible September 11th terror attacks, yet still we seem unable to locate Osama bin Laden or his al Qaida associates.
     President Bush has made it clear that he intends to use “all appropriate means” to oust Saddam Hussein, although everyone concedes that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. So why is the same approach not justified for the al Qaida criminals directly responsible for 3000 American deaths?
     We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him “dead or alive.” And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose. We’re preoccupied with an invasion of Iraq, which actually will benefit bin Laden by removing a secular regime led by his enemy Saddam Hussein. This vacuum may well lead to a more fundamentalist Kurd government in Iraq that aligns itself with al Qaida.
     Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.
     Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists. Our military invasion of Afghanistan undoubtedly has scattered al-Qaida throughout the Middle East and Europe. Marque and reprisal would create an incentive for individuals close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. This method in effect places a bounty on the heads of international terrorists, who often travel between countries, melt into civilian populations, or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the knowledge and expertise of private parties, especially given the lack of western intelligence in many of the countries likely to harbor bin Laden. Marque and reprisal could turn the tables on the terrorists, forcing them to live as marked men. Terrorist should fear us, not the other way around.
     Ultimately, letters of marque and reprisal could help us avoid a wider war by bringing terrorists to justice without the need for military action–saving American lives in the process. I recently wrote defense Secretary Rumsfeld, urging administration support for my legislation, the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.” Unless and until the administration puts the focus back on bin Laden and al-Qaida, the horrific crimes of September 11th will remain unpunished.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 September 2002 Dump UNESCO!
     During his recent speech before the United Nations general assembly, President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, a UN agency that has for decades promoted an anti-American agenda. “Rejoining” of course means funding with American tax dollars. Our new commitment to UNESCO will cost $60 million annually for starters, fully one-quarter of the agency’s budget. Sadly, I believe the administration made this decision as a concession to our globalist critics, who have been relentlessly accusing the President of “unilateralism” for daring to consider acting in Iraq without UN permission. This is done to soften UN opposition to our plans to initiate war.
     “UNESCO” stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; UN control of federal land in America; cultural relativism; and global taxation, just to name a few. President Reagan bravely withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, citing the organization’s financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and general hostility to freedom. Today, however, we find ourselves once again becoming further entangled with the UN–all because we lack the courage to assert our sovereignty and tell the world that our Constitution, not the UN, governs our nation.
     To better understand UNESCO, consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:
     “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”
     From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and our western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?
     But there’s more. Mr. Huxley goes on to state that perhaps eugenics, the so-called science of creating better people through genetic manipulation, is not so bad after all:
      “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years…politically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
     This is the reality of UNESCO, the agency your tax dollars will once again fund. How much more hostility will the American people accept before we realize that the UN represents a very real threat to our freedom, our sovereignty, and our way of life?

Texas Straight Talk, 7 October 2002 Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate
     Last week, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is–a war–and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional “support” for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded “authorizations” that they can back away from easily if necessary.
     It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in “consulting” legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
     I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
     Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be “frivolous.” I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
     When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 October 2002 Why Won’t Congress Declare War?
     (This column is nearly identical to last week, although some material has been added. The topic is important and deserves a second look.)
     Why Won’t Congress Declare War?
     Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is–a war–and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional “support” for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded “authorizations” that they can back away from easily if necessary.
     It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations 25 times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s willingness to consult some legislative leaders about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American people.
     Already the administration has sought to gain favor with the UN by pledging hundreds of millions of tax dollars to UNESCO. UNESCO is the anti-American “educational” arm of the UN, an organization from which President Reagan heroically removed us in 1984. Now we find ourselves rejoining the agency to soften UN resistance to our plans in Iraq.
     I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
     Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be “frivolous.” I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
     When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 October 2002 Legislation for our Military Families and Veterans
     With thousands of our troops now deployed in Afghanistan, and thousands more probably headed to Iraq, it is important to remember the sacrifices made by our military families. Congress should do everything possible to make sure our soldiers and our veterans receive adequate pay, housing, health care, tax relief, and disability benefits.
     I recently cosponsored legislation that would exempt members of America’s armed forces from income taxes. This legislation, introduced by my colleague John Culberson, would extend the existing tax exemption for armed forces serving in combat zones to the entire active duty military. This would eliminate withholding and income tax filing for the nation’s soldiers, allowing them to keep their entire paychecks.
     The men and women of our nation’s armed forces work for incredibly low pay, and they should not have that pay reduced even further by federal taxes. Many military families live on less than $20,000 annually, and some have been forced to accept welfare just to provide basic food and shelter for their children. Our nation should never permit its armed forces to live in poverty. A full-time active duty soldier should always be able to house, feed, and clothe his or her family. This legislation would provide every American servicemember with an immediate pay raise without additional federal spending.
     I also recently voted to support legislation that would make it easier for military families to qualify for the homeowner’s tax exemption when selling a house. Current tax rules require a homeowner to live in a residence for two continuous years to qualify for the exemption, but servicemembers tend to transfer between bases frequently. Congress voted overwhelmingly to change the two-year requirement for our armed forces, and hopefully the bill will become law before the end of the year.
     Similarly, Congress recently passed a resolution calling for a change in veteran’s disability payments. Currently, retired soldiers may only receive either their military pension or military disability benefits–not both. Nonmilitary government retirees and private sector employees, however, do receive both standard pensions and disability pay. This is very unfair to military retirees, who deserve pay for both their career work and the separate incident that caused their disability. Last week’s vote moves us closer to ending this injustice.
     Finally, Congress should end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on thousand of veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the evidence behind the existence of the syndrome is now conclusive. The syndrome likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at that time. We should be providing medical treatment to our sick Gulf War veterans, not insulting them by insisting that “it’s all in their heads.” Congress should lead the way and craft legislation that requires VA hospitals to recognize and treat Gulf War Syndrome like any other illness. It’s the least we can do for the soldiers who risked their lives in the Gulf.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 October 2002 Snipers. Terror, and Gun Control
     The recent sniper killings around the Washington DC area thankfully appear to have ended with the arrest of two individuals believed responsible. The sense of fear in the nation’s capital was palpable throughout October, bringing back memories of the uneasy days following the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City.
     The wanton and unpredictable nature of the sniper shootings has reinforced an uncomfortable feeling that many Americans first experienced the morning of September 11th: namely, that the government cannot protect you. No matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm.
     For many this is a sobering thought, because we have come to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. We should remember, however, that we hardly would want to live in a rigid totalitarian society completely free of danger. This nation was founded on principles of self-reliance, but we’ve allowed ourselves to become far too dependent on government. Perhaps the only good that can come out of these senseless and tragic killings is an emerging understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
     As for the alleged sniper himself, we can expect two things from the media. First, we’ll hear a lot of details and nonsense about his rifle and how he obtained it. This scrutiny serves to instill a misguided sense of fear and awe toward a simple .223 rifle, making it seem like a highly dangerous instrument that should never be in the hands of the general public. Second, we’ll hear his defense attorneys feed the media a thousand excuses for his actions, ranging from his childhood to his failed marriage to his Army training. Most people see through this, however. The killer alone is responsible for his murderous actions.
     Despite all the talk about rifles, the undeniable truth is that armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens. We can’t know, of course, that armed citizens would have prevented any of the shootings or brought the sniper to justice more quickly. Yet it’s hard to imagine the sniper choosing Texas or another well-armed southern state to commit his crimes. The bottom line is that criminals seek defenseless, unarmed victims. Any criminal operating in the suburbs of Washington DC, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia–all bastions of anti-gun sentiment–can reasonably assume that his victims will not shoot back.
     For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 November 2002 Snipers. Terror, and Gun Control
     The sniper suspects who terrorized the Washington DC area for most of October have been arrested, but a controversy over who should prosecute them has ensued. Virginia, Maryland, and Alabama have already filed murder charges, raising the likelihood of a jurisdictional battle between them. Late last week, however, the federal government also filed criminal charges against the two men, accusing them of a plot to extort $10 million. The extortion charge is based on a note the killers left at the scene of one of the murders demanding money. Attorney General Ashcroft has made it clear he thinks the feds, rather than any of the states involved, should try the case.
     Yet the snipers are guilty of murder first and foremost. They may have been extortionists as well, although it’s hard to believe money was really their motivation. Even if a passable case for extortion can be made, however, their 10 murders in the DC area are far more serious crimes. Justice clearly requires that both suspects be tried for murder–a crime which constitutionally and historically is a state matter. Why should lesser federal charges of extortion take precedence over state murder charges?
     Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia all have valid claims for prosecuting the case, because the sniper and his accomplice committed murders in all four jurisdictions. Prosecutors from each understandably want to bring these killers to justice on behalf of their citizens. After all, it was the people of these states who were truly terrorized for nearly a month. Of course a federal court may be needed to decide which state prevails in the inevitable jurisdictional battle, especially since the availability of the death penalty varies between them. But the rush to have a federal court try these two men reminds us that the federal government cares very little about states’ rights. The feds appear to be more interested in hijacking a high-profile prosecution for their own benefit than allowing the states to enforce their own laws.
     The trend toward federalizing state criminal matters mirrors the rise in federal domination over the states themselves. As the federal government grows, so grows the power of the federal court system–at the expense of state sovereignty and the 10th amendment. As a result, the people of the various states have lost much of their voice about how criminals ought to be treated. The sniper case provides us with an opportunity to reassert the power of states to bring criminals to justice, while rejecting the notion that the federal government must be involved simply because the sniper murders generated national interest.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 November 2002 Honoring our Military Veterans
     Although we honor veterans every November, the looming prospect of a second Gulf war makes this year especially meaningful for both our armed forces and those who served in past wars. Not surprisingly, many of the veterans I speak with in Texas urge caution in Iraq. Combat veterans understand perhaps better than any of us that war should always be a last resort, that young people should never be put in harm’s way without very serious deliberation.
     It’s easy to talk about honoring veterans and their sacrifices on a national holiday. Yet so often the rhetoric obscures the reality that the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars funding so many unconstitutional programs, but it fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.
     If we really hope to honor veterans, we must change the culture of the Veteran’s Administration, which is as bureaucratic and inefficient as any federal agency. This dramatically affects the well-being of millions of former servicemembers, who rely squarely on the VA for health care, retirement living, and monthly payment of veteran’s benefits. Legislation and better funding can help, but as with all federal agencies, mismanagement is the real problem. Veterans deserve dignified care, and we can’t provide that with a VA that is run like the Postal Service or the IRS.
     While we need to treat our retired veterans better, we also should understand that we can best honor both our veterans and our current armed forces by pursuing a coherent foreign policy. No veteran should ever have to look back and ask himself “Why were we over there in the first place?” Too often history demonstrates that wars are fought for political and economic reasons, rather than legitimate national security reasons.
     Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own congress rather than by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them. Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 November 2002 The Homeland Security Monstrosity
     Congress spent just a few short hours last week voting to create the biggest new federal bureaucracy since World War II, not that the media or even most members of Congress paid much attention to the process. Yet our most basic freedoms as Americans–privacy in our homes, persons, and possessions; confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs; openness in our conversations, telephone, and internet use; unfettered travel; indeed the basic freedom not to be monitored as we go through our daily lives–have been dramatically changed.
     The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Back then, congressional hearings on the matter lasted two years before President Truman finally signed legislation. Even after this lengthy deliberation, however, organizational problems with the new department lasted more than 40 years! What do we expect from a huge bureaucracy conceived virtually overnight, by a Congress that didn’t even read the bill that creates it? Surely more deliberation was appropriate before establishing a giant new federal agency with 170,000 employees!
     When the Homeland Security department first was conceived, some congressional leaders and administration officials outrageously told a credulous rank-and-file Congress that the new department would be “budget neutral.” The agency simply would be a reorganization of existing federal employees, we were told, and would not increase the federal budget. In fact, the agency was touted as increasing efficiency, rather than expanding federal power. Of course the original 32 page proposal sent over by the White House quickly grew to 282 pages in House committees, ending up at more than 500 pages in the final version voted on last week–with a $3 billion price tag just for starters. The sheer magnitude of the bill, and the technical complexity of it, makes it impossible for anyone to understand completely. Rest assured that the new department represents a huge increase in the size and scope of the federal government that will mostly serve to spy on the American people. Can anyone, even the most partisan Republican, honestly say with a straight face that the Department of Homeland Security does not expand the federal government?
     The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers granted to the new Homeland Security department is lengthy. Warrantless searches, forced vaccinations of whole communities, federal neighborhood snitch programs, federal information databases, and a sinister new “Information Awareness Office” at the Pentagon that uses military intelligence to spy on domestic citizens are just a few of the troubling aspects of the new legislation. To better understand the potential damage to our liberties, I strongly recommend a November 14th New York Times op-ed piece by William Safire entitled “You Are A Suspect.” The article provides a devastating critique of the new Homeland Security bureaucracy and a chilling warning of what the agency could become. The article can be read on my website, www.house.gov/Paul, under the section entitled “Speeches.”

Texas Straight Talk, 25 November 2002 Homeland Security is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
     The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a “reorganization” of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.
     The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.
     Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.
     Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.
     The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation’s GDP, the highest level since World War II–and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power–your tax dollars–as unlimited.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 December 2002 Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
     Thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan, and perhaps hundreds of thousands more are poised to attack Iraq. The justification given for these military invasions is that both nations support terrorism, and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as “allies,” is just the latest example of the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
     Consider Saudi Arabia, which more than any other nation was responsible for the September 11th attacks. Even with the proven connection between the Saudis and al Qaeda, even with new reports of Saudi charities funneling money to terrorist groups, the administration still insists on calling them “a good partner” in the war on terror. Yet the nation that gave us most of the 9/11 murderers, whose citizens often support virulent Islamic terrorists, should hardly be called a friend.
     The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaff seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaff’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly, as the Pakistanis almost certainly harbored bin Laden in the months following 9/11. In fact, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. Furthermore, North Korea recently announced its new nuclear capability, developed with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Hussein, who has no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, is made a scapegoat.
     The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan–just to name two examples. If honest popular elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, the people in most countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliche or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
     A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries–as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We can and should remove our troops from the region quickly, before any more American lives are lost. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 December 2002 Government Vaccines–Bad Policy, Bad Medicine Government Vaccines–Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
     “Simply put, it is not ethical to give a medicine that will kill and maim persons for no demonstrable benefit. Assuaging fears about vulnerability to a potential disease is not a benefit any physician should accept.”
                 Dr. Jeffrey S. Sartin, MD
     A controversy over vaccines, specifically the smallpox vaccine, is brewing in Washington. The administration is considering ordering mass inoculations for more than one million military personnel and civilian medical workers, ostensibly to thwart a smallpox outbreak before it occurs. Yet dangerous side-effects from the vaccine–ranging from mild flu symptoms to gangrene, encephalitis, and even death–cause many to question the wisdom and need for such inoculations.
     As a medical doctor, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are bad medicine. The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people. As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Remember, not a single case of smallpox has been reported, despite the near-hysteria that characterized recent news reports. Even if some individuals became infected, smallpox spreads only with very close contact. Those in the surrounding community could then decide to accept vaccines based on a much more tangible risk.
     As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.
     The possibility that the federal government could order vaccines is real. Provisions buried in the 500-page homeland security bill give federal health bureaucrats virtually unchecked power to declare health emergencies. Specifically, it gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–in my view one of the worst of all federal agencies–power to declare actual or potential bioterrorist emergencies; to administer forced “countermeasures,” including vaccines, to individuals or whole groups; and to extend the emergency declaration indefinitely. These provisions mirror those found in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, a troubling proposal that was rejected by most state legislatures last year. That Act would have given state governors broad powers to suspend civil liberties and declare health emergencies. Yet now we’re giving virtually the same power to the Secretary of HHS. Equally troubling is the immunity from civil suit granted to vaccine manufacturers in the homeland security bill, which potentially could leave individuals who get sick from a bad batch of vaccines without legal recourse.
     Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 December 2002 What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
     The buzzwords in Washington concerning Iraq these days are “regime change,” which in a sense is surprisingly honest. It means the upcoming Gulf War II will not be about protecting Kuwait or stemming Iraqi aggression. The pretenses have been discarded, and now we’ve simply decided Saddam must go. We seem to have very little idea, however, what a post-Saddam Iraq will look like. We should expect another lesson in nation-building, with American troops remaining in the country indefinitely while billions of our tax dollars attempt to prop up a new government.
     With this goal of regime change in mind, the administration recently announced plans to spend nearly $100 million training an Iraqi militia force to help overthrow Hussein. A NATO airbase in southern Hungary will be used for military training. The problem, however, will be choosing individuals from at least five different factions vying for power in Iraq, including the fundamentalist Kurds in the north. Given the religious, ethnic, and social complexities that make up the Middle East, do we really believe that somehow we can choose the “good guys” who deserve to rule Iraq?
     Of course any of these groups will be happy to use American military power to remove Hussein, and will form a short-term alliance with the Pentagon accordingly. Their opposition to the current government, however, should not be mistaken for support for America or its policies. As we’ve seen so many times in the past, the groups we support in foreign conflicts rarely remain grateful for long.
     Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are perfect examples of our onetime “allies” who accepted our help yet failed to do our bidding for long. Both gladly welcomed American money, weapons, and military training during the 1980s. With bin Laden we sought to frustrate the Soviet advance into Afghanistan, and many Pentagon hawks undoubtedly felt vindicated when the Russian army retreated. Yet twenty years later, bin Laden is a rabid American-hating madman whose operatives are armed with our own Stinger missiles. Similarly, we supported the relatively moderate Hussein in the hopes of neutralizing a radically fundamentalist Iran. Yet this military strengthening of Iraq led to its invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent military involvement in the gulf. Today the Hussein regime is belligerently anti-American, and any biological or chemical weapons he possesses were supplied by our own government.
     We’ve seen this time and time again. We support a military or political group based on our short-term objectives, only to have them turn against us later. Ultimately, our money, weapons, and interventionist policies never buy us friends for long, and more often we simply arm our future enemies. The politicians responsible for the mess are usually long gone when the trouble starts, and voters with a short attention span don’t connect the foreign policy blunders of twenty years ago with today’s problems. But wouldn’t our long-term interests be better served by not creating the problems in the first place?
     The practical consequences of meddling in the domestic politics of foreign nations are clearly disastrous. We should remember, however, that it is also wrong in principle to interfere with the self-determination rights of foreign peoples. Consider how angry Americans become when Europeans or Mexicans merely comment on our elections, or show a decided preference for one candidate. We rightfully feel that our politics are simply none of the world’s business, yet we seem blind to the anger created when we use military force to install governments in places like Iraq. The unspoken question is this: What gives us the right to decide who governs Iraq or any other foreign country? Apparently our own loss of national sovereignty, as we surrender more and more authority to organizations like the UN and WTO, mirrors our lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 December 2002 What Really Divides Us?
     The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
     In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term “states’ rights” to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.
     Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.
     Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.
     Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
     Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
     The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees–while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 December 2002 Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003?
     As 2002 draws to a close, the prospects for peace seem bleak in the world’s troubled Middle East region. Afghanistan remains in chaos, despite the ouster of the Taliban regime by American forces. Israel and the occupied West Bank territories suffer terrible incidents of violence almost daily, forcing the cancellation of Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem. Although the administration has not yet ordered a full-scale military mobilization into Iraq, war hawks in the Pentagon and Defense department assure us that such an attack is imminent.
     Yet even in the midst of this Middle East turmoil, an unsettling new threat has arisen in North Korea. The authoritarian Kim Jong-il regime recently announced that it would move forward with a nuclear weapons program, poisoning its already hostile diplomatic relationship with Washington. The Koreans allegedly opened seals on thousands of irradiated fuel rods, and removed UN monitoring cameras at a nuclear reactor that was earlier shut down by treaty. Some military observers believe the North Koreans can produce four or five nuclear weapons in the next six months.
     Defense Secretary Rumsfeld quickly responded to the North Koreans by declaring that the United States can fight simultaneous wars with Iraq and North Korea if necessary. But can we be certain this is true, especially after the demoralizing reductions in our military strength during the Clinton years? Does this mean we will stretch our military forces even thinner, to fight three or five or ten conflicts, if necessary to play world policeman in the new American empire?
     The seriousness of the North Korean threat is evidenced by strong reactions from France, Britain, Japan, Russia, and even China. In fact, a recent poll showed that an overwhelming number of Americans view North Korea as more of a threat than Iraq.
     How tragic that after 50 years of Korean occupation by American troops, our citizens feel more threatened by that nation than ever. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Korean war, and thousands more have risked their lives serving in the desolate DMZ that separates North and South Korea. Yet all we can show for half a century of military and political entanglement in Korea is today’s heightened nuclear tensions. Even the South Koreans, whose very lives our soldiers protect, have grown weary of American demonization of the North, showing a desire for more openness and negotiations between the two countries. In fact, the recently elected South Korean president won votes by displaying some anti-American sentiment.
     After a horrific fifteen years in Vietnam, we removed our troops completely from the region. Today, our nation enjoys friendly diplomatic and trade relations with that country, and we’ve been able to heal some of the pain experienced by both our GIs and the Vietnamese people. Somehow, we seem unable to apply the same lesson to Korea.
     The good news is that public support for an invasion of Iraq has diminished, and the situation in Korea will only raise more questions about the wisdom of a second Gulf war. If the argument for invading Iraq is based on the threat it poses to American national security, a much stronger argument can be made for invading North Korea. Many Americans now believe Saddam Hussein can be neutralized without sending U.S troops into Baghdad. With tens of thousands of young American soldiers already active in Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands ready to deploy in Iraq, the possibility of a third conflict in Korea may be too much for even the loudest pro-war voices in Washington to sell to the American public.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 January 2003 The Great Global Social Security Giveaway?
     As we ring in the new year, dark clouds are gathering over our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. In December, the press reported on a looming deal between the administration and the government of Mexico which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The centerpiece of the agreement would be a so-called “totalization,” which would mean that even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.
     Worse still, thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. Under “totalization,” a foreigner who came to the United States illegally could work fewer than the required number of years, return to Mexico for the rest of his working years, and collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
     The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
     Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.
     Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program!
     It is uncertain whether the administration will seek Congressional approval for this agreement. Let’s hope that such a substantive move–with such serious financial and legal implications–will not be made by Executive Order.
     In the 107^th Congress, I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. As Congress continues to demonstrate an inability to control spending that threatens the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. That is why I intend to re-introduce this legislation in the 108^th Congress, which opens this month. Social Security should be limited to United States citizens and nationals who have paid into the system. It should not be a global giveaway.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 January 2003 Conscription is Collectivism
     Two Democratic Congressman introduced legislation last week to revive the military draft, taking a race-baiting shot at the President and his war plans. Their idea is not new, however, as similar proposals were introduced by Republicans in the months following September 11th. Although the administration is not calling for a draft at this time, last week’s controversy shows while conscription has been buried for 30 years, the idea is not necessarily dead.
     Neither the Pentagon nor our military leaders want a draft. In fact, a Department of Defense report stated that draft registration could be eliminated “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Today’s military is more high tech and specialized than ever before, and an educated volunteer force is required to operate our modern Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.
     So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops already stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country we label a threat to the new American empire. Military leaders conservatively estimate that 250,000 troops will be needed to invade Iraq, while tens of thousands already occupy Afghanistan. Add another conflict to the mix–in North Korea, the Balkans, or any number of hot spots–and our military capabilities would quickly be exhausted. Some in Washington would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.
     Military needs aside, however, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state. On a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
     I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and resign military conscription to the dustbin of American history. Five hundred million dollars have been wasted on the Selective Service System since 1979, money that could have been returned to taxpayers or spent to improve the lives of our nation’s veterans.
     Ronald Reagan said it best: “The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral.” He understood that conscription assumes our nation’s young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 January 2003 Tax Cuts and Class Wars
     President Bush unveiled a very modest tax cut plan last week that calls for the elimination of double taxation on dividends. Democrats immediately attacked the plan using class warfare tactics, clamoring that only the rich will benefit from a dividends tax reduction. This tired argument ignores the millions of middle class American investors who receive dividend checks and presumably don’t consider themselves wealthy. It also ignores the stimulative effect that any form of tax cut has on the economy. When dividends are taxed only once, as corporate income, investment is encouraged and shareholder demand for dividends increases. This in turn encourages companies to increase profits, because it’s hard to pay dividends if you’re not making any money. But these arguments require some analysis, and the left would rather appeal to base emotions and attempt to paint the wealthy as sinister tax dodgers.
     As with so many things in politics, the truth is exactly opposite. The so-called rich pay almost all of the income taxes in this country. In fact, the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay a whopping 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers–those in the bottom 50% of earnings–account for less than 4% of income tax revenues. This means no matter how taxes are cut, it’s nearly impossible for those cuts to primarily benefit lower-earning taxpayers. Tax cuts necessarily benefit those who pay the overwhelming bulk of the taxes. This simple truth allows the left to attack each and every tax cut proposal on the grounds that it disproportionately benefits the rich.
     Yet we have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn’t believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical “social justice.” When people complain about having thirty to fifty percent of everything they earn devoured by taxes, the collectivists just shrug. They honestly believe it should be more, much more.
     The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it–even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them. Yet the class warriors forget that American wealth is not static, but rather very dynamic. Poor people become rich, and rich people lose all of their money. In fact, at no time in American history have more of the nation’s wealthy earned rather than inherited their money. Rich family dynasties are increasingly rare, and are quickly destroyed by unproductive spendthrift generations. So when the left attacks the rich, they’re attacking a fluid group that many poor Americans hope to join someday by moving up in life. Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are.
     I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes–rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”

Texas Straight Talk, 27 January 2003 Government Policy and False Prosperity “Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.”
     Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises
     President Bush’s plan to end the double taxation of stock dividends, which I support, has been both lauded and denounced by the usual factions in Washington. Some of the President’s supporters, however, make the argument that a dividend tax cut will boost stock prices. While tax cuts are always good for the economy, it’s dangerous to promote the idea that government can create value in the financial markets. The collapse of stock prices in the last two years provides stark evidence that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies of the 1990s did not create lasting prosperity, and we should understand that tax policy is no different. Centralized planning via tax policy is every bit as harmful as centralized planning in monetary policy.
     My support for any tax cut is based on a longtime belief that our federal government is far too large, that it taxes and spends far too much. I always support tax cuts because I believe government should be returned to its proper constitutional limits. I do not support the idea of using tax policy for social engineering or supposed “stimulus,” where certain activities are encouraged and others discouraged. This is not proper in a free society, and it instills the terrible notion that government should run the economy. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises understood that government could destroy wealth, but never create it. This is why government should not be in the business of manipulating stock prices–the benefits are always illusory, but the harms are very real.
     The financial markets demand real value. Merely reducing taxes on dividends or capital gains cannot make a company or stock fundamentally more valuable. Any increase in a company’s stock price not based on real gains in productivity cannot be sustained for long, especially when the increase is caused by a reaction to government policies. Simply believing a company is worth a certain amount doesn’t make it so. In the end, only results–in the form of profitability and growth–matter. When government interferes in the financial markets through its monetary or tax policies, company values become distorted and investor knowledge become even more imperfect. This encourages the kind of uneducated speculation we saw during the 1990s, and many investors today find themselves mired in debt and holding almost worthless stocks.
     Even in hindsight, many don’t seem to understand the true nature of the 1990s Fed-created financial bubble. The prosperity enjoyed by so many companies and individuals was artificial, caused by Fed policies that vastly inflated the money supply and made the cost of borrowing money artificially low. Much of the “money” made in the market, and most of the astonishing paper increases in market capitalization, were illusory. The economic problems created by this artificial bubble are real, and we cannot hope to insulate ourselves from the ongoing correction merely by tinkering with the tax code.
     We need to rid ourselves of the fantasy that wealth can be created by artificially raising stock prices. The only stimulus our economy needs is sensible government policies. A sound money system, low taxes, and a low regulatory burden would foster an environment where real productivity and economic growth could flourish. Politicians need to learn from the failed Fed policies of the 1990s, and stop trying to fool the markets and the American people by promising prosperity through government policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 February 2003 Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World Welfare for the World
     “The President, a Republican no less, seems to believe that government should be telling us what kind of car to drive, what kind of education our kids should receive, how to cure disease in Africa and the Caribbean, how to liberate women the world over, how to fund technological innovation, and even how to ‘transform our souls’ and lift the ‘hopes of all mankind’–all courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer who is, once again, supposed to believe that the government can make better use of his money than he can.”
      Lew Rockwell Jr., President of the Mises Institute
     The State of the Union speech delivered last week showed little enthusiasm for the kind of real spending cuts our nation so desperately needs. Instead, it outlined a federal budget that grows at a rate of 5 to 7 percent each year, and in the twilight zone of Washington this is deemed to show spending restraint! Much of this lack of restraint will take the form of good old-fashioned welfare, whether for liberal social causes or conservative corporate causes.
     Consider the call for hydrogen-powered cars. The administration wants to spend more than $1.2 billion tax dollars promoting hydrogen research. This is hailed as forward-thinking environmentally friendly policy, but really it’s just corporate welfare. No one considers that certain companies and lobbyists will benefit handsomely from this new government spending, or that American taxpayers might prefer to keep the money for themselves. If companies in the hydrogen industry get a billion dollars, what about other industries? Why should government favor one industry or technology, and who in government is qualified to choose?
     A better approach would be to follow the Constitution and stop spending tax dollars on corporate subsidies. Private sector research always works better than government-sponsored research, and it always produces more honest results. If hydrogen power really works well, and companies can profitably provide clean running, affordable cars that people like, then the market for such cars will be tremendous. In other words, if hydrogen cars are so great, they will become popular without government subsidies. Why should the technology be developed at taxpayer expense, when future profits will be reaped by private companies? Let the market, rather than the lobbyists, decide whether hydrogen-powered cars are the future.
     The administration also wants to spend a whopping $15 billion in Africa to fight AIDS. Again, this is praised as compassionate and progressive policy. But what about the people who are suffering here at home, whether from AIDS or other diseases, poverty, or unemployment? Of course there is absolutely no constitutional authority to send tax dollars overseas. It is unconscionable to tax Americans, especially poor Americans, to supposedly alleviate suffering in other countries.
     I say “supposedly” because the money never really helps, and almost always ends up in the hands of dictators, corrupt government officials, or thuggish leaders of local factions. We could send $100 or $500 billion, and Africa would remain mired in AIDS and poverty. Only freedom, property rights, capitalism, and the rule of law can help Africa. The AIDS crisis cannot be solved by government, but rather requires a combination of truly independent private sector medical research and politically incorrect prevention efforts. Americans are the most charitable people on earth, and we should stop taxing them so much and allow private charities, including charities aimed at combating AIDS, to flourish.
     The State of the Union speech provided stark evidence that the era of big government is hardly over, and that welfare has not been reformed. Hydrogen boondoggles and AIDS industry welfare are just two small examples, symbols of what is wrong with a federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year. Not only does government spend far too much of your money, it spends the money badly. Once we as a society accepted the notion that Congress could fund programs not authorized in the Constitution, the sky was the limit–and we’ve reached that limit today.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 February 2003 Support the President’s Tax-Free Savings Plan
     Although the media has focused on the President’s proposal to end the harmful double taxation of dividends, he deserves far more credit for proposing tax-free savings accounts. These accounts would benefit millions of American families not only by reducing their taxes, but also by planting the seeds for them to enjoy financial stability and peace of mind decades later.
     Sadly, however, the President’s own Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposes the new savings accounts. Some members have told the White House that they will not fight to ensure passage of the proposal, preferring instead to tinker with the current retirement plan rules. This is truly unfortunate, because the President and our nation desperately need real anti-tax conservatives crafting legislation in the House.
     The President’s plan is simple. Taxpayers can create two new types of saving plans, called Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts. They can contribute up to 7,500 after tax, nondeductible dollars to each account every year. Unlike IRAs, 401(k)s, and other types of retirement plans, there are no complicated restrictions or tax rules. Taxpayers accumulate earnings on their contributions, and with the Lifetime account can make tax-free withdrawals anytime. With the Retirement account, taxpayers can make tax-free withdrawals after age 58. Both accounts would allow taxpayers to save significant sums for their retirement, which any rational financial planner would encourage.
     Yet many in the spendthrift Congress think income taxes that consume one-third or more of most Americans’ paychecks are not enough. They believe in taxing income twice: first when it’s earned, and again when it’s saved. Yet why should interest, dividends, and capital gains be taxed a second time? Is the congressional appetite for spending really so voracious that we cannot even allow taxpayers to enjoy some tax-free savings, as proposed by the President?
     Incredibly, members of both political parties seem to question the obvious benefit of tax-free accounts. With the Social Security system threatened by demographics and congressional spending raids, the need for private retirement saving has never been greater. America was in fact built with private savings. Only when individuals save money does a society develop the capital for investment and lending that is so critical to economic growth. Impoverished nations, by contrast, have little or no capital. This is often because of burdensome taxes and a lack of property rights. The desire to save money and build a better life is intrinsically human, and no society that punishes saving can remain prosperous for long.
     The President’s proposed savings accounts could put millions of Americans on the road to self-sufficiency. The only alternative to private saving is to allow ourselves to become a nation of government dependents, relying on Social Security and federal programs in our retirement years. Congress, especially the House leadership, should work hard to avoid this terrible fate by quickly passing tax-free savings accounts into law.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 February 2003 Counting on Social Security?
     Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren’t big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.
     Still, the problem seems vague and faraway for most. Today’s seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress doesn’t want to face the problem until it becomes an acute crisis. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant problem. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
     This means the greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later.
     This unconscionable system allows Congress to raid Social Security revenues for every conceivable pork spending project. Unless we change the spending culture in Washington, your retirement dollars will never be secure. At the very least, Congress needs to pass legislation requiring that Social Security revenues be spent only for payment of benefits.
     Furthermore, Congress needs to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid to American citizens only. In December, the national press reported on a deal looming between the administration and the Mexican government that would allow Mexican citizens who worked in the U.S.–even illegally–to qualify for Social Security benefits. A so-called “totalization” system would permit Mexican workers to add years worked in Mexico to those in the U.S. when qualifying for benefits. Unless Congress acts, the administration will begin using Social Security dollars to fund a global welfare system!
     This outrageous proposal is projected to cost the already fragile Social Security system more than one billion dollars annually just for starters. Social Security was designed to provide retirement income for American citizens who worked in the United States. Paying benefits to noncitizens is an insult to millions of Americans who pay into Social Security their entire lives, pledge their loyalty to America as citizens, yet now face the possibility of a bankrupt system when they retire.
     All American taxpayers should be very concerned about congressional spending raids and global giveaways of Social Security dollars. Unless real spending constraints are imposed now, the Social Security dollars that millions of Americans rely on may vanish before they retire.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 February 2003 Buying Friends with Foreign Aid
     With an American invasion of Iraq imminent, nations in the region are increasingly worried about the political, social, and economic consequences of a second Gulf war. Not surprisingly, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, and Turkey are demanding more money from the U.S. to offset the costs, economic and otherwise, of such a war. Other Middle East countries are sure to follow. Yet the more foreign aid we send to the Middle East, the more hopelessly entangled we become in the intractable conflicts that define it. Worse yet, the practice of buying friends casts very serious doubt on the lofty claims that we are promoting democracy. If our plans for Iraq will bring peace and stability to the region, why do we have to buy off the Middle East governments that stand to benefit? The truth is that those governments, even our ostensible allies, have very serious doubts about the wisdom of our proposed invasion of Iraq. Money–lots of it–makes them more amenable to our cause.
     Turkey in particular has shown incredible gall in demanding billions for its cooperation with our war efforts. Turkey shares a border with northern Iraq, and its air bases could serve as an important staging area for American forces. Yet Turkey is demanding a whopping $30 billion in exchange for its support of the war and use of its airfields. Unfortunately, the administration appears ready to accept this blackmail if a slightly lower dollar amount can be negotiated.
     This blatant shakedown gives new meaning to the term “ally.” In World War II, our allies were just that–nations willing to share the costs and risks, even the lives of their soldiers–to fight a war against common enemies. Today, our phony allies are bought and paid for with billions of your tax dollars, but prove less than trustworthy when trouble arises.
     Turkey wants more than our money, however. It also wants to control the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The Kurds in both Iraq and Turkey desire an independent Kurdish state, which the Turkish government fiercely resists. Turkish officials want an agreement that will allow thousands of their soldiers to advance into Kurdish northern Iraq on the heels of American forces. This would be a shameful insult to the Kurdish people, who at least have been consistent foes of Saddam Hussein.
     The billions we will give Turkey are just the tip of the iceberg. The foreign aid feeding frenzy will only intensify as America expands its role as world policeman. Already it is routine for some nations to send negotiating teams to Washington during the appropriations process, intent on securing the foreign aid loot to which they feel so entitled. Just as hordes of domestic lobbyists roam the halls of Congress seeking federal money for every conceivable special interest, we should expect foreign lobbyists to increasingly look for money from American taxpayers. In the new era of American empire, foreign aid spending serves as the carrot. Iraq will get the stick, at least at first. Once we occupy it, of course, we will spend billions there as well.
     Foreign aid is not only unconstitutional, but also exceedingly unwise. It creates the worst kind of entangling alliances that President Washington warned about. It doesn’t buy us any real allies, but instead encourages false friendships, dependency, and a sense of entitlement among the recipients. It also causes resentment among nations that receive none, or less than they feel they deserve. Above all, however, it is simply unconscionable to tax American citizens and send their money overseas. We have enough problems of our own here at home, and those dollars should be returned to taxpayers or spent on legitimate constitutional activities.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 March 2003 The 2003 Spending Orgy
     Federal tax revenues have dropped dramatically since the stock market peaks of 2000. Rising unemployment continues to reduce the number of taxpayers, while plummeting investor portfolios no longer produce the huge capital gains and dividend revenues that flooded federal coffers in the 1990s. This drop in revenues was of course predictable, given the faltering economy and enormous market losses of the past two years.
     Yet has Congress responded to this new reality with spending freezes or other austerity measures? Hardly. Its response has been exactly opposite, passing a 2003 budget that is a whopping 22% higher than just two years ago! Not only is spending way up in terms of total dollars, but the rate at which spending grows each year is accelerating rapidly. In fact, a federal budget that once took a century to double in size will now do so in only about five years. This rate of growth cannot be sustained unless Congress truly intends to bankrupt the federal government.
     This practice is akin to getting a pay cut at work, then immediately buying a bigger house with a higher mortgage payment. No sensible individual would spend more when his income drops, but Congress operates without any shred of common sense or restraint at budget time. When members of Congress consider the various spending bills, the money–hundreds of billions of dollars–hardly seems real. What’s another 10 million dollars, they reason, for a pet project or favor to a lobbyist? Unlike a family facing the loss of income, Congress can raise taxes, borrow from foreign governments, or spend money newly printed by the Federal Reserve. Spending cuts are simply not considered. In fact, the federal budget grows every year without exception, and the previous year’s spending is treated only as a baseline. How long could your family survive if it spent five or ten percent more money each and every year?
     One might assume the 2003 spending increases are largely the result of September 11^th and homeland security concerns, but actually it’s the standard types of federal pork that drive the overall spending surge. Virtually all federal agencies and federal programs, including those that have nothing to do with defense or terrorism, have enjoyed budget increases of more than 20% over the last two years.
     Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan recently suggested before a congressional committee that billions could be saved if the Treasury used lower inflation estimates. In other words, if we say inflation is lower than the Consumer Price Index and other barometers indicate, Congress won’t have to spend as much on cost-of-living adjustments for programs like Social Security. This amounts to lying to the American people about our monetary policies, by hiding the true rate of inflation caused by printing too many dollars and keeping interest rates artificially low.
     The looming hangover is reflected in the federal debt, which is officially about 5.6 trillion dollars. The real figure is much higher, because the official figure does not include outstanding future liabilities like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Baby Boomers will soon demand. The “debt limit,” created by federal law in a hopeful attempt to limit congressional spending, is routinely raised by Congress without political fallout. All Americans must become aware of how truly unrestrained federal spending has become, and realize that voters represent the last line of defense against the complete bankruptcy of the U.S. government.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 March 2003 The Myth of War Prosperity
     War has many costs, both human and economic, that must be carefully considered now that an invasion of Iraq appears imminent. The greatest cost of war, of course, is the cost in human lives. We all hope and pray that no Americans are killed or injured in Iraq. But the economic costs of war must also be considered.
     There is a commonly-held myth that war creates prosperity. Many believe that World War II ended the Great Depression. Unemployment went down because hundreds of thousands of men were drafted, and factories at home busied themselves with war production. This provided the illusion of a bustling wartime economy. But in truth the economy shrank and GDP plummeted. The hidden costs were enormous, because so much human energy and human capital was expended fighting the war rather than doing productive, specialized work back home.
     Bastiat’s broken window fallacy applies to our current dilemma in the Middle East. The situation in Iraq is the broken pane of glass, and “fixing” it will appear to benefit the economy in the short run. Certain industries will certainly benefit. But the hidden opportunity costs will again be enormous. The hidden costs will be the loss of economic activity that would have occurred if the money spent waging war had instead been spent at home.
     Inflation is certain during wartime, as the Treasury prints more money to fund military expenses. Our dollar will become weaker against other currencies because of the uncertainty caused by turmoil in the Middle East. Control of Iraqi oil wells, which is often cited as an economic windfall from the war, is not guaranteed and might not happen quickly. Oil prices almost certainly will skyrocket and will remain inflated after the war, especially given the deteriorating buying power of our own dollars.
     We should expect the financial markets to react badly to an invasion of Iraq. Although military victory should be swift, prolonged urban fighting in Baghdad or other cities would cause investor confidence to plunge. This lack of confidence in the U.S. economy will make trade more difficult and cause our trade deficit to rise.
     Furthermore, taxes or deficits necessarily rise when the nation’s productivity falls because of war. Estimates of war spending range from $100 billion to $200 billion, a figure that does not include tens of billions needed for nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. As with past wars, a huge surge in spending will happen as tax revenues are falling dramatically. This spending can be sustained only by printing more money, borrowing from foreign nations, or raising taxes–all of which harm the economy.
     The greatest economic cost of war, however, comes from the expansion in the size and scope of government. Government always grows during wars and other crises. As economist Murray Rothbard noted, government uses crises to “Engineer the great leaps forward,” in the size of the state. When the crisis ends, government never returns to its former size. As government expands, individual liberty necessarily shrinks. True prosperity cannot exist without individual liberty and its corollaries of limited government, property rights, and free markets. Ultimately, war leaves us with less freedom at home. The sad irony is that while our soldiers have fought for the freedom of Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq, the government uses war to steadily diminish freedom here at home. While we fight a war in Iraq, we must also fight to maintain and restore individual liberty in America.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 March 2003 Time to Renounce the United Nations?
     Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.
     The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!
     Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.
     Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
     The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
     Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
     The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 March 2003 Honor Veterans with a Better Budget
     Congress narrowly passed a budget last week that calls for the federal government to spend in excess of 2 trillion dollars in 2004, which is more than double what the federal government spent in 1990. Yet while Congress finds hundreds of billions to fund every conceivable unconstitutional program and special-interest pork project, it fails to provide adequately for our nation’s veterans. In fact, the budget passed by the House calls for cuts of $15.1 billion from veterans programs over the next ten years. These cuts will affect programs that provide education benefits, compensation for veterans with service-related disabilities, and pensions for disabled veterans.
     We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.
     Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in our government has been breached time and time again, and last week’s budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.
     We should remember that Gulf War I and II will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the Veterans Administration should stop insulting our Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future. Congress must, however, ensure adequate funding for the medical care that today’s soldiers will someday need.
     Having served in the U.S. Air Force for five years, I feel an obligation to our veterans and current armed forces. Congress wastes so much money that only a small portion of that waste could make a huge difference in the lives of our veterans. Depending on what the Senate does, Congress may have a chance to revisit the 2004 budget and find the resolve to fully fund needed veterans programs.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 March 2003 The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
     I’ve spent nearly four decades practicing medicine as an obstetrician, and I’ve seen firsthand how the cost of medical malpractice insurance has risen. Among doctors, malpractice costs truly represent a crisis that threatens the economic viability of the profession.
     There is no question that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in this country. We’ve become a society that expects medical care to be guaranteed, that demands a perfect outcome to every medical procedure. Mother Nature provides no guarantees however, and things can go wrong without the slightest negligence by the doctor involved. Of course some malpractice suits are legitimate, and truly negligent doctors should pay economic damages. But far too many suits are filed simply because a patient is unhappy despite the competent efforts of his doctor, and far too many meritless suits are settled simply to avoid litigation costs. The result is malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business.
     Every American pays for this not only in the form of much higher medical costs, but also in countless other ways. Trauma center doctors have walked off the job in protest. Many doctors feel stressed, unhappy, and unappreciated, which leads to a declining quality of care. Most are hesitant to explore new treatments that could benefit patients because they fear a lawyer will seize on any deviation from standard practices. Similarly, patients endure more and more unnecessary and costly tests ordered by doctors who feel they must explore even the most unlikely diagnoses. Worst of all, the best and brightest young people are abandoning the pursuit of medical careers. Already faced with years in medical school and daunting tuition bills, they increasingly understand that malpractice and economic concerns have damaged the quality of life for doctors.
     Many Americans understandably want Congress to fix the medical malpractice problem. Yet the “solution” offered by Congress, namely the federalization of malpractice law, threatens to do more harm than good. First and foremost, this approach damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules. Capping liability limits sounds appealing, but it fails to address the basic problem of too many lawsuits and too many shakedowns, most of which settle for less than the proposed caps anyway.
     The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation. This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of “the system” and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses.
     Yet the assessment of liability and compensation should be determined by private contractual agreements between physicians and patients–in other words, by the free market. The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
     I have introduced legislation that allows individuals a tax credit for the purchase of negative outcomes insurance. Needless to say, my bill prohibits the IRS from treating such insurance proceeds as taxable income. After all, while we don’t need trial lawyers getting any more insurance money, but we certainly don’t need the IRS getting it either!

Texas Straight Talk, 7 April 2003 War Profiteers
     The president asked Congress last week to authorize new funding for the war in Iraq, which was not paid for in the wasteful budget recently passed in the House of Representatives. You might assume that Congress would simply approve legislation that pays for military supplies and hardware, troop wages, ammunition, fuel, food, and the like. In other words, the bread and butter items that our troops need to prosecute the war in Iraq.
     But nothing is simple in Washington. Congress could not resist the opportunity to put its hands in taxpayers’ pockets by adding 20 billion dollars in completely unrelated spending to the final bill. In essence, Congress is so addicted to spending that it will use any opportunity, even a war, to spend money for every conceivable reason–however unrelated to the war in Iraq.
     We must understand that America is in a financial crisis. Tax revenues are down due to the faltering economy, but congressional spending has exploded by more than 22% in just two years. As a result, annual deficits have risen rapidly, and the national debt now approaches 6.5 trillion dollars. Almost all of this new spending has been completely unrelated to homeland defense or national security concerns. The same old failed domestic agencies and special-interest pork programs have received the bulk of the dollars. While Congress should fund constitutional federal functions like national defense, our very solvency as a nation is being threatened by unconstitutional spending.
     Here are some examples of what ended up in the “war funding” bill:
     -$3.2 billion for an airline bailout-even though the airlines always seem to be troubled and always feel they deserve tax money. If we bail out the airlines, why not the hotels, restaurants, and rental car agencies that have been affected by 9-11 and the war in Iraq? Why not every industry that’s suffering?;
     -$125 million for congressional security, to make sure members are safe even if the country is not;
     -$11 million for salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives, who already approved a pay raise for themselves last Fall;
     -$250 million for Department of Agriculture grants;
-$69 million for something called the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust;
     -$5.5 million for the Library of Congress;
     -$6.8 million for the Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office;
     -$100,000 for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
     The bill also includes $8 billion in foreign aid, which is especially egregious given the state of the American economy. How can we ask taxpayers to send billions abroad with things so tough for many here at home?
     The $ 8 billion includes:
     -$1 billion in “economic assistance” for Turkey, even though they refused to let America use its bases to stage our assault on Iraq and have only grudgingly allowed use of its airspace;
     -$700 million for Jordan;
     -$500 million for Egypt;
     -$127 million for Afghanistan;
     -$1 billion in for Israel;
     -$175 million for Pakistan;
     -$170 million to train the “Afghan National Army“;
     and the list goes on and on. All of this is of course in addition to the standard foreign aid we send these nations and many others every year.
     These are just some examples of how Congress takes every possible opportunity to spend your money, even when it should be focused on the war in Iraq. Was it really too much to ask for a clean bill to fund the president’s request, a bill unencumbered by pork handouts and useless foreign aid? Apparently not even war can prevent Congress from shamelessly sticking its hands in your pockets while cloaking itself in “support the troops” rhetoric.


Texas Straight Talk, 14 April 2003 Congress Exceeds its Credit Limit
     The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It’s not the nation’s debt, but rather the federal government’s debt. The American people didn’t spend the money, but they will have to pay it back. And if Congress has its way, our nation’s Treasury will have twice as much debt ten years from now as it does today.
     Most Americans don’t spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than six trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes–currently about $22,000. Of course the federal government never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount, for obvious reasons. Instead, it uses your income taxes to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it’s rising steadily.
     The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the Treasury collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially when the economy is bad. Since Congress spends more than the government makes, the federal government must either raise taxes, print more dollars to make debt payments, or borrow money. It’s happy to do all three, but they’re all bad for you–and the borrowing is bad for your grandchildren too.
     Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry, and the limit–currently $6.4 trillion–has been reached. So Congress must vote to raise the limit, even though just a few short months ago it was raised from $5.9 trillion. The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing, to force Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy. Only public outrage, demonstrated by actually voting the big spenders out of office, can change the spending habits of the U.S. Congress.
     Yet Congress is at it again, raising the debt limit in a new budget that is a wasteful as any I’ve seen during my tenure in Washington–and that’s a strong statement. In fact, the 2004 budget passed by the House raises the debt limit by nearly one trillion dollars, the single largest increase by far. The budget also contains a procedural rule that allows the debt limit to increase annually over the next ten years, almost doubling from the current $6.4 trillion to an incredible $12 trillion.
     Congress needs to stop this terrible spending spree before it bankrupts American taxpayers. All of the talk about tax cuts and budgets is just a smokescreen obscuring the real problem of uncontrolled spending. Unless the American people force Congress to change its spendthrift ways, newborn Americans may soon come into the world owing $44,000 instead of $22,000.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 April 2003 Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
     The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.”
     Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11^th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.
     Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons” are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?” is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.
     Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.
     More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”–but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
     Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
     “Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

Texas Straight Talk, 28 April 2003 Keep the United Nations out of Iraq–and America
     As the heaviest fighting in Iraq comes to a close, questions about what kind of government will be established dominate the news. Looting and lawlessness are the order of the day in the inevitable vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, the United Nations–at the urging of France, Germany, and Mnobr>Russia–wants to fill that vacuum and play the central role in postwar Iraq. If the Iraqi people ever hope to enjoy any measure of self-determination, UN occupation must be resisted.
     Is the UN demand to oversee postwar Iraq remotely justified? An increasing number of Americans say “No.” In fact, more and more Americans are rejecting the very legitimacy of the UN, openly calling for the US to withdraw from the organization. Even mainstream Washington pundits on the right have begun to question the wisdom of continued US participation in the UN.
     I happen to agree with these new critics of the UN, having advocated getting out of the organization for twenty years. Obviously many Americans now want out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq, and certainly America should never let its national security become a matter of UN consensus. But this growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the UN is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution.
     Our current approach of alternately using and ignoring the UN results in the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we give credibility to the concepts of international law and global government. We give up precious sovereignty not only to the UN, but also through trade agreements and organizations like the WTO and NAFTA. Yet while we cede more and more of our national identity to the globalists, we gain little in exchange. Other nations see us as willing to ignore the global rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain hated and mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty.
     Americans should seize the chance to expose the myth of so-called “international law.” Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people. Simply stated, just laws are derived from the consent of the governed, and Americans have not consented to be governed by foreign individuals or bodies. Constitutionally speaking, only Congress can craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. When the UN attempts to dictate our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws–as it already has–we need to remember that only the representative US Congress has authority to make our national laws
     I recently reintroduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146, in the House of Representatives. This bill will end US participation in the UN, stop the terrible waste of $300 million tax dollars in annual UN dues, and ensure that American soldiers never serve under a UN command. I have asked the House leadership for its help in bringing the bill to a quick vote, so Americans can see where their representatives stand on the issue.
     Although I strongly believe our foreign policy should be based on the philosophy of our Founding Fathers–open relations with all nations that seek the same, and entangling alliances with none–I certainly don’t believe the UN should be involved in our policy decisions at all. Our foreign policy and our domestic laws can be crafted only by the American people and their elected representatives.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 May 2003 So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress
     Just six short months ago the Republican party won a stunning victory in the 2002 election, increasing its majority in the House of Representatives and retaking the Senate. With Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House for the first time in fifty years, many assumed legislators would push a socially and fiscally conservative agenda.
     Yet nothing could be further from the truth, as an embarrassing vote last week clearly demonstrated. The supposedly conservative Congress overwhelmingly passed a foreign aid bill that could have come straight from the desk of the most liberal Democrat. The legislation sends $15 billion of your tax dollars to Africa, ostensibly to fight AIDS by distributing condoms, providing sex education, and funding abortion providers. Needless to say the bill gives money to some very questionable organizations and programs, and will undoubtedly pad the bank accounts of some of the worst governments in the world.
     House leadership, often characterized in the mainstream press as far-right wing, actively promoted and praised the bill. A Republican press release after the vote gushed that “This bill is a moral crusade… to save a continent from the Great Plague of our age.” So much for the socially conservative agenda of the GOP!
     Opposition to the bill was minimal, although 40 Republicans did cast principled votes against it. Other conservatives who were slightly uncomfortable with the vote satisfied themselves by passing an amendment that requires some of the $15 billion to be spent on abstinence programs. Yet does anyone honestly think we can control how our dollars are spent once they reach Africa? Obviously money is fungible anyway, so “earmarking” funds for pet conservative programs does nothing. Furthermore, Republican leaders completely ignored efforts in committee to forbid funding for abortion in the bill.
     As a physician I am of course concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS, and have great sympathy for those who suffer from AIDS both here in America and around the world. But the question is not whether each and every one of us wants to eradicate AIDS. The question is whether yet another government program, especially one that sends money overseas, is a constitutionally proper or effective way to combat the problem. We certainly should have learned by now that good intentions alone can never justify a wasteful and ineffectual government program.
     The United States has sent billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “building democracy,” “fighting drugs,” and “ending poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these problems have actually gotten worse. Most of the money has disappeared into the bank accounts of dictators, or into salaries for well-paid consultants who administer our foreign aid; very little has changed in the impoverished nations themselves. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes, and now Congress has made another multi-billion dollar mistake with the AIDS bill.
     As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Last week’s vote underscores the need to end the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs or organizations they believe to be immoral, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortions.
     Sadly, this $15 billion expenditure comes even as Congress is cutting funding for veterans by roughly the same amount. The Treasury is running record deficits, the Pentagon is engaged in enormously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans’ programs are badly underfunded–yet still Congress is sending billions overseas for yet another dubious and unconstitutional program. This should anger every American who still believes in the true conservative tenets of limited government, fiscal restraint, and private charity instead of social welfare programs.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 May 2003 The Phony Tax Cut Debate
     The watered-down tax cut passed in the House of Representatives last week, while predictably small, is better than nothing. It does reduce taxes on dividends slightly, lowers marginal income tax rates by very small percentages, and increases some deductions available to businesses.
     Still, the speeches on the House floor showed the current tax cut debate is strictly about politics and not serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but don’t propose truly significant tax reductions. Both sides use the outrageous expression “cost to government” when talking about the impact of tax legislation on revenues. This implies that government owns everything, and that any tax rate less than 100% costs government some of its rightful bounty.
     Republicans argue that tax cuts will raise revenues by increasing economic activity, thus providing Congress with even more money to spend. It should hardly be the goal of conservatives to increase federal revenues! Real income tax cuts of 30 or 50 percent would reduce revenues, which is exactly what Congress needs to restrain its terrible spendthrift habits. Increased revenues or not, however, no one argues for serious cuts in spending. After all, the latest Bush budget spends 22% more than the last Clinton budget only three years ago.
     Democrats argue that lowering taxes simply lowers revenues and increases deficits. They repeat the tired and false argument that only the vaguely defined “rich” benefit from tax cuts. They ignore that $500 in tax savings for a low-income family might mean more to them than $100,000 saved by a wealthy person. They only see a villainous “rich” person getting away with paying less than what they consider to be his “fair share.” They also don’t understand that a poor family may aspire to become wealthy or have wealthy children and grandchildren.
     One way to silence the class war argument would be to cut payroll taxes, which are paid through FICA withholding by even minimum-wage workers. This is never suggested because to do so would expose the Social Security “trust fund” lie. Since there is no trust fund and all government revenues are spent immediately, a payroll tax cut could make it impossible for the government to pay current Social Security benefits.
     Throughout last week’s debate, some very important points were purposely ignored:
     � The money people earn is their own and they have a moral right to keep as much of it as possible. It does not belong to Congress.
     � Government spending is the problem! Taking a big chunk of the people’s earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. The real issue is total spending by government, yet this is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle in Congress.
     � Whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue and second an economic issue. Only people pay taxes; taxes are a very definite “cost” to individuals. Taking less in taxes from those individuals should never be viewed as a cost to government.
     � The real issue for the ages, namely “What is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic?” is ignored by both sides in the tax cut debate. And yet the bigger question is: “Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional republic?”

Texas Straight Talk, 19 May 2003 Border Tragedy Reveals Deeper Problems
     We all feel tremendous sympathy for the men who lost their lives last week locked in a truck-trailer outside of Victoria, Texas, in the congressional district I represent. Regardless of the circumstances of their entry into the United States, it is a terrible tragedy for their families, and a horrific example of what can happen when human life is considered cheap.
     This event also reminds us of the serious immigration and border control problems that remain to be addressed.
     Why is it that people will take incredible risks to come to this country? Fundamentally, it is because they seek a better, more prosperous life. Such a life is possible only in a nation of laws, where there is a reasonable assumption that the law will be applied equally to all. This is why, regardless of one’s position on immigration, existing immigration laws must be better enforced. Incidents like this, and the thousands of illegal border crossings that take place every day, demonstrate that authorities are not enforcing the law effectively.
     This tragedy also reminds us of the lengths to which some will go to gain entry into the United States. Even as the government takes more and more of our income and curtails our liberties, incidents like this serve as a poignant reminder of the great freedoms and prosperity we enjoy in the United States. That dozens of people would cram themselves into a trailer like cattle, just for the opportunity to come to the United States, says a great deal about our relatively free-market system. It should also remind us of just how important it is to do everything we can to preserve our liberty and constitutional form of government.
     This tragedy highlights something more chilling, however: our continued vulnerability to terrorist attacks. More than four million trucks enter the United States through Mexico each year; border authorities inspect less than one percent. Indeed, our borders have become more porous than ever, as federal authorities in some cases simply will not enforce the laws that Congress has passed.
     Suppose that rather than human cargo, the truck was carrying a chemical or nuclear weapon. Suppose 100 trucks loaded with nuclear weapons crossed the Mexican border driven by Al-Qaeda operatives. Some 99 would get through. Who believes terrorists would have much trouble getting into Mexico?
     Yet while we maintain more than 200,000 US troops in more than 120 countries–many of whom are involved in guarding foreign borders–our own border patrol stands unprepared to prevent terrorists from bringing terrible weapons into our country. Surely those soldiers and resources would be better used protecting our own shores. The recent bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed several Americans, indicates that Al-Qaeda is still alive and well. We therefore ignore our unguarded borders at our own peril.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 May 2003 The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
     Do you think your federal tax dollars should be used to influence the outcome of state and local elections? Would you mind if an administration bureaucrat flew to your city–at taxpayer expense and on behalf of the federal government–to campaign against a local candidate or referendum you supported? Should certain candidates in your local election have the stamp of federal approval, much like a newspaper endorsement? Are state and local laws valid only if approved by the federal government?
     These are troubling questions raised by the latest assault on states’ rights in Washington. The Ninth and Tenth amendments make it clear that under our federal system, states retain full authority to craft their own laws. The federal government has only limited, express powers, and therefore can preempt state laws only in a very narrow range of federal matters. But in imperial Washington, states have become nothing more than glorified counties.
     Consider the medical marijuana debate. Federal law currently prohibits the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) from using its huge advertising budget for partisan or political purposes. In fact, a broader law prohibits federal agencies in general from using taxpayer dollars to influence the outcome of local elections. The need for these laws is obvious if we hope to maintain any slight degree of federalism. However, if Congress passes a bill pending before a House committee, ONDCP will soon be exempt from the rules against politicking. It already blatantly ignored existing rules in recent months by sending representatives to Missouri and Nevada to openly oppose local medical marijuana initiatives. The message to local voters was very clear: do not dare pass a law that displeases your superiors in Washington. To do so was to risk an outright raid by federal agents to make sure the new law was not implemented, as we saw two years ago in California.
     The issue is not whether one supports medical marijuana or not. The issue is whether Washington decides or local voters decide. For most issues, the Constitution leaves decision-making to the states. For most of the 20^th century, however, the federal government has ignored the Constitution and run roughshod over state sovereignty. As a result, the centralizers of both parties in Washington cannot imagine a society not dominated by the federal government.
     Those who favor strict drug laws should understand that federal preemption is a double-edged sword. For example, if a socially conservative state like Utah wanted to enact harsh drug policies to reflect its community standards, federal law could actually prevent the enactment of such policies. When the American people give up state and local authority over any issue, whether its marijuana, abortion, or gun control, they give up most of their power to affect policy. It’s far easier to influence, and hold accountable, state and local officials. Once the federal government takes the opposite side of an issue, however, good luck changing things.
     The practice of allowing federal agencies to influence local elections certainly sets a dangerous precedent, and might lead to the labeling of “federally approved” candidates in both national and state elections. Exempting ONDCP from electioneering restrictions could be just the start. As one think tank director put it, “This would be like the IRS running ads against tax-cut proposals and the candidates that support them. Using public money to tell people how to think and feel about policy is the definition of propaganda.”


Texas Straight Talk, 2 June 2003 The Federal Debt Spiral
     The administration held a grand signing ceremony last Wednesday to celebrate the tax cut bill, a marginally worthwhile piece of legislation that does reduce income taxes slightly. The East Room of the White House was awash with cabinet members, Congressmen, Senators, administration staffers, supporters, and news media of every kind, all gathered for a perfect political photo-op.
     One day earlier, however, the President signed another bill into law without fanfare of any kind. There was no press conference, no cameras, and no ceremony whatsoever. In fact, the White House issued only the briefest comment on this particular bill, even though it affects the American people far more than the modest tax cut bill. The reason for the silence? The President had just approved a whopping $984 billion increase in the national debt, the single-largest increase in our nation’s history. This was hardly a proud moment for the President or Congress, so the White House understandably kept the whole matter very quiet.
     For perspective, this latest debt limit increase of nearly one trillion dollars is as large as the entire federal budget in 1985. The embarrassing increase was necessary because federal law limits the amount of debt the Treasury can carry, and the current $6.4 trillion limit had been reached. The federal government across the board has been spending money feverishly, at levels approximately 22% higher than just three years ago. This spending spree caused Congress to raise the debt limit from $5.9 trillion only six months ago, but the new limit was quickly reached.
     Debt simply has lost any remnant of stigma in Washington. The point of the debt limit law was to shine a public light on government borrowing and make lawmakers more accountable for deficit spending. The original intent behind the law–to limit borrowing–has been abandoned. Today Congress can raise the debt limit at any time with virtually no media attention. More importantly, there is no political fallout. This puts Congress in the position of a spendthrift debtor who can authorize spending limit increases on its own credit card!
     The House managed to avoid a direct vote on raising the debt limit, instead burying a series of automatic debt increases in the terrible 2004 budget passed in April. The Senate, by contrast, at least held an up-or-down vote on the issue. Yet only one Republican Senator voted against saddling the American people with nearly another trillion dollars of debt. Both parties in Congress clearly now view the debt ceiling law as purely symbolic at best. Privately, most members probably view it as an unnecessary obstacle that should be eliminated, an opinion shared by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan.
     After adjusting for the new debt limit, our national debt jumped $107 billion last week. It has risen $538 billion in the last year alone.
     The spending problem is deeply rooted in Washington bureaucratic culture, and no administration is immune. The President can set the tone for fiscal restraint or fiscal indulgence, but ultimately Congress controls the purse strings though the appropriations process. One thing the President can do, however, is refuse to sign spending bills or debt limit increases. When neither Congress nor the administration is capable of fiscal self-control, the taxpayer is always the loser. How do you feel knowing the federal government just wrote itself a trillion dollar loan using your labor as collateral?

Texas Straight Talk, 9 June 2003 The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq
     Recently fired Army Secretary Thomas White said last week that senior defense officials “are unwilling to come to grips” with the scale of the postwar US obligation in Iraq. Similarly, in February, Army chief of staff General Eric Shinseki brought the same message to Congress: occupation of Iraq would take “several hundred thousand” troops. Both men have been publicly admonished.
     But as our commitment in Iraq continues to expand, how far off are these statements?
     A recent Washington Post editorial suggests that, “The reality is that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will likely be in Iraq for years to come, and (that) country will not recover without extensive investment by the United States and other international donors.” Of course, what this means is that American taxpayers are to be squeezed in every direction to pay to “fix” Iraq. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that the open-ended American military presence in Iraq is not welcome: in the past two weeks eight American soldiers have, tragically, been killed in Iraq.
     This is not what the attack on Iraq was supposed to be about. It wasn’t supposed to be about nation-building. It wasn’t supposed to be about an indefinite US military occupation. “Regime change” was supposed to mean that once Saddam Hussein was overthrown the Iraqi people would run their own affairs. “Liberation” was supposed to mean that the Iraqi people would be free to form their own government and rebuild their own economy.
     Yet the United States is spending tens of billions of dollars and more rebuilding Iraq. The US Army’s 3^rd Infantry Division, scheduled to return home after its success in Iraq, will remain “indefinitely” because securing Iraq is proving more difficult than defense planners envisioned. The US civilian authority controlling Iraq has cancelled plans to allow the Iraqis to form their own provisional government. American bureaucrats are even running the Iraqi media.
     What are we getting ourselves into?
     I see the real possibility of our government getting into an expensive, long-term entanglement in Iraq at exactly the time we are beginning to see financial troubles on the horizon. As our nation slinks further into debt and back into deficit, we are making decisions that will literally put our children and grandchildren on the line to pay interest payments for our current policy toward Iraq.
     This policy threatens the long-term health not just of our economy but domestic spending on items like education and social security. While some of us in Congress raised these concerns prior to the beginning of the war with Iraq, our questions went unanswered. Instead of focusing on how this commitment would almost certainly drain our resources for years to come, the policy debate wrongly focused almost exclusively on whether we would have the “moral support” of our “allies” and international organizations such as NATO and the UN.
     When American policymakers consider the wisdom of foreign entanglements it would be best that they first understand the long-term implications for the people we are elected to represent. We failed to do that with Iraq and the length, difficulty, and seriousness of the long-term commitment is only now coming to be realized by those who advocated this entanglement. Unfortunately, once a project such as this has begun it becomes extremely difficult to set the ship aright and change the course of policy to better reflect the interests of our nation and its citizens. One thing is clear: winning the military battle against Saddam Hussein may well prove the easiest–and perhaps least costly–part.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 June 2003 Who Deserves a Tax Credit?
     Congress passed a new child tax credit bill last week amid partisan controversy, clashes between the House and Senate chambers, and the usual class-warfare rhetoric. The debate raised uncomfortable questions about which Americans “deserve” a tax break, but the larger question–whether government deserves so much of our money–went unaddressed.
     The biggest issue was whether lower-income Americans, who often pay little or no income taxes, ought to get a child tax credit. This is a legitimate question when we consider some have zero tax liability because they do not work at all. If an individual truly pays no federal taxes, then any payment he receives from the government is not really a “tax credit,” but rather a welfare payment.
     An overwhelming majority of the poor do work, however. The working poor certainly do pay federal taxes in the form of payroll taxes, also known as FICA. Even a minimum wage worker clocking 40 hours per week would pay hundreds of dollars annually in payroll taxes. So if Congress really wants to help the working poor, payroll taxes must be lowered. But while the self-styled champions of the poor continually clamor for income tax increases and more social services spending, they ignore the obvious and immediate benefits of a payroll tax cut for low-income workers.
     The embarrassing problem for the poverty crowd in Washington is that payroll taxes fund Medicare and Social Security benefits. Despite all the talk about trust funds and lockboxes, payroll taxes are spent immediately to pay current beneficiaries of those programs. Any cut in payroll taxes therefore threatens to expose that Social Security “accounts” contain only IOUs. This is why the left is reluctant to truly help the poor by lowering or eliminating payroll taxes.
     I’m for lowering everybody’s federal tax bill, because I believe every dollar left in the private economy benefits all Americans much more than a dollar sent to Washington. Therefore, I believe tax credits should be refundable against both income and payroll taxes. For a poor family scraping by on $15,000 per year, a $300 or $500 refund of payroll taxes could be enormous.
     The changes to the child tax credit are not final, because the House and Senate have not yet reconciled their differences. However, the likely changes can be summarized as follows:
     � For middle-income families, the current child tax credit of $600 increases to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. If the House version prevails, this increase will stay in effect through 2010. If not, the credit will stupidly revert to $700 in 2005 and increase to $1,000 by 2010.
     � Lower-income families making between $10,500 and $26,000 get no relief in 2003, but must wait until 2004 to apply for a refundable child credit. In 2004 they are eligible for a credit of 15% of earned income.
     � Currently the child credit is phased out for individuals making over $75,000 and couples making over $110,000. Both the House and Senate proposals are likely to increase that amount to $150,000 for married couples.
     � Middle-income families who qualified for child credits last year will begin receiving $400 per child advance refund checks for 2003 at the end of July.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 June 2003 Declining Dollar, Declining Fortunes
     I recently had an opportunity to hear testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan at a hearing of the Joint Economic committee. I always relish the opportunity to question Mr. Greenspan at such hearings, because I disagree so strongly with Fed policies. Mr. Greenspan is a remarkable man, with a background as a devotee of novelist Ayn Rand, a supporter of the gold standard, and a fervent advocate of capitalism. So I’m at a loss to explain his metamorphosis into a believer in fiat currency and centralized economic planning.
     Of course capitalism is based on the premise that centralized economic planning is bad. I’m always amazed that otherwise pro-market conservatives, who rightfully scorned disastrous Soviet economic policies, are so willing to accept centralized monetary planning by the Fed. True capitalism requires a free market for money and interest rates, just as surely as it requires a free market for wages and prices.
     Mr. Greenspan declined to answer my question about the tumbling value of the dollar, citing a kind of gentlemen’s agreement between him and the Treasury department not to discuss dollar policy. This is preposterous, of course, because he is unquestionably the one man on earth most responsible for the value of the U.S. dollar. If a member of Congress cannot ask the Federal Reserve Chairman a straightforward question about dollar policy, how can we expect the American public to have the faintest idea about what the Fed really does? The answer is that very few Americans pay any attention to the Fed, which has successfully insulated itself as a “nonpolitical” entity.
     Mr. Greenspan’s two greatest sins are easy to understand. First, he has wildly inflated the money supply by creating more than $5 trillion in new dollars since he became Fed chairman. Second, he has relentlessly cut interest rates below market levels. These actions make money too plentiful and too cheap. When dollars are abundant and the cost of borrowing is low, people and businesses spend money less carefully. The stock market bubble of the late 1990s is all the proof we need that Fed printing presses can create money, but not wealth.
     Because of Fed expansion of the money supply, the dollar has suffered a precipitous decline in the past year when measured against other world currencies. A Euro note worth only 89 cents shortly after its introduction is now worth about $1.16. Some consequences of this decline are obvious to the American public; a trip to Europe costs a lot more than it did a few years ago. But the long-term significance of this decline has not yet begun to sink in. Our relative wealth as a nation is measured in dollars, and the steady erosion of the value of those dollars means we will all be poorer in the future.
     Both Congress and the Fed should be promoting sound dollar policies, because a sound and stable currency is required for sustained economic growth. Instead, both have through default and deliberate action promoted fiat policies that systematically depreciate the dollar. The financial markets understand this, and investors track the minute-by-minute fluctuations in value of the dollar seeking an investment advantage. This kind of speculation would not exist in a sound monetary system.
     Mr. Greenspan certainly basked in the glow of admiration during the 1990s, when money and credit seemed limitless. He was deemed a genius by both the financial press and a general public eager to let the good times roll. Even today, with the nation mired in the inevitable bust following the Fed’s artificially-created boom, his detractors are few. In fact, President Bush plans to offer Mr. Greenspan another term as Fed chief. If our economic woes continue, however, the nation someday may regret not taking a closer look at the Federal Reserve and its manipulation of our financial fortunes.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 June 2003 HillaryCare, Republican Style
     In a late-night vote last week, the Republican congress managed to do what Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy tried to do ten years ago: take the next big step toward socialized medicine in America. More specifically, Congress voted for a huge expansion of Medicare that enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers with billions in new spending, and forces millions of seniors to accept inferior drug coverage. Conservatives might ask themselves whether this is what they had in mind when the party of “limited government” gained control of the House, Senate, and White House.
     Seniors have been terribly misled about this new Medicare scheme. The essence of the new plan is government control. Government will play an even greater role in deciding what drugs seniors get, how doctors and pharmacies are paid, how private medical information is distributed, and what drug companies benefit most. The plan moves America disastrously toward a complete government takeover of medicine.
     In order to participate, seniors must choose between staying in traditional Medicare and joining an HMO/PPO organization. This means either a federal bureaucrat or a nominally private-sector bureaucrat will decide what drugs will be available. Both Medicare and HMO bureaucrats inevitably will be forced to control costs, because the demand for subsidized drugs will be unlimited. They will do so by rationing drugs, especially expensive drugs. Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to buy Medicare-covered drugs, just as Medicare rules now prohibit use of private funds to buy unapproved health-care services.
     Medicare bureaucrats also will seek to pay pharmacies as little as possible for drugs, just as they now pay doctors as little as possible for services. Many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients, and now many pharmacies might follow suit. So in addition to the inevitable drug rationing, seniors will have fewer doctors and pharmacies to choose from.
     The majority of seniors who like the private drug coverage they already have are the biggest losers in the new scheme. It provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plan, and some companies with large numbers of retirees have already announced their intention to do so. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that nearly 40% of private plans will stop providing prescription drug coverage because of the new Medicare plan. This number is sure to skyrocket as the cost of providing health care rises, and companies look to pass off the high costs of health care for their retired employees.
     Pharmaceutical companies are the biggest winners under the new plan. Demand for drugs will rise, as our already overmedicated seniors will be happy to pass the cost off onto younger taxpayers. Large drug makers will become virtual partners with government, lobbying to make sure their drugs are part of the new system. Those drugs will continue to cost much more in the U.S. than foreign countries, despite efforts in the new bill to change federal rules prohibiting reimportation of drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services secretary already stated that he will never approve reimportation. Combine this lack of price competition with lengthy patents and protectionist FDA rules, and you have a perfect prescription for record pharmaceutical profits. The pharmaceutical industry reportedly spent $135 million dollars in recent months lobbying for the new Medicare bill. This speaks volumes about how seriously they viewed the stakes involved.
     Taxpayers certainly can’t afford an expansion of Medicare. Economists estimate the new program will cost between 3 and 4 trillion dollars over time, all financed by payroll taxes. Even as the added drug coverage makes Medicare more expensive, more seniors than ever will be herded into the program. This new strain on taxpayers will be especially acute when the large Baby Boomer generation retires and younger workers are expected to pay the bills.
     A better approach would utilize Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to provide flexibility and choice. Medicare monies could be placed in tax-free savings accounts and used by individual seniors as they see fit to buy prescription drugs, visit the doctor, or buy special services like mammograms. MSAs allow consumers to make their own choices by eliminating the federal middleman. But even this compromise approach means giving individuals control over tax dollars, which bureaucrats hate to do.
     Drug rationing, fewer choices, bureaucracy, subsidies, and a declining quality of health care–these are the hallmarks of government medicine.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 July 2003 Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
     “Isn’t our choice really one of up or down? Down through statism, the welfare state, more and more government largesse, accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and ultimately totalitarianism, always advanced as for our own good. The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society.
     We don’t celebrate Dependence Day on the Fourth of July. We celebrate Independence Day.”
     Ronald Reagan
     Ronald Reagan’s reminder that the Fourth of July is a celebration of independence, not dependence, still resonates today. We celebrate not only our political independence from England, but also our independence from the feudal notion of loyalty to King and Crown. We celebrate victory by the American colonies over a government that taxed them too much and sought too much control over their affairs. We also celebrate the Founding Fathers themselves, and the great principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
     Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20^th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
     In my opinion this perspective threatens the very foundation of American greatness. The principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence define the American way of life. Without those principles we become just another country, governed by whim and expediency, with no guiding vision beyond the ambitions of the latest politicians in power. The purpose of the Constitution was to impose systematic limits on government power, limits that survive the political tides.
     We owe our Founding Fathers a tremendous debt of gratitude. They created a society based on the radical idea that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual, preexisting rights granted by God rather than the state. For the first time in human history, a government was designed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. This triumph of the individual over the claims of the state, the King, the collective, or society represents a great gift to humanity. The principle of a servant government is the ideal that made America the greatest nation on earth.
     Those who dismiss the Constitution ignore the link between the wisdom of our Founders and the freedom and prosperity we still enjoy today. America is not prosperous and relatively free merely by accident. It is prosperous and free because we still retain vestiges of our constitutional system of limited government, with its emphasis on property rights and the rule of law. Other nations are similarly filled with bright, hardworking people, and enjoy abundant natural resources. Yet why have they not prospered like America? The simple reason is they enjoy less liberty. Without liberty and property rights, the human spirit diminishes. More freedom always means more prosperity, which is why American enjoys a much higher level of material well-being than almost any other nation.
     As we celebrate the Fourth of July, we might consider what our Founders would think of present-day America. Would they find the ideal of a servant government intact? Would they see a society that abides by the principles established in the Constitution?
     Unfortunately, the answer is no. They would discover a society completely dominated by the federal government, totally at odds with the weak central state they envisioned. They would find the people over-taxed, over-regulated, and far too dependent on government in every sphere of human activity. They would find most Americans woefully ignorant about our own history and Constitution, despite the prevalence of college degrees. Worst of all, they would find an attitude of complacency and subservience toward government, a mindset of accepting whatever Washington hands down.
     And on this Fourth of July, they would outrageously find that fireworks displays all across the nation have been cancelled, because communities did not obtain federal licenses for handling explosives.
     We can complain about how far we’ve fallen in 225 years, but that won’t make America a better place. Our challenge is to create an America that lives up to the principles and ideals of our Founding Fathers.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 July 2003 What Happened to Conservatives? What Happened to Conservatives?
     The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?
     One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.
     True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives–a name they gave themselves–are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President’s closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative.
     Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views, but they generally can be described as follows:
     -They agree with Trotsky’s idea of a permanent revolution;
     -They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss;
     -They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power;
     -They believe in a powerful federal government;
     -They believe the ends justify the means in politics–that hardball politics is a moral necessity;
     -They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive;
     -They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public;
     -They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends;
     -They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism;
     -They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals;
     -They scoff at the Founding Father’s belief in neutrality in foreign affairs;
     -They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many;
     -They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party;
     -They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government;
     -They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds.
     Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong–and I believe they are–we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 July 2003 Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
     During testimony before the House Financial Services committee last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan indicated that he is prepared to maintain low interest rates for “as long as it takes” to energize the listless economy. Unfortunately, this will only prolong the painful economic consequences of his own easy money, easy credit policies.
     Throughout Greenspan’s tenure, we’ve been told that inflation is either nonexistent or very much in check. The Treasury department assures us that consumer prices, measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But inflation is much greater than the government admits. The CPI excludes housing prices, among other things. Everyone knows that housing prices have risen dramatically over the last decade in most parts of the country, with rents following closely behind. So the single biggest expense for most Americans–their mortgage or rent payment–certainly has inflated! The price of many other goods and services, including medical care and energy, also has risen substantially.
     The real measure of inflation is the increase in the money supply. Chairman Greenspan, through his relentless cutting of interest rates, has made it possible for banks to flood the worldwide economy with dollars. In fact the money supply, as measured by a figure economists call M3, has nearly doubled since 1996.
     This increase in the money supply ultimately causes price inflation, despite the government’s claims. When the money supply rises quickly relative to a fixed amount of goods and services, prices always go up. In other words, more dollars chasing the same number of consumables results in higher prices.
     The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed income and savings, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement but find their dollars eroded by inflation.
     Mr. Greenspan once again discussed his concerns about deflation during the hearing. This is ironic not only because he has caused so much inflation, but also because deflation used to be viewed as mostly a good thing. In most cases, falling prices result from better technology, increased productivity, and price competition. I doubt many older people would complain about a drop in the price of groceries, gas, or utilities!
     Yet even as the Chairman warned about the supposed danger of deflation, he also discussed his view that rising natural gas prices pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy. There seems to be no coherent message coming from Mr. Greenspan: we’re warned about “irrational exuberance” even as the Fed cuts interest rates and wildly inflates the money supply; we’re told there is no inflation, yet housing prices skyrocket; we’re told that only our central bank planners have the wisdom to determine proper monetary policies, yet the Chairman himself seems to equivocate constantly and provide only the fuzziest answers to straightforward questions.
     Centralized planning is as disastrous in monetary affairs as in economic affairs. Just as Russian commissars could not determine prices or production levels in the absence of a free market, the Federal Reserve Board cannot determine the “proper” level for interest rates or the money supply. Our fiat currency and artificially low interest rates can only result in the deterioration of the U.S. dollar through inflation, which in the end will cause interest rates to rise no matter what the Fed says or does. Older Americans especially stand to suffer most from Mr. Greenspan’s easy money policies.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 July 2003 The Terrible Cost of Government
     According to Americans for Tax Reform, Americans finally worked enough this year to pay their whopping bills to the government. July 11^th earned the dubious distinction as “Cost of Government Day” for 2003, the date when the average American has worked enough in the calendar year to pay for government at the federal, state, and local levels. In other words, most Americans turn over more than half of everything they make to government–in taxes, fees, and in the form of regulations that increase the price of goods and services. For high-income individuals, the percentage can be much more than half.
     The good news for Americans is that the Cost of Government day is finally behind us for the year. The bad news is that the day keeps falling later and later, in fact 17 days later than 2000. This is due largely to the rapid growth in federal spending in recent years. This relentless growth has increased the burden of government faster than national income has risen. The result is that taxpayers are left with less money to spend, save, or invest, while the legitimate private economy staggers under the weight of a growing federal leviathan.
     Only during World War II–a momentous event requiring a huge mobilization of men, machinery, and supplies–did the federal government consume more of the nation’s productive economy than it does now. The federal government simply should not be devouring 40% of the nation’s gross domestic product!
     For those who desperately want to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced, the first Bush term is a very serious disappointment. Spending levels are approximately 22% higher than when Clinton left office. Health care spending has increased 36% in three years, education spending has increased 26%, and “community and regional development” spending, which includes boondoggles like HUD, has increased 31%. These purely domestic spending increases cannot be excused by terrorism or the war in Iraq.
     Of course both Congress and a succession of presidents are responsible for the spending mess. The president can set a tone for fiscal restraint or indulgence, and can veto spending bills if he has the political will to do so. Congress, however, actually crafts the laughable federal “budget” and appropriates the money, so the ultimate blame for spending increases must be accorded members of the House and Senate. It’s easy to talk about smaller government, but few actually vote against the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund so many wasteful and unconstitutional departments, agencies, and programs. There are simply too many special interests counting on the money contained in the appropriations bills, and those same interests will take their campaign contributions elsewhere if a congressman fails to play the game.
     The American people are also responsible for the growth in government, however. We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today’s political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people’s money. Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law. As the brilliant writer and professor Thomas Sowell said, “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.”

Texas Straight Talk, 4 August 2003 Drug Reimportation Increases Medical Freedom
     The House of Representatives concluded its summer session by passing legislation that would allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada and several other nations. This practice is known as “reimportation,” because the drugs originally were manufactured in the U.S. and exported. Federal law currently prohibits Americans from buying pharmaceuticals from other countries, even though identical drugs often cost one-third to one-half less in foreign pharmacies. So while Americans ostensibly enjoy a freer economy than the rest of the world, they perversely pay more for their prescriptions than residents of any other nation.
     The pharmaceutical industry obviously likes this, and it worked overtime lobbying against the reimportation measure–paying off some strange bedfellows in the process. Several supposedly free-market groups came out against reimportation, making tortured attempts to argue that the free-market principles they normally promote somehow just don’t apply to imported prescription drugs. Some even made the outrageous argument that reimportation will threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s profits, as though it is the job of government to ensure the profitability of any industry!
     The truth is that many of the organizations opposing reimportation either directly represent the pharmaceutical industry, or receive funding from it. They are transparently willing to abandon their free-market “principles” when necessary to protect their bottom line.
     The arguments against reimportation amount to simple protectionism. Opponents of reimportation want to preserve artificially high drug prices in America at the expense of drug consumers. They rely on two tired and demonstrably false claims: namely, that the free market does not work when it comes to health care, and that there is no “level playing field” because other countries impose price controls on drugs. These protectionist arguments are used as justification for imposing higher costs on Americans by limiting their consumer choices.
     It does not matter if the Canadians or Germans employ price controls. Their drug prices may be artificially low, while ours may be artificially high. This simply shows that both the U.S. and other countries interfere in the market. It is not a justification for further intervention in the market by prohibiting reimportation. American consumers should not be punished simply because other governments have foolish economic policies.
     Pharmaceutical companies certainly own the drugs they produce, and they have every right to sell them at any price they choose. They also have the right not to sell their products to foreign pharmacies, or to condition sales on an agreement that such pharmacies will not reimport into the U.S. They do not have a right, however, to use government to prevent Americans from buying drugs from any willing seller they choose, regardless of where that seller may be located. To quote Sheldon Richman, a scholar at the Future of Freedom Foundation, “The U.S. government has no business telling the American people what they may and may not buy from people living outside the country. That’s called freedom, something earlier Americans actually understood and valued.”
     Reimportation is hardly a solution to our health care woes, of course, and the bill faces a highly uncertain future in the Senate. Reimportation would, however, inject a tiny measure of freedom into our increasingly regulated health care system. No American should ever enjoy less freedom by virtue of living in the U.S., and no American should be forced to pay higher prices for drugs that are available more cheaply overseas. The ban on reimportation is unconscionable, and most Americans know it despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical companies and their mouthpieces.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 August 2003 Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
     It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
     The practice of judicial activism–legislating from the bench–is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
     Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14^th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights–rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
     Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”–a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
     These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.
     The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts–not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 August 2003 Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
     Last week’s blackout that paralyzed much of the northeast has politicians scrambling to assign blame and pledge action to fix the problem. The universal consensus is that government, specifically Congress, must immediately “do something.” As with most crises, the problem is instantly assumed to stem from a lack of government regulation.
     Yet few industries are more regulated than the electricity industry. Power companies have become quasi-public entities; many are municipally owned. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a slew of state and local agencies regulate every action they take. When a problem happens, however, nobody cries out for greater freedom in the electricity industry or condemns government for too much regulation.
     It’s true that the nation’s power grids are inadequate for today’s needs, and that a relatively small overload in a vulnerable spot can create a huge problem. This is hardly an indictment of the free market, however, but rather an indictment of the stifling maze of government regulations that burden electricity producers. Energy bureaucrats, despite their attempts at centralized planning through production and price controls, can never hope to determine how much electricity should be produced, where it should be channeled, and at what prices it should be sold. The very complexity of the power grid, which resembles a spider web dotted by population centers, cries out for the economic cooperation that only the invisible hand of an unregulated market system can provide.
     As economist Thomas DiLorenzo points out, the fundamental problem is government interference with supply in the electricity market. The nation’s population has risen dramatically in the last 30 years, causing a huge increase in demand for electricity. But supply has increased little if at all, thanks to environmentalists and land-use bureaucrats at both the state and federal levels. The Neo-Luddites, as DiLorenzo terms them, are adamantly against building new nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, and especially coal or natural gas-fired electric power plants. When demand grows without a corresponding increase in capacity, the entire electric grid becomes overloaded. Last week demonstrates that it doesn’t take much to tip the balance and crash the system over a large area.
     Electricity, from coal burning sources or not, is likely to remain our primary form of power for decades. We simply need to accept this and build more electric power plants. In a free market, profit-seeking companies would be happy to build new plants and sell power to an ever-growing population. Unless and until government stops restricting supply and controlling prices, however, we can only expect the electric power system to remain vulnerable. It is precisely because electricity is so vitally important in our modern world that it should be delivered by the efficient free market, rather than the dismal bureaucratic sector. In this day and age, it is preposterous that we have problems delivering simple electric power where and when it is needed. The recent blackout cannot be blamed on technology or a lack of capital, and certainly not on a supposed market failure. The real problem–too much government regulation–is likely to be ignored as Congress rushes to engineer a wholesale federal takeover of the electricity industry.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 August 2003 Trust Us, We’re the Government
     Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a bizarre promotional tour to counter growing public opposition to the Patriot Act. The administration clearly is worried by recent votes in Congress to limit the scope of the Act, votes that reflect the willingness of even GOP loyalists to buck the president on the issue. So Mr. Ashcroft is visiting several cities to give a stump speech that essentially says this: Trust us–we’re the government, and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.
     But the attorney general misses the point. Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11^th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.
     Furthermore, Mr. Ashcroft is an administrator, not a legislator. It is not his job to write laws or say what the law should be. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is not his place to chide Congress or the American people for not supporting his viewpoint. He certainly should not be spending taxpayer money to lobby for his political positions.
     Mr. Ashcroft complains that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress before it was voted on–which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. The Act’s complexity is even more troubling when we consider how powers given to the Justice department today might be abused by future administrations.
     It is clear, however, that the Patriot Act expands the government’s ability to monitor us. The Act eases federal rules for search warrants in some cases; allows expanded wiretaps and internet monitoring; allows secret “sneak and peek” searches; and even permits federal agents to examine library and bookstore records. On these grounds alone it should be soundly rejected.
     Mr. Ashcroft was not always so cavalier about civil liberties. Consider the following statement by then-Senator Ashcroft during the Clinton years:

The Clinton administration would like the federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad–all in the name of national security.
The administration’s interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration’s track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications...The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.

     The attorney general’s blatant flip-flop can of course be ascribed to partisan politics. Like many conservatives, Mr. Ashcroft correctly understood that the Clinton Justice department did not believe in the rule of law and terribly abused its power. Yet even after the Janet Reno debacles, he wants us to believe that his Justice department–and future departments–can be entrusted with more power.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 September 2003 Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?
     The recent bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq has refocused the world’s attention on the dangerous situation in that nation. The Bush administration is now softening its position against UN involvement, and is considering the use of UN military forces to serve as an international peacekeeping coalition in Iraq.
     We should not expect any international coalition to help us pay the bills for occupying Iraq, however. American taxpayers alone will bear the tremendous financial burden of nation building in Iraq. We are already spending about 5 billion dollars in Iraq every month, a number likely to increase as the ongoing instability makes it clear that more troops and aid are needed. We will certainly spend far more than the 65 billion dollars originally called for by the administration to prosecute the war. The possibility of spending hundreds of billions in Iraq over several years is very real. This is money we simply don’t have, as evidenced by the government’s deficit spending–borrowing–to finance the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.
     It’s easy for politicians to say, “We will spend whatever it takes to rebuild Iraq,” but it’s not their money. Occupying Iraq is not a matter of noble national resolve like World War II. The cost of restoring order will be enormous, and we need to carefully weigh the supposed benefits and ask ourselves exactly what we hope to get for our money. I doubt many Americans believe Iraq is worth bankrupting our nation or saddling future generations with billions more in debt.
     The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq. It’s not enough for our political and military leaders to make vague references to some future time when democratic rule and a civil society somehow will emerge in Iraq. It’s patently unrealistic to expect that nation’s various warring factions to suddenly embrace representative democracy and accept the outcome of a western-style vote. Even if open elections could be held, the majority might well choose an anti-American fundamentalist regime. This puts Washington in a Catch 22: The U.S. clearly will influence the creation of a new Iraqi government to ensure it is friendly to America, yet the perception that we installed the government will create further hostility toward America. There obviously are no easy solutions to the dilemmas we face in Iraq, and the complexity of the political and social realities begs the question: How do we ever hope to get out? If real stability and democratic rule simply cannot be attained in Iraq, are we prepared to occupy it for decades to come?
     The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. Human tragedy aside, we have spent half a century and more than one trillion of today’s dollars in Korea. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear technology, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, while the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the brave men who fought in Korea continue to serve there. Although the situation in Iraq is different, the lesson learned in Korea is clear. We must not allow our nation to become entangled in another endless, intractable, overseas conflict. We literally cannot afford to have the occupation of Iraq stretch on for years.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 September 2003 The Tyranny of Paper Money
     In an article entitled “Gold and Economic Freedom,” Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market–triggering a fantastic speculative boom…The speculative imbalances had become overwhelming and unmanageable by the Fed… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” The irony is that Mr. Greenspan’s words, written in 1966 to describe the era leading up to the Great Depression, could easily have been written in 2003 to describe the consequences of his own Fed policies during the 1990s.
     Mr. Greenspan once understood that a fiat money system represents nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. When the government can print money at will, it’s morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Fiat money polices especially hurt savers and those on fixed incomes, who find the value of their dollars steadily eroded by the Fed’s printing presses.
     We need to understand why a fiat system is so popular with economists, the business community, bankers, and government officials. One explanation is that a fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims, who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight.
     Another explanation is that it’s human nature to seek the comforts of wealth with the least amount of effort. This desire is quite positive when it inspires efficient work and innovation in a capitalist society. Productivity is improved and the standard of living goes up for everyone. But this human trait of seeking wealth and comfort with the least amount of effort is often abused. It leads some to believe that by certain monetary manipulations, wealth can be increased out of thin air.
     Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of monetary policy. We all deal with the consequences of our fiat money system, however. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest. Their dollars depreciate in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can’t keep up with the rising cost of living.
     We do hear some minor criticism directed toward the Federal Reserve, but the validity of the fiat system is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic–or so they believe.
     Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 September 2003 War and Red Ink
     The president plans to request another $87 billion from Congress to fund operations in Iraq, a number that not surprisingly is much higher than originally called for by the administration. It’s not surprising because everything government does costs more than originally expected, but it’s important to note that some in the administration who warned about the true financial costs of an Iraq war were forced to leave.
     Even the White House concedes this spending will swell the single-year budget deficit to a record $525 billion. This is money the Treasury simply does not have, which means it must be borrowed, printed, or raised through taxes. None of these options are good for the American economy. It is especially sobering to consider just how much we eventually might spend in Iraq given our open-ended mission to rebuild it. A decade in Iraq easily could cost American taxpayers one trillion dollars and cause endless budget deficits.
     The question we might ask ourselves is this: What if our efforts to rebuild Iraq and install a democratic government do not work? Are we prepared to spend less on domestic programs like Social Security, welfare, and education? Are we prepared to raise taxes? Can we continue to borrow money abroad? Of course Americans are always prepared to make hard choices and sacrifice for causes in which they truly believe, but the stark economic realities of occupying Iraq have not been fairly presented.
     Remember, the American people first were told they must pay to invade Iraq; now they are told they must pay to rebuild it. Those who complain risk being called unpatriotic or seen as not supporting the troops. But it’s not unpatriotic to ask how much Iraq is worth to us, and whether rebuilding it is more important than countless domestic priorities. “Whatever It Takes” is an easy mantra for politicians, but you will pay the bills long after the current administration is gone.
     We can never hope to impose western, American-style democracy upon a nation that has been rooted in Islam for more than a thousand years. No matter what we say or do, millions of Iraqis and Muslims believe Iraq has simply been invaded by the Christian west. It makes no difference whether American, European, or UN military forces are involved; all are viewed as outsiders seeking to colonize and rule Iraq according to western values. We cannot expect to overcome their resistance and bitterness quickly or easily, and, if we truly intend to stay the course until democracy flourishes in Iraq, we better be prepared to stay quite a long time.
     For many in Washington it simply does not matter whether the cause is Iraq, the war on terror, or any other perceived crisis. Any justification to expand the state is welcomed by politicians, lobbyists, and special interests alike. Before we spend a borrowed fortune in Iraq, we might remember the words of General Douglas MacArthur:
     “The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”

Texas Straight Talk, 22 September 2003 Reject UN Gun Control
     The gun control movement in America has lost momentum in recent years, as evidenced by the Democratic party’s conspicuous silence on the issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11^th terrorist attacks only made matters worse for gun control advocates, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
     Perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. Even as support for gun control wanes at home, globalist bureaucrats are working to override national sovereignty and craft international gun laws.
     For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”
     It’s no surprise that UN bureaucrats, who are predominantly European and third-world socialists, want to impose gun control worldwide. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York.
     They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
     Contrary to UN propaganda, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control–like Washington DC–experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. Gun control simply endangers law-abiding people by disarming them.
     More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 September 2003 Your Money in Iraq
     Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the US provisional administration in Iraq, appeared before Congress last week to lobby hard for another $87 billion for nation building. This figure is in addition to the nearly $80 billion we’ve already spent in Iraq, and the new funding request is for 2004 only. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2004–and the administration has made it clear that reconstruction will be a long-term project–American taxpayers easily could spend one trillion dollars over the coming years.
     The stark reality is that the federal government will fund the open-ended occupation of Iraq either by raising taxes, borrowing overseas, or printing more money. All three options are bad for average Americans.
     It’s important the American people know exactly what they will be paying for in Iraq. The $87 billion requested is such a huge sum that it seems meaningless to most of us. The details, however, will astound anyone who resents seeing their tax dollars spent overseas.
     The following are just some of the administration’s requests:
     -$100 million for several new housing communities, complete with roads, schools, and a medical clinic;
     -$20 million for business classes, at a cost of $10,000 per Iraqi student;
     -$900 million for imported kerosene and diesel, even though Iraq has huge oil reserves;
     -$54 million to study the Iraqi postal system;
     -$10 million for prison-building consultants;
     -$2 million for garbage trucks;
     -$200,000 each for Iraqis in a witness protection program;
     -$100 million for hundreds of criminal investigators; and
     -$400 million for two prisons, at a cost of nearly $50,000 per bed!
     I doubt very seriously that most Americans would approve of their tax dollars being used to fund these projects in Iraq.
     Criticism of this foreign aid spending in Iraq is not restricted to the political left. Conservative groups and politicians are increasingly angry at the administration’s exorbitant spending. For example, Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee sits on the Appropriations committee, which is responsible for all spending bills. He has a modest idea: insist the reconstruction money be paid back as a loan when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Similarly, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona wants to offset every dollar spent reconstructing Iraq with spending cuts in others areas, especially given the amount of wasteful pork in the federal budget. But the White House is adamantly opposed to both ideas. Why is a supposedly conservative administration resisting even the slightest attempts at fiscal restraint?
     We have embarked on probably the most extensive nation-building experiment in history. Our provisional authority seeks nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down–all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will all pay to provide job-training for Iraqis, while more and more Americans find themselves out of work. We will pay to secure the Iraqi borders, while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable. We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 October 2003 Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
     As Congress finalizes plans to expand Medicare, more and more seniors are beginning to understand that “free” prescription drugs from the government will carry a very high price tag. The tragedy is that our society is allowing the pharmaceutical industry, phony senior lobbies, and vote-hungry politicians to force millions of older Americans into a government-run Medicare ghetto.
     All of us, including seniors, will pay for the drug benefit in the form of higher taxes. Congress claims the program will cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but government cost projections cannot be trusted. Medicare today costs seven times more than originally estimated. Private economists estimate the true cost will be closer to $3 or $4 trillion over ten years, but even the government’s figure of $400 billion represents the largest entitlement increase since the failed Great Society programs of the 1960s. This new spending comes as the Treasury faces record single-year deficits, which soon will approach $1 trillion annually.
     The biggest losers under the new program are the 76% of seniors who already have some form of prescription drug coverage. On average, these seniors spend less than $1,000 per year on drug co-payments and meeting deductible amounts. Under both the House and Senate proposals, however, millions of American seniors will end up paying more out-of-pocket for drugs than they do now, while having worse coverage.
     Furthermore, the Medicare drug benefit gives private companies a perverse incentive to dump their existing prescription coverage and force retirees into the government system. Many large companies already have badly underfunded pension plans. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, these companies will face serious financial crises. They will naturally seek to cut costs by eliminating drug coverage; some companies already have announced their intention to do so when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least one-third of all retirees will lose their private drug coverage and becomes wards of Medicare.
     Prescription drugs are tremendously expensive, but the solution is not a wasteful new one-size-fits-all government drug entitlement. To lower drug prices, we must eliminate government interference that prevents healthy free-market price competition.
     First and foremost, we must eliminate the middleman in health care. The HMO Act of 1973, coupled with tax rules that do not allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for health care, combine to force millions of Americans to deal with HMO and Medicare bureaucrats. Whenever a third-party stands between a doctor and his patient, health care becomes inefficient and expensive. Individuals should be able to decide with their doctors what drugs are appropriate, and then reduce their taxable income dollar-for-dollar for all drug expenditures. By forcing employers to offer HMOs and prohibiting individuals from paying for drugs with pre-tax dollars, government enables drug companies to set high prices for deep-pocket middlemen.
     The Food and Drug Administration is also directly responsible for high drug costs. Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a single drug to market because of FDA rules. Often FDA approval is never obtained, no matter how much a company spends developing a drug. So pharmaceutical makers naturally try to recoup their huge investments by charging high prices and lobbying to keep exclusive drug patent periods as lengthy as possible. We need to understand that the FDA does far more harm than good, both in terms of drug prices and the incalculable chilling effect it has on needed drug research. With less FDA interference, patents could be shortened and drug development costs reduced. This would allow greater price competition between drug companies.
     The new Medicare drug plan enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers, and forces millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage. It does nothing, however, to address the fundamental reasons prescription drugs cost so much.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 October 2003 Lesson from the California Recall
     It’s easy to dismiss last week’s California recall election as a spectacle, but that state’s financial problems are very similar to those all of us face because of the spendthrifts in Washington. The old saying “As California goes, so goes the nation,” might well mean the nation is following California down the road to bankruptcy.
     The problem in California is easy to identify: the state government consistently spends more than collects in taxes. Drunk on record revenues from the stock boom of the late 1990s, legislators in California went on a spending spree that bloated social services and added thousands of government employees to state payrolls. Politically, social service programs and government jobs are easy to create–but virtually impossible to eliminate. So when the bubble burst and tax revenues dropped dramatically, the state predictably kept spending at the same rate. The result is record budget deficits and the potential for a default on payments to state employees, various creditors, and bondholders.
     If the scenario on the west coast seems familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before in Washington. Congress spends far too much regardless of revenues. The fundamental difference is that the State of California, unlike the federal government, cannot simply print money to pay its obligations. It has only two choices when spending outpaces revenues: borrow money or raise taxes. With its bond and credit ratings floundering, borrowing is a difficult and expensive venture. Taxpayers in the state already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, so tax hikes are politically unpopular. Faced with this dilemma, California lawmakers did nothing, hoping to keep the treasury afloat until tax revenues rebounded. But the economic turnaround never happened, so California faces a crisis here and now. Somebody had to pay, and Gray Davis was the most visible symbol of an irresponsible government.
     Federal politicians, however, can use government printing presses to sweep economic problems under the rug and hide the effects of deficit spending–at least for a time. Our fiat monetary system permits politicians to spend money now to win votes and fund popular programs, while delaying the harms until later. When the federal government monetizes debt by magically paying its bills with newly printed money, the economic effects are diffused throughout the economy. Over time, however, we all pay for the increased number of dollars in circulation. Prices go up, personal savings are eroded, and the dollar becomes weaker against other currencies.
     The crisis in Sacramento should serve as a cautionary tale for all Americans. Legislators in statehouses across the country and in Washington lack the political will to cut spending. They consistently spend more each year, without regard to revenues. If the process goes on too long, government becomes insolvent, unable to tax or borrow enough to satisfy its voracious appetite. It could happen in your state, and it is happening in Washington. It’s worse in DC, however, because Federal Reserve printing presses help our national politicians temporarily evade reality. If Congress continues to spend and print dollars at the pace of recent years, however, the devaluation of our currency will make all of us poorer for decades to come.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 October 2003 $20 Billlion Giveaway Unjustified
     Congress passed an $87 billion spending bill last week to fund our occupation of Iraq, $20 billion of which is an outright foreign aid giveaway of your money for all kinds of civic and social programs there. This $20 billion was tied to money for troop support, so that members of Congress who object to wasteful and unconstitutional foreign aid would feel compelled to vote in favor of the bill. This new spending comes on top of the $80 billion we have already spent in Iraq, and the price tag easily could reach one trillion dollars if our occupation drags on for several years.
     First and foremost, we simply do not have the $87 billion to spend. The federal government literally will have to borrow or print the money needed for our ongoing occupation of Iraq. This new spending will only add to the record budget deficit of $525 billion projected for 2004. At this rate, the Treasury will face single-year deficits of one trillion dollars by the end of the decade.
     Second, every attempt to make portions of the $87 billion a loan was defeated. Several House members argued that providing money for American troops is one thing, a naked foreign aid giveaway another. After all, Iraq has trillions of dollars worth of oil reserves. Why should future generations of Americans, rather than future generations of Iraqis, pay the bills for creating a new Iraq? If we really believe we have liberated the Iraqis, surely they should be asked to repay some of the financial costs. Yet both the House leadership and the administration vehemently insisted that the full amount be provided as a gift, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
     Five years ago, former President George Bush Sr. described his thoughts in the aftermath of the first Gulf war. When we think about our occupation of Iraq and the staggering costs–both human and financial–Mr. Bush’s words are stunning:
     “Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible…We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq…There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world…Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
     This is sound thinking and sound advice by the elder Mr. Bush. Had Congress heeded his words, we would not be voting to spend even more money nation building in Iraq.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 October 2003 The Appropriations Process

appropriate(v): to take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission
–American Heritage Dictionary

     Every fall Congress goes through what is known in Washington as the “appropriations process.” The term really is inaccurate, as it should be called the spending process. After all, your money has already been appropriated, which is to say taken, through taxes. Once taken, Congress spends the autumn months doing what it does best: spending money.
     Congress passes 13 huge appropriations bills each year, along with a 14^th known generously as the “supplemental” bill. These bills fund a vast array of federal departments, agencies, and programs, including more than a trillion dollars worth of entitlements. Each bill is stuffed with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens or hundreds of amendments to be added to each bill, always with more money for somebody.
     This process gives members of the House Appropriations committee unwarranted power, because so many special interests depend on receiving a piece of the government pie. Members of Congress play along if they hope to bring home as much pork as possible to their districts, and this includes making deals with a variety of devils. Any member who hopes to solidify his reelection chances by delivering pork will find himself agreeing to vote for all kinds of unsavory bills in exchange.
     Lobbyists also play a central role, acting as shadow legislators and pushing to ensure their clients get a healthy share of the federal largesse. Lobbyists wield power over legislators either by promising campaign funds, or threatening to support an opponent. Members of Congress understand this very clearly, and they work hard to avoid alienating any group represented by a powerful lobby.
     The group least represented in the whole sordid affair is American taxpayers.
     The entire process is like an arms race, a continuous upward spiral. There is zero incentive to control spending. In fact, each annual budget serves merely as a baseline for the next year. The question is not whether the budget will go up each year, but only how much it will go up. Federal agencies scramble to spend every last penny given them to better justify annual increases.
     But who decided the federal government absolutely must spend more and more each year? Why can’t spending be reduced, even if only by a few percent? Imagine how much capital would be unleashed into the productive private economy if government spent just one percent less each year over the next ten years. Does anyone seriously believe there is not ten percent worth of fat that could be trimmed from the federal budget? Today’s government astonishingly spends more than twice what it spent just in 1990. As commentator Lew Rockwell points out, did we really think government was painfully small then?
     Of course politicians in Washington like to talk about the need for fiscal restraint, but they never vote for it. Talk is one thing; the true test of any politician is how he votes. The only real measure of any member of Congress who claims to want smaller government is whether he votes NO on every appropriations bill. If he votes yes, he’s voting for bigger government. It’s that simple. A true fiscal conservative votes for less spending, not more.
     Most Americans think the federal government is too large, spends too much money, and spends it badly. Even the most ardent liberals admit there is a tremendous amount of waste in government. But Congress clearly does not agree, because it relentlessly spends more and more each year. American taxpayers, therefore, have two basic options: start voting the big spenders out of office, or slowly submit to democratic socialism courtesy of a government that soon will devour 50% of the nation’s productive output.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 November 2003 Economic Woes Begin at Home
     Many in Washington are concerned about the loss of jobs in our nation’s manufacturing sector, but few seem to understand the role Federal Reserve currency manipulation plays in that loss. The economic problems currently facing this country are the direct result of a boom-and-bust cycle caused by inflationary Fed policies. An open debate on monetary issues therefore is long overdue.
     However, instead of debating America’s monetary policy, Congress wants to debate China’s monetary policy. The goal is to pressure China to change the valuation of its currency, to unlink it from the U.S. dollar so that its value fluctuates. The main beneficiary of this would be certain U.S. manufacturers, at least in the short run. But American consumers would be the overwhelming losers in the long run, as the price of countless consumer items would rise. Manufacturing interests have powerful lobbies in Congress, but consumers do not.
     China exports many products into the United States, which makes her a convenient scapegoat for our economic problems. Demanding that China adjust its currency valuation is merely a distraction from addressing the real economic dilemmas facing our country, however. Congress should be focused on our own disastrous monetary policies. As long as the Fed can print money at will and set interest rates, the value of our dollars will be subject to the whims of politicians and the perceived economic needs of politically powerful special interests.
     Congress should consider the sobering fact that the Chinese hold billions of dollars of U.S. debt. The dollars the Chinese acquire by selling us goods and services eventually must be returned to the United States. Since the Chinese are not buying an equivalent amount of American goods and services, they use dollars to finance our extravagant spending.
     In fact, our ability to continue funding the welfare-warfare state without destroying the American economy depends on foreigners buying our debt. Perhaps we should think twice before we start bullying and browbeating our foreign creditors to change their economic or other polices to our liking.
     Instead of promoting global economic government, Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers’ competitiveness. Recently, a prominent financial journalist visited with businessmen who are launching new enterprises in China. When he asked them why they chose to invest in China, they answered: “It is so much easier to start a business in China than in the United States, especially in places like Massachusetts and California.”
     This answer should send a clear message to every lawmaker in America: the taxes and regulations imposed on American businesses are hurting economic growth and killing jobs. If we are serious about creating jobs, we should be working on an aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and repealing needless regulations. We should be working to adopt a stable, gold-backed dollar whose value is determined by the market. We don’t need to bully our foreign competitors, we just need to stop subsidizing them while releasing the regulatory and tax stranglehold on American businesses.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 November 2003 Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans
     Congress recently voted to send $87 billion to Iraq, money that will be used to build everything from roads to power plants to hospitals. Yet while Congress appears ready to rubber-stamp unlimited monies for nation building in Iraq, thousands of our own soldiers at home are languishing with substandard medical care.
     You may have read about conditions at Fort Stewart, Georgia, where hundreds of injured reserve and National Guard soldiers are housed in deplorable conditions and forced to wait months just to see a doctor. These soldiers made huge sacrifices, leaving their families and jobs to fight in Iraq. Now they find themselves living in hot, crowded, unsanitary barracks and waiting far too long to see overworked doctors. This is hardly the heroes’ welcome they might have expected. Only an expose in a major newspaper brought attention to their plight, prompting an embarrassed Defense department to rush additional doctors to the base.
     Many of these men and women expressed shock at their treatment. They assumed wounded soldiers returning from Iraq would receive priority treatment, given the “support the troops” rhetoric coming from Washington. Their complaints went ignored, however, until the media became involved.
     Similar mistreatment of soldiers has been evident throughout our occupation of Iraq. Some wounded soldiers convalescing at Walter Reed hospital in Washington were forced to pay for hospital meals from their own pockets! Other soldiers returning stateside for a two-week liberty had to buy their own airfare home from the east coast. Still others have paid for desert boots, night vision goggles, and other military necessities with personal funds. It’s shocking that our troops are forced to pay for basic items that should be supplied to them or paid from the defense budget.
     Perhaps the most shameful mistreatment of our veterans is in the area of concurrent receipt benefits. Existing federal rules force disabled veterans to give up their military retirement pay in order to receive VA disability benefits. This means every VA disability dollar paid to a veteran is deducted from his retirement pay, effectively creating a “disabled veterans tax.” No other group of federal employees is subject to this unfair standard; in every other case disability pay is viewed as distinct from standard retirement pay.
     For years veterans have fought for concurrent receipt benefits to no avail. Last week Congress finally passed a very limited concurrent receipt law, but the change is unlikely to satisfy those disabled veterans who need benefits the most. Under the new partial concurrent receipt bill, only those veterans in essence deemed “disabled enough” will qualify; this means roughly two-thirds of disabled veterans will not receive concurrent receipt benefits at all. Even severely disabled veterans who do qualify may never enjoy their long-sought relief, because the bill passed by Congress takes ten years to phase in. How sad that some disabled soldiers will die in the next decade without seeing a penny of their concurrent receipt benefits.
     Members of our armed forces deserve more than platitudes when they return from foreign wars with illnesses or disabilities. Unfortunately, the trust our soldiers place in the federal government to provide for their health care has been breached time and time again. Last week’s partial grant of concurrent receipt benefits will prove woefully inadequate for most of our disabled veterans, veterans who could be well-served with just a fraction of the billions Congress gave away in Iraq.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 November 2003 Congress Grovels for the WTO
     Although it was scarcely reported in the press, an extraordinary event took place in Washington earlier this month. Pascal Lamy, The European Union trade czar, visited with influential members of Congress for the express purpose of determining whether a new tax bill is being crafted to his satisfaction. If Mr. Lamy–a member of the French Socialist Party–is unsatisfied with the changes made to our tax code, he threatens to unleash a European trade war against U.S. imports. In effect he is a foreign bureaucrat acting as a shadow legislator by intervening in our lawmaking process.
     This unseemly saga stems from our participation in the World Trade Organization. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it’s not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with “international law.”
     Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we’re back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans.
     This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. Consider this rosy description by one well-known “libertarian” think thank: “The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism helps nations resolve trade disputes without resorting to costly trade wars. The system relies on voluntary compliance and does not compromise national sovereignty.”
     But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it’s hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty.
     The WTO has given us the worst of both worlds: We’ve sacrificed national sovereignty by changing our domestic laws at the behest of an international body, yet we still face trade wars. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by providing our foreign competitors with a collective means to attack U.S. trade interests.
     As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.
     One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 November 2003 Medicare Plunder
     Congress worked late into the night this past weekend to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that represents the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. The new Medicare drug plan enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers, and forces millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage–while doing nothing to address the real reasons prescription drugs cost so much.
     Nothing from the government is free, of course, and prescription drugs will be no exception. The perception that seniors will be able to flash a Medicare card at the pharmacy and walk out without paying anything is completely false. In fact, many seniors will end up paying more out-of-pocket under the Medicare scheme than they do now with their private plans. The Medicare drug benefit requires monthly premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, just as private plans do. It also has gaps in coverage that no sensible person would accept if offered by a private insurer. Like all government programs, the Medicare drug entitlement will be shabby, degrading, and inferior to the private sector.
     The vast majority of older Americans already have private prescription drug coverage that they don’t want changed, and this 78% of seniors may well lose their good private coverage altogether. In fact, the government’s own Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least one-third of all private companies will dump their retirees into the Medicare system as a result of the new bill. Big corporations love the Medicare drug plan, because they want to shift the responsibility for providing drug benefits to their retirees onto taxpayers. Dozens of major companies shamelessly advertised in the Washington Times and elsewhere in support of the Medicare bill for this very simple reason. Their pension plans are dangerously underfunded, so naturally they use their lobbying influence to promote a Medicare drug system. In this sense the Medicare bill is a taxpayer-funded corporate bailout for hundreds of American companies.
     The financial impact of this legislation on taxpayers cannot be overstated. Government projections that the drug program will cost $400 billion over the next decade cannot be trusted, as existing Medicare programs cost 4 times more than estimated when they were created. The likely cost is at least $1 trillion over 10 years, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older. The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private-sector output! Clearly this new Medicare spending will bury our great-grandchildren unless we rethink the wisdom of ever-increasing entitlement programs.
     Phony senior lobbies want free drugs paid for by taxpayers; American corporations want to dump their retirees into Medicare at the expense of taxpayers; pharmaceutical companies want huge windfalls provided by taxpayers; and politicians want to get reelected by passing incredibly shortsighted legislation courtesy of taxpayers. Most of today’s politicians will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits because of this expansion of Medicare. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 December 2003 GOP Abandons Conservatives
     The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater–era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington.
     The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25% since President Bush took office. The federal government now spends roughly $21,000 per household every year, up from $16,000 just 4 years ago. Columnist Cal Thomas, in a recent article entitled “The Embarrassing GOP,” raises an excellent question: “How much of that $21,000 could you spend that would produce better results for yourself and your family?”
     Consider that Mr. Bush has not vetoed a single bill, nor does he even bother to employ conservative rhetoric. Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute says this about the President: “I’ve never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs.” Furthermore, the outlook for spending restraint during a second Bush term is nil: “When you have a president who has a bunch of his own spending initiatives like education and the Medicare drug bill, it makes it difficult for him to go out and say that Congress is being wasteful,” Mr. Edwards states.
     Columnists have coined the phrase “Big-Government Republicans” to describe the current crop of free spenders now controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. Many of the president’s closest advisors are Big-Government Republicans, former leftists who have no qualms about spending huge amounts of money both at home and abroad to achieve supposedly conservative ends.
     The irony is that conservatives suffered through decades of Democratic control of Congress, always believing that liberals were to blame for the relentless growth of the federal government. When Republicans finally took control of Congress in 1994, many saw an opportunity for a real conservative revolution. But first, conservatives were told, the Democratic administration had to be removed. In the meantime, spending continued unabated throughout the 1990s. When Republicans won the White House in 2000, another opportunity seemed at hand. The Senate, however, was still in Democratic hands–the last possible GOP scapegoat. Finally, in 2002 the GOP took control of the Senate and increased its majority in the U.S. House. Surely this was the moment conservatives had been waiting for! Yet the past year has seen more spending than ever, including the disastrous Medicare bill that will cost trillions over coming decades. The latest line is that the GOP needs a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 Republicans, and then, finally, the party can begin to implement a conservative agenda.
     At what point will conservatives stop accepting these excuses? When does the conservative base of the GOP, a base that remains firmly committed to the principle of limited government, finally demand new leadership and a return to conservative values? Will conservatives abandon the party when they realize the GOP, at least under its current leadership, is simply not interested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government? With Republicans controlling the administration and the legislature, and nominally controlling the Supreme Court, the party has run out of other people to blame. One thing is certain: Republicans who support bigger entitlement programs and bigger federal budgets have lost all credibility as advocates for limited government.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 December 2003 The Disappearing Dollar

     Those who follow financial markets may be familiar with the term “strong-dollar policy,” which is used by Bush administration officials and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan himself. One might assume that such a policy entailed a course of action designed to strengthen the value of the U.S. dollar. However, if we judge Fed policy by Mr. Greenspan’s actions rather than his words, it appears we have a weak-dollar policy, a policy that erodes the value of your personal savings. The “strong-dollar policy” is nothing more than an empty political slogan.
     The inescapable truth is that the value of the U.S. dollar has fallen over 30% in the past year, which to most people would not seem indicative of strength. There are several reasons for this decline, but the single biggest factor has been Mr. Greenspan’s relentless increase of the money supply. There are roughly sixteen trillion dollars in worldwide use today, five trillion more than when Greenspan became Fed chair. The law of supply is immutable: When dollars are abundant they are also cheap.
     For much of our history a gold standard imposed discipline on U.S. dollar policy, since every dollar printed theoretically was redeemable in gold. Since the last links between the dollar and gold were severed in 1971, the dollar essentially has operated as an article of faith. Christopher Mayer, writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, states: “Faith that paper money itself was of any lasting value would have struck our forebears as patently absurd.”
     The problem is that faith can be shaken, and the precipitous drop in the dollar shows how investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When government policies in a fiat system are the sole measure of a currency’s worth, the currency markets act as a reliable barometer of how those policies are viewed around the world. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government. The Medicare prescription drug bill passed two weeks ago provides an example of this phenomenon–the day after the bill passed, the dollar dropped once again. Investors understand that the new entitlement will cost trillions over coming decades, trillions that will come from Treasury printing presses and further devalue existing dollars.
     Ultra-cautious investor Warren Buffett is trading heavily in foreign currencies for the first time, demonstrating his lack of faith in the dollar. His predicament is simple: He holds billions of dollars, and cannot afford to sit by and watch the value of those dollars drop another 30%. By taking a position against the U.S. dollar, his actions speak volumes.
     Unlike Warren Buffett, most Americans are stuck with their U.S. dollars. Average people, particularly those who depend on savings or fixed incomes to fund their retirement years, cannot abide the continued devaluation of our currency. A true strong-dollar policy would require constriction of the money supply and higher interest rates, both of which would cause some short-term pain for the American economy. In the long run, however, such a correction is the only alternative to the continued erosion of our dollars.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 December 2003 Elusive Peace in the Middle East
     Another Christmas season is upon us, but sadly prospects for peace in the holy land during the New Year are bleak. People on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute have become exceedingly frustrated with the endless impasse and government peace agreements that produce no results.
     One thing is certain: U.S. involvement in the deadly conflict has led nowhere. The federal government has spent tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars in the region, and a succession of presidents have held peace summits with Middle Eastern leaders, all to no avail. The endless supply of American money, however well-intentioned, gives the leaders of both sides a perverse incentive to remain engaged in the process indefinitely.
     The “Geneva Accord,” a document released earlier this month, represents an attempt to craft an alternative peace plan for the intractable dispute. The Accord is unique in that it was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but wholly without the involvement of governments or politicians. Governments, politicians, and special interests often promote conflict at the expense of ordinary people, so the promise of the Geneva Accord is that it more closely represents the interests of those most affected by the ongoing violence.
     Predictably, the Geneva Accord has been greeted with hostility by those who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Palestinian leader Arafat has shown little enthusiasm for the plan; extremist Arab terrorist organizations of course oppose it altogether. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has rejected it out of hand. But the victims in Israel and Palestine, the ordinary people who must live with the violence and danger, are starting to demand peace. Popular support for the Geneva Accord is growing among both the Israeli and Palestinian populations. People are beginning to understand that peace is too important to be left up to government officials, most of whom are safely insulated from the daily violence.
     President Bush and Secretary of State Powell, to their credit, have praised the Geneva Accord. The president termed the Accord “productive,” while the secretary stated he “Has an obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas.” This is encouraging. Still, the impulse that demands American engagement is strong. One congressional leader scoffed at what he termed a “freelance peace plan,” but his sarcasm ignores the utter failure of “official” peace efforts. He also fails to understand that America cannot impose its will upon every conflict around the globe. Lasting, effective peace agreements can be crafted only by those who will live under them.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 December 2003 “Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent
     In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
     Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.
     Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.
     Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election–exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.
     Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 December 2003 Christmas in Secular America
     As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
     Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
     This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
     The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
     The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 January 2004 Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway
     Last year around this time I wrote about a serious threat to Social Security that was moving ever-closer–a threat so great that it could truly break the bank of our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. The threat is the ongoing “totalization” negotiations between the US and Mexican governments. An agreement on “totalization” would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for American Social Security. Press reports just last month reminded us that these talks are continuing and will likely be completed this year.
     As I wrote last year, under such a “totalization” agreement, even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States. To qualify for American Social Security, a Mexican citizen would need to work in the US as short as just 18 months!
     Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments to help American citizens who were sent abroad by their companies. From there we have come, nearly 30 years later, to the point where an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens would be eligible for US Social Security in the next five years.
     Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the US could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
     Those in favor of sending US Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that the crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of US assistance to that country’s aged. While the poverty in Mexico is truly deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that the US Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program. I would applaud any private citizen who wishes to help his fellow man living in poverty, whether in the US or Mexico or wherever he wishes. But for the US government to force this kind of “charity” is both immoral and illegal.
     When Congress returns late this month, it should take the opportunity to re-affirm that Social Security is an American program designed to benefit American retired workers. That is why I introduced HR 489, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, in the current Congress. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Bringing in hundreds of thousands of impoverished foreign workers into the Social Security system will surely break the bank, depriving millions of our seniors who contributed to the system all their working lives of that which is rightly theirs. That is no way to treat our seniors, be they from this generation or coming generations. As I said last year, we should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 January 2004 Amnesty and Culture
     The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and the Bush administration’s new proposal to grant legal status to millions of illegal aliens surely meets that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.
     The president claims that America lacks the political will to deport the eight to twelve million illegal aliens already here, so we have no choice but to grant them visas. But what message does this send to the rest of the world? If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. The Bush administration proposal does not provide a coherent immigration policy, nor does it address the urgent need for stricter control of our borders. The overwhelming majority of Americans–including legal immigrants–want immigration reduced, not expanded.
     The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants–certainly not all–receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here.
     Illegal immigrants also threaten to place a tremendous strain on federal social entitlement programs. Under the Bush proposal, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs–programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning. Social Security is in serious trouble already, and sending benefits abroad to millions of illegal aliens who once worked here will cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Every American who hopes to collect Social Security someday should stridently oppose the President’s proposal.
     Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape.
     Problems arise when immigrants refuse to assimilate and show little interest in becoming American citizens. 100 years ago, immigrants arrived in America after dangerous journeys fully prepared to embrace their new country. In most cases, returning home was not an option. Most led very hard lives, took pride in American citizenship, and asked for nothing but the opportunity to work. Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 January 2004 Government and Marriage If government subsidized beaches, we would have a shortage of sand.” Ronald Reagan
     The president recently announced a new program designed to promote “healthy marriages” by using welfare funds to subsidize media campaigns and feel-good relationship counseling, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Bush proposes spending $1.5 billion over the next five years, all to promote an institution that flourished for centuries without state encouragement.
     The irony is that an initiative aimed at promoting moral values will be funded immorally, by taxing people who may have no interest in such government folly.
     The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.
     The failed history of welfarism and socialism in America shows that government programs ultimately erode our culture by damaging personal virtue. When government ostensibly attempts to promote culture, it always further erodes liberty. The administration’s proposal only expands the reach of the federal welfare state, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Healthy marriages are not the result of government programs. Healthy marriages are the result of individual conviction and personal responsibility, neither of which can be mandated by government.
     Government is not morality, government is force–and forcing taxpayers to fund another silly program will not strengthen the institution of marriage. If Mr. Bush really wants to promote marriage, he should work to dismantle the soul-destroying welfare system that rewards out-of-wedlock births. He should work to end the judicial assault on religious liberty. He should urge Congress to cut spending and taxes, so that more money can flow into churches and private charities. The president certainly is correct that marriage is important, and the need for stable, two-parent families is apparent. We should all be quite skeptical, however, of claims that government programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 January 2004 Congress Cannot Be Appointed
     In the months following the September 11th terrorist attacks, questions arose about whether Congress could continue to function if many of its members were killed or injured in a future terrorist attack. These concerns resulted in the creation of a commission that advocated a first in American history, namely the appointment of individuals to the U.S. House. A constitutional amendment has been proposed that would provide the method for such appointments following a catastrophe that killed or disabled a majority of the people in Congress.
     I strongly oppose this constitutional amendment, because I believe an appointed Congress would become an unaccountable, tyrannical Congress. Over the past year I met with top scholars, attorneys, and colleagues who reject the idea of an appointed House of Representatives. Fortunately, we had success in turning many members of Congress against the proposal through a series of public lectures, meetings, and published articles. Legislation I cosponsored, recently passed by the House Judiciary committee, will enable congressional districts around the nation to hold emergency elections without resorting to political appointments. The bill has the support of congressional leadership, and should reach the House floor in coming months.
     At its heart, the proposed constitutional amendment is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives. The term “appointed representative” clearly is an oxymoron. The House, designed as the most directly representative branch of government, must be elected to have any legitimacy. Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.
     Those advocating an appointed Congress argue that a U.S. House consisting of only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public. In fact the opposite is true: the legitimacy of appointed “representatives” would be strongly questioned, especially by those who disagreed with their actions. Appointees would be viewed suspiciously as recipients of political patronage, regardless of the system put in place to appoint them. Appointees would not be seen as legitimate because they would in fact not be legitimate. Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected for over two hundred years. We can amend the Constitution, but we cannot force the public to accept the loss of its voting franchise.
     One very important point should be emphasized: the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 instructs state governors to hold special elections to fill congressional vacancies, while Article I section 4 authorizes Congress to designate the “time, place, and manner” of such special elections if states should fail to act quickly following a national emergency. The legislation passed by the Judiciary committee simply exercises the existing congressional power by requiring states to hold special elections within 21 days after the House Speaker or acting Speaker declares that a majority of House members are incapacitated.
     To quote Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.” We must not allow the fear of terrorism to compel us to abandon our existing institutions–including an elected House. The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis, and it is precisely during such times we should adhere to it rather than rush to amend it.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 February 2004 Spending and Lying
     The Congressional Budget Office issued a sobering report last week showing that federal debt, already more than $7 trillion, will increase $2.4 trillion by the end of this decade. The single-year deficit for 2004 will be nearly $500 billion.
     The federal spending frenzy of the last few years is well documented, but these latest figures have congressional Republicans and the White House scrambling to figuring out how to explain the budget mess to voters in November. Having abandoned even the limited government rhetoric of the Reagan and Gingrich years, mainstream Republicans now must attempt to out-pander the Democrats. The Medicare bill is clear evidence of this.
     Some conservatives have criticized Mr. Bush’s spending requests, but their votes don’t always match their words. True fiscal conservatives in Congress have only one choice: Vote NO on all spending bills, especially the 13 annual appropriations bills. This is the only honest measure of whether any member of Congress truly wants smaller government. It’s galling to hear members who voted for the Medicare bill and huge increases in 2004 agency budgets complain about excessive spending.
     Already, the $400 billion price tag attached to the new Medicare drug bill has been exposed as a predictable lie. Just one month after passage of the bill, the White House admits the cost may be one-third higher, roughly $540 billion. Yet even this bait-and-switch tactic is deceptive, because independent groups estimate the true cost of the Medicare bill will be one trillion dollars over ten years.
     Even in the midst of this flood of red ink, the president is busy finding programs to expand. He plans to increase funding for the rotten National Endowment for the Arts by $20 million in 2005, while expanding the space program to make trips to Mars and the moon that will cost hundreds of billions. Of course NASA and the NEA represent very small slivers of the annual budget, but the dollar amounts are far less important than the tone set by the president. The White House wants to pretend that deficits don’t matter, that more revenues will materialize in the future, and that burdening our grandchildren to win votes today is morally acceptable.
     Faced with a severe budget crisis, the federal government should do what any family or business would do in similar circumstances: drastically reduce spending and sell off assets. It is preposterous that the federal budget has more than doubled just since 1990, and surely the republic would survive a return to 1995 or 2000 spending levels. Furthermore, the government owns trillions of dollars worth of land and other assets, assets that should be sold to pay off the mounting national debt. Why should additional debt and new taxes be forced upon the American people to pay for government sins, especially when the spendthrift politicians have substantial assets at their disposal?
     Government is incapable of austerity measures for a very simple reason: the money it spends belongs to others. Unless and until federal politicians are voted out of office for their sins, we can only expect the spending, borrowing, taxing, and printing of fiat money to continue.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 February 2004 Congress Goes AWOL
     Controversy is brewing in Washington over intelligence failures underlying the administration’s claims about the threat posed by Iraq. The president has appointed a new commission to study the issue, but its true mission may be political damage control for the November election. CIA director George Tenet, knowing he is the most convenient scapegoat, carefully distanced himself from the White House last week. He admitted that bad information caused the agency to “overestimate” Iraq’s weapons capability, and that the Iraqi threat was never labeled “imminent.”
     We should not make Mr. Tenet the scapegoat. The issue is not whether our intelligence was perfect, but rather the process by which we allow our government to commit troops to war. That process bypassed Congress almost entirely.
     Congress is to blame for its craven failure to seriously debate, much less declare, war in Iraq. The Constitution squarely charges Congress with the duty to declare war, a weighty responsibility that our founders thought should rest with the body most directly responsible to the people. The president’s status as commander-in-chief grants him the power only to execute war, not to decide whether war is justified. This is not seriously debatable by anyone who honestly examines the Constitution and the Federalist papers.
     Various weak and disingenuous arguments have been made claiming that watered-down congressional resolutions authorizing force are adequate, and that war has been waged in the past without express declarations. But the letter of the Constitution trumps political expediency, and past sins hardly justify ignoring the rule of law today. It is pathetic to hear supposedly strict-constructionist conservatives use Clintonian verbal gymnastics to justify their party’s unconstitutional actions.
     The furor over bad intelligence is a little late, to put it mildly. A proper investigation and debate by Congress clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. The consequences cannot be undone. Hundreds of American soldiers have been killed, thousands more maimed or injured. More than one hundred billion dollars have been spent, and billions more will be needed to support our open-ended occupation of Iraq. The current after-the-fact debate is hollow and political. We now see those who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, posturing as his harshest critics.
     The administration rushes to claim that the justifications for war do not matter, because Saddam was worthy of removal anyway. But we’ve heard that tired argument a million times. Is the president prepared to commit troops to remove every bad guy around the globe? Of course not. Iraq has been in this administration’s crosshairs since well before September 11th. It does matter if the administration lied or exaggerated to win public support; it does matter if our war in Iraq was just or unjust.
     The president stated in a speech last week that had Saddam Hussein remained in power, the United Nations resolutions and condemnations would be “scraps of paper amounting to nothing.” In the eyes of many conservatives and libertarians, it is our own Constitution being treated as a meaningless scrap of paper.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 February 2004 A Wise Consistency for Liberty
     Anyone who follows events in Washington quickly understands that there is no guiding philosophy behind the actions of Congress. New laws are made in a haphazard manner; new regulations are imposed on an ad hoc basis; trillions of dollars are spent without regard to whether the programs and agencies funded do any good whatsoever. Both political parties blame each other for the resulting mess, but both are guilty of an egregious lack of principle in virtually everything they do. Both parties cite the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but both regularly violate it–particularly through legislation that exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and tramples on states’ rights. Both support various actions by their party or president, yet strenuously oppose the same actions if taken by the other party. In short, there is no consistent guiding philosophy on Capitol Hill except political expediency. The battle in Washington is about political spoils, not ideology.
     Consistency is sorely needed in Washington. A guiding philosophy of liberty, based on constitutional restraints, should be followed consistently. Without philosophical consistency, the rule of law becomes nothing more than the imperial whims of the latest gang in Congress.
     Those who reject principle in favor of expediency often cite the famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” My own colleagues have rebuked me with this quote for my refusal to vote for some seemingly innocuous yet unconstitutional bill. But Emerson didn’t criticize consistency, he criticized foolish consistency. A wise consistency is the foundation of free society.
     To Emerson, foolish consistency meant being unwilling to admit errors and consistently defending a mistaken idea, regardless of facts. His quote referred a character trait, not to sound logical thinking. So it’s quite a distortion of Emerson’s views to use them to justify the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of Washington today. The political benefits of not being philosophically consistent are so overwhelming that politicians scarcely need to explain their votes. It’s simply assumed that members of Congress will vote based on pure self-interest. They are free to support whatever seems best for the moment. Adherence to any guiding philosophy would hamper their ability to please the parties, donors, lobbyists, and special interests that keep them in office. It’s advantageous to cling to the false notion that consistency is a hobgoblin, so they can dismiss any uncomfortable criticism.
     “Statesmanship” in Washington has come to mean one’s willingness to abandon any personal beliefs or principles to serve the greater good–whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. The more we abandon consistency and a guiding philosophy of liberty, the more we abandon the republic so carefully designed by the Founders. Without a wise consistency, our faltering republic will be replaced by something far less desirable.
     The truth is Emerson must be misquoted to be used against those who consistently defend a free society, cherish and promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed today than any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical junction, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 February 2004 Greenspan’s Black Magic
     In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan painted a rosy picture of the U.S. economy. In his eyes, the Fed’s aggressive expansion of the money supply and suppression of interest rates have strengthened the financial condition of American households and industries. If this is true, however, our nation’s “prosperity” is merely a temporary illusion based on smoke and mirrors. True wealth cannot be created simply by printing money; families and businesses cannot prosper by getting deeper in debt.
     In fact, Economist Frank Shostak of the Ludwig von Mises Institute throws cold water on Chairman Greenspan’s assertions in an article entitled “Running on Empty.” Mr. Shostak cites statistics showing that American families have never been deeper in debt, never saved so little, and never consumed so much more than they produce. By any objective standard, U.S. families are treading on very shaky economic ground.
     Never mind, says Mr. Greenspan. Mortgage refinancing, made wildly popular by artificially low interest rates established by the Fed, will be the saving grace of American households. They can simply borrow against their homes to finance living beyond their means, a practice encouraged by Fed policies. But what happens when home prices stop going up? What happens when families reach a point where they cannot make payments on two, three, or even more mortgages? How can the Fed chairman equate mortgage credit with real economic growth?
     Mr. Shostak also demonstrates that American businesses aren’t doing much better. As consumers exhaust their ability to borrow, they necessarily buy fewer goods and services. The ratio of business liabilities to assets is very high, price to earning ratios are still unrealistic, and investment capital remains scarce. Business may be better than it was two years ago, but the fundamentals are far less healthy than Mr. Greenspan would have us believe.
     Debt is the fundamental problem the central planners at the Fed will not address. The total U.S. federal debt is more than $7 trillion, and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has never been higher except during World War II. Mr. Greenspan’s attempts to stimulate economic growth by printing money become more and more tenuous: today the Fed must create nearly $7 of new debt in the form of new fiat currency to generate only $1 of new GDP. Twenty years ago the figure was less than $1.50. Clearly this is a race that has run its course.
     As financial analyst Jay Taylor explains, the disturbing increase in the debt to GDP ratio illustrates that printing more money is the only solution federal policy makers know. Federal debt naturally grows faster than income–while there are no limits to how fast the printing presses can run, there are natural limits to economic growth.
     The end may come when foreign central banks realize the dollars they receive are worthless, or when they find other places to turn for income. When that day comes, interest rates will rise, perhaps dramatically. At that point not even Mr. Greenspan will be able to save the economy from the painful correction necessitated by his easy credit, easy money policies.


Texas Straight Talk, 1 March 2004 Gay Marriage Quicksand
     The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.
     Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
     Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.
     However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.
     But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
     The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
     It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
     Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.


Texas Straight Talk, 8 March 2004 Inflation-Alive and Well
     For years, the central planners at the Federal Reserve have assured us that inflation is dormant, if not dead. Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke, during a recent speech in Washington, took pains to emphasize that inflation is “Under very good control.” But considering the relentless increase in the money supply engineered by the Fed over the last decade, one wonders whether Mr. Bernanke, Chairman Greenspan, and company protest too much.
     Austrian- school economists demonstrate that true inflation is monetary inflation. True inflation therefore can be measured by an increase in the money supply. Mr. Greenspan and Fed policy makers have more than doubled the M3 money supply in less than ten years. While Treasury printing presses can print unlimited dollars, there are natural limits to economic growth. This flood of newly minted US currency can only increase consumer prices in the long term, as more and more dollars chase available goods and services.
     Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains that Federal Reserve governors are incapable of telling us the truth about inflation for a very simple reason–they’re the ones causing it:
     “The Federal Reserve always promises that it’s working to bring down inflation, but as Murray N. Rothbard shows in The Case Against the Fed, it never does. Since the Fed came into being, the dollar’s value has plummeted to less than a penny, and even at a 3% inflation rate, prices will tend to double every 25 years… The Fed wants to cover its crimes by appearing more successful at ‘battling inflation.’ What the Fed doesn’t want to talk about is the real cause of inflation: not greedy consumers, avaricious workers, or price-gouging corporations, but the central bank itself, and its power and practice of creating money out of thin air.”
     The Treasury department parrots the Fed line that consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But even some Keynesian economists admit that CPI grossly understates true inflation. The most glaring problem is that CPI excludes housing prices, instead tracking rents. The Fed’s easy credit policies have created an artificial mortgage boom, enabling many Americans who would not have met credit standards 30 years ago to buy houses. So demand for rentals has diminished, causing rental housing prices to drop and distorting the CPI downward. However, everyone knows the cost of purchasing a home has increased dramatically in the last ten years. Home prices in many regions have more than doubled in just five years. So price inflation certainly is alive and well when to comes to the largest purchase most Americans make.
     The prices of many other goods and services, including medical care and energy, also have increased substantially in the past decade. Commodity prices in particular have risen recently. In fact, broad indexes show commodities have risen 49% since last spring! The price of gold, steel, lumber, coal, lead, soybeans, corn, and rice have all spiked over the past year. When raw materials and basic consumables rise in price, all of us feel the effects in our pocketbooks. Mr. Greenspan may dismiss commodities as mere “physical” assets in his vision of an increasingly “conceptual” economy, but the markets are showing their preference for hard assets over fiat dollars and dollar-denominated equities.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 March 2004 Congressional Indecency
     Congress is patting itself on the back after passing legislation last week that expands the power of the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on broadcasters with heavy new $500,000 fines. Most politicians were all too eager to appease those demanding that Congress “do something” about racy Super Bowl shows and distasteful radio hosts, especially in an election year. It is clear that most members of Congress gave little thought to the legality or wisdom of the bill, caring only that they be seen as defenders of all things decent.
     In doing so, Congress ignored a fundamental truth: government control over radio and television broadcasts is incompatible with a free society. FCC control of broadcast content, whether through licensing, regulations, or fines, is naked censorship that is utterly at odds with the plain words of the First Amendment. It could not be any clearer: “Congress shall make no law.”
     The censors from both political parties argue that because the broadcast spectrum is publicly owned, the public has a right to control the content. But “public” ownership really means government ownership. And government ownership means the current gang of bureaucrats in power gets to decide what is heard and seen. Airwaves are far too precious to be owned or controlled by government–like other scarce and valuable natural resources, airwaves should be controlled by market forces. One mistake–nationalizing the airwaves–does not justify another. We should not violate the First Amendment today because of the sins of the past.
     There’s nothing new about this latest congressional attack on expression. The political right wing has always embraced censorship, believing that government can foster and protect moral values through strict regulation of speech. But this curious attitude conflicts with the central tenet of conservatism, namely a healthy mistrust of government. Why do conservatives feel compelled to have a federal nanny state protect their children from indecency? Why do conservatives, who once questioned and resisted the growing involvement of government in our lives, now trust FCC bureaucrats to determine moral standards? Conservatives should know that a decent society is rooted in strong families, churches, and civic institutions, not government control of broadcasting.
     The political left is no better when it comes to free speech. The left may be more permissive toward lurid or obscene material, but it has zero tolerance for political, religious, and social commentary that falls outside the bounds of rigid political correctness doctrines it created. Liberals are happy to restrict so-called commercial speech; happy to jail those who commit phony hate crimes merely by speaking their minds; and happy to impose speech codes on college campuses.
     Conservatives must understand that the powers they grant the FCC today may one day be used against them. It is not hard to imagine a future where criticism of abortion is deemed hate speech against women, or criticism of affirmative action considered an unlawful attack on minorities. It is not hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton ordering the FCC to shut down Rush Limbaugh for using the term “feminazi.” Already a petition has been filed with the Justice department to investigate The Passion of the Christ for possible hate crimes against those who dislike the film’s theology! Big-government conservatives will learn that heavy-handed federal control of speech is far more likely to result in a rigidly secular, politically-correct society than a moral society imbued with Christian virtue.
     The First Amendment is worthless if it does not protect unpopular, controversial expression. It is precisely when the sensibilities of many Americans are offended that the First Amendment is needed most. Many of our cherished religious, political, and legal traditions are rooted in once-radical ideas. It’s a short step from regulating words and images to regulating thoughts and ideas.
     Ultimately, broadcasters air indecent material only if the market demands it. Congress cannot raise the moral bearing of the American people by edict, but it can destroy liberty in the process. When it comes to decency, the American people should stop looking to government and start looking at themselves.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 March 2004 Iraq One Year Later
     The Iraq war began about one year ago with the swift and decisive overthrow of Baghdad and the Hussein regime. We are only beginning to understand, however, the true scope of our ongoing occupation of a nation rife with civil, ethnic, and tribal conflict. July stands as the deadline for our provisional government to relinquish control to an emerging Iraqi government, but we are kidding ourselves about just how long American forces will need to remain involved.
     More than 550 Americans have died in Iraq; roughly10,000 have been wounded. American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. We must not be afraid to face these facts and understand the terrible cost of war.
     Were these sacrifices worth it? To answer that question, we have to look at the justifications given for our invasion of Iraq.
     One justification was that Saddam Hussein ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions. Whether this was true or not was none of our concern. America should never act at the behest of the UN or help enforce its illegitimate edicts. America should never commit troops to any UN action. We should not even be a member of the UN, but rather should ignore it completely. Membership in the UN is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty. It was nonsensical for conservatives suddenly to cite Iraq’s purported lack of cooperation with the UN as justification for war.
     The second justification for invading Iraq was that Mr. Hussein posed a threat to the United States. This was not true. Hussein had only a small army, and virtually no navy or air force. He had no long-range weapons and no ability to strike the US 6000 miles away. He was not working with bin Laden or al Qaeda terrorists. He was a despicable tyrant at home, but the liberation of Iraq from his clutches was given as a new justification only after the American public had absorbed overwhelming evidence that he posed no threat to us.
     Is America better off as a result of our war in Iraq? The young men and women who were hurt or killed certainly are no better off. Their families are no better off. Taxpayers are no better off. Whether we are safer from terrorism here at home is an open question. We all hope and pray nothing happens. But even our own intelligence forces cautioned that an invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq could breed resentment among sympathetic Muslims and serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. As commentator Lew Rockwell states, “It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.”
     Are the Iraqis better off? Saddam is gone, along with his murderous cohorts, and that certainly presents a positive opportunity for the Iraqi people. But we cannot be sure that the Hussein regime will be replaced by something better. Iraq is still very unstable and divided between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd factions. Civil war could ensue upon the departure of American troops.
     Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 March 2004 March (Budget) Madness
     Despite all the rhetoric flying around Washington last week during the annual budget debate, one fact about the new budget is clear: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for the enormous budget resolution, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony talk about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.
     Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and military expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When congressional Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion, and why not? It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.
     The term “baseline budget” is used every year in Washington. It means the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that increases federal spending by 3%, while Democrats propose 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.
     Furthermore, the budget passed last week further entrenches another phony Washington concept. An increasing percentage of the budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a bureaucrat’s dream, because it assumes we as a society simply have accepted that most federal programs must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
     The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would be unnecessary if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 April 2004 LOST at Sea
     Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).
     Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
     The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!
     It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.
     Fortunately, when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared that the push toward global governance was–at least temporarily–halted.
     But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that without the participation of the United States, their schemes are doomed to failure.
     Satisfied with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in 2000 with no action.
     It seemed as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification. Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’ rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.
     Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China–and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 April 2004 Whose Justice?
     Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live.
     Activist federal judges often view the Constitution as an anachronism that stands in the way of their visions for “social justice.” They usually view European socialism very positively, and unconditionally believe in the United Nations and international law. Accordingly, activist judges increasingly are looking outside the US for guidance when deciding cases.
     This latest brand of judicial activism has a name: “transjudicialism.” Transjudicialism means that American federal judges consider foreign and international legal sources when deciding cases, even though such sources often conflict directly with our own Constitution.
     As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court “cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world.”
     It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.
     The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. Congress needs to exercise its constitutional power over federal courts and send judges a strong message that Americans will be governed by American law only. I recently introduced legislation that forbids the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from citing any foreign or international laws, rules, policies, or court decisions as authority for their opinions. Federal judges take an oath of office promising to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution and US federal law. Those judges who insist on considering foreign law and foreign opinions should be removed from their positions for violating that oath, pure and simple. Justice Scalia warns that “Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” Congress needs to act quickly before Mr. Scalia’s fears are fully realized.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 April 2004 The Federal War on Pain Relief
     The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh’s use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.
     Do we really want the Drug Enforcement Administration jailing doctors for the alleged misdeeds of patients? Certainly some individuals abuse prescription pain killers, but federal agents are hardly qualified to decide what kind of drugs are appropriate for pain patients. Zealous prosecutors certainly show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
     OxyContin and other strong pain medications are not evil, but, like all powerful drugs, they can be used judiciously or abused. A compassionate society should rejoice that we have developed drugs that can help those in severe pain, rather than demonize those drugs because a tiny minority abuses them.
     The real tragedy is that the federal government once again has interfered with the doctor-patient relationship. All decisions concerning appropriate medical treatment should be made between doctors and their patients, without government involvement. But, when threatened with criminal prosecution or loss of their medical licenses, many doctors simply have stopped prescribing powerful pain drugs–no matter how much their patients may need them. Some have even posted signs in their waiting rooms advising patients not to ask for OxyContin and similar drugs. It is shameful that government has created an atmosphere where doctors are afraid of exercising their medical judgment.
     This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices altogether, leaving their patients with nowhere to turn for pain relief. Is the government concerned about the terrible chilling effect caused by its crackdown on doctors? Hardly. In fact, the current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that, “Our office will try our best to root out certain doctors like the Taliban.”
     By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek relief from other, less reliable, sources–such as street drug dealers. Of course pain drugs bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than those obtained from a physician.
     The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is being destroyed by federal bureaucrats, who have turned the drug war into a war on pain relief. Americans suffering from chronic pain and their doctors are the real victims of this unprincipled and medically unsound federal campaign.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 April 2004 The Federal Reserve Debt Engine
     Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies for both US House and Senate committees several times each year, and last week appeared before the Joint Economic committee on which I serve. These appearances by Mr. Greenspan always cause quite a stir on Capitol Hill. Often the stock markets react within hours of his pronouncements regarding the health of the economy and the future of interest rates.
     Congress and the financial press treat Mr. Greenspan as an all-knowing sage, seeking his wisdom on political and even social issues that have nothing to do with monetary policy. During last week’s hearing Mr. Greenspan was asked his opinion on topics such as Social Security, tax cuts, federal spending, corporate accounting rules, the congressional budget process, and even immigration. It seems bizarre that a credulous Congress and public are willing to accept the judgment of on unelected, virtually unaccountable central banker while knowing little or nothing about the Federal Reserve itself.
     Judging by Mr. Greenspan’s statements to a Senate committee in February, Fed economists are confusing debt with wealth. Mr. Greenspan praises the “sustained expansion of the US economy,” but then goes on to highlight the real reason for the expansion: loose monetary policy and near-zero interest rates. Since Fed bankers set interest rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing money is very cheap. This leads to more and more consumer spending, which Mr. Greenspan touts as the driving force for economic growth.
     In fact, he expressly cites the benefits of increased household spending made possible by mortgage refinancing. But new debt is not wealth, and it’s impossible to borrow one’s way into prosperity. Mortgage debt increased 13% last year, while consumer credit debt also increased. American households unquestionably have more debt and save less than ever before. Yet we are expected to believe that more spending and more debt are the keys to economic prosperity.
     During past recessions, many Americans shed debt either through bankruptcy or through austerity measures. In other words, they either changed their spending and borrowing habits or went broke. At some point their debts were in essence cleared from the books. In the recent recession of 2000-2002, however, many cash-strapped households managed to stay ahead of creditors by borrowing even more money. This is directly attributable to Fed easy-money policies, which greatly expanded the money supply and caused banks to lower creditworthiness standards. As a result, many Americans are overextended rather than bankrupt. Someday, however, they simply won’t be able to borrow another dime. All the Fed has done is make the bubble bigger and postpone the day of reckoning. This hardly makes for a strong economy, which must be based on savings and investment.
     It’s not enough to question the wisdom of Mr. Greenspan. Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves. The laws of supply and demand work better than any central banker to determine both the correct supply of money in the economy and the interest rate at which capital is available–without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 May 2004 Free Market Medicine
     Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.
     Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.
     While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.
     Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
     We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses–but not individuals–to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
     While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government–in the form of “universal coverage”–is the answer.
     We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 May 2004 Passing the Buck in Iraq
     The allegations of prisoner torture by our troops in Iraq are disturbing, and clearly drastic action must be taken to ensure such conduct stops immediately. But why are we condemning a small group of low-level reservists when we do not yet know the full story? As revolting as the pictures are, we cannot know with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a few photographs. We do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to condemn those who have not even had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems convenient and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of “bad apples” for what may well turn out to be something completely different–as the continuously widening investigation suggests.
     Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim their superior officers and civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose for photos. We have heard that some soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard they were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous situation with little training and little understanding of the rules and responsibilities. What additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those in charge of interrogations? We don’t know. Does this excuse reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest we need to get all the facts before drawing conclusions. It is disturbing that little mention is made of the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons who may have been the instigators of abuse.
     Our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise, despite the justifications given before the war. Nation building is an inherently dirty and difficult task, one that our military forces are not trained to perform. Endless occupation of a dangerous and resentful nation is not part of a soldier’s job description. We should condemn unequivocally any soldiers who are found guilty of torturing prisoners, but surely we must also condemn those who put those soldiers into such a rotten situation in the first place.
     Members of Congress decry the fact that the administration did not inform us of these abuses and purposely kept Congress out of the information loop. Yet Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that it wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Congress, after abandoning this responsibility in October 2002, now complains it is in the dark. Who is to say the legal ambiguity created by the congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the mentality that prisoners need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.
     Congress has the power–and the obligation–to keep itself better informed. Congress should hold hearings on the torture allegations, exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Demanding that the administration investigate the matter is simply another example of Congress passing the buck. That’s what got us into trouble in the first place.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 May 2004 The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
     When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.
     Dr. Cecil Knox of Virginia is one recent victim of federal authorities, who cannot abide physicians using their own judgment when prescribing pain medication. Dr. Knox faces federal criminal charges for prescribing legal pain drugs, and tragically has been forced to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending himself. Virginia state authorities have neither charged him with a crime nor revoked his medical license, yet the federal government–which constitutionally has no authority to usurp state drug laws–perversely seeks to imprison Dr. Knox for life!
     Even if Dr. Knox is acquitted of all charges, his life will never be the same. His professional reputation and clientele cannot be easily restored, and the enormous legal bills cannot be easily repaid. So whether federal prosecutors obtain a conviction of Dr. Knox or not, the message sent to other doctors is chillingly clear: prescribe the wrong drugs and we will destroy you. The end result is that doctors become afraid to prescribe pain medication, no matter how appropriate for a patient. The judgment of doctors has been replaced by the judgment of federal drug warriors.
     Those who support the war on drugs may well change their views if one day they find themselves experiencing serious pain because of an accident or old age. By creating an atmosphere that regards all powerful pain medication as suspect, the drug warriors have forced countless Americans to live degraded, bedridden lives. Even elderly deathbed patients sometimes are denied adequate pain relief from reluctant doctors and nurses. It’s one thing to support a faraway drug campaign in Colombia or Afghanistan, but it’s quite another to watch a loved one suffering acute pain that could be treated. A sane, compassionate society views advances in medical science–particularly advances that relieve great suffering–as heroic. Instead, our barbaric drug war treats pain patients the same way it treats street junkies.
     Doctors are not slaves, and they will not continue practicing medicine forever if the federal government insists on monitoring, harassing, fining, and even jailing them. Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment, nor should they be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 May 2004 The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
     Yet another ill-conceived foreign aid swindle has become law in the form of the “Millennium Challenge Act,” a disgraceful bill that sends billions of American tax dollars overseas even as our national debt explodes. The Act combines the worst aspects of bad domestic policy and bad foreign policy, by wasting $2.5 billion taxpayer dollars in 2005 alone while meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world.
     The very name–Millennium Challenge Act–is highly insulting. It sounds like a PBS fundraising slogan or car company sales pitch. It’s like calling an old used car a classic or an antique. Foreign aid welfare is still foreign aid welfare, no matter what jingoistic name is applied. There is nothing new or noble about it. The Millennium Challenge Act is just another shabby federal program that takes your money and gives it to somebody else.
     Foreign aid doesn’t help poor people; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites. Everyone in Washington knows this, but the same lofty rhetoric is used over and over to sell foreign aid programs to a gullible public. During a hearing about the new Act last week, I asked one of the witnesses how much of the $2.5 billion would actually go to US corporations. He enthusiastically answered that much of it would, making no attempt to downplay the corporate interests promoting expansion of our foreign aid programs. Naked corporate welfare is bad enough, but corporate welfare in the guise of helping poor foreigners is indecent.
     In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
     In developing countries that pursue sound economic policies, foreign aid money is not needed–the international financial markets will provide the investment capital necessary for economic growth. This capital will be invested according to sound investment strategies–designed to make a profit–rather than allocated according to the whims of government bureaucrats.
     Foreign aid encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it mandates economically devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations. If the private sector wants to see any of the money, it must be in partnership with government. Who knows how much of this money is wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power? Foreign aid invites political corruption by creating a slush fund under the control of foreign governments.
     The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, by revitalizing the economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. The greatest gift we can send overseas is a demonstration of the freedom and prosperity possible only with limited government and the rule of law.
     Americans are the most charitable people on earth. Those who wish to help fight AIDS, famine, and poverty overseas can choose from hundreds of private charities. Americans don’t need a politician or rock star to tell them what causes are important. Most of all, they don’t need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 May 2004 Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
     In recent days administration officials have warned the nation about possible terrorist attacks, subjecting us once again to color-coded threat charts and puzzling admonitions to go about our lives as usual. The message is clear: grave danger surrounds us, but ordinary citizens should do nothing and trust the government take care of it.
     But the obvious lesson of September 11th is that government cannot protect us. Even with trillions of tax dollars spent on “defense,” hijacked planes flew unchallenged over our skies and attacked national symbols of business and government. Yet now we’re told to put even more faith into the same bureaucracies that failed us so miserably in the past? Self-reliance and self-defense are American virtues; trembling reliance on the illusion of government-provided security is not.
     It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell Americans that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but it’s your freedom and your tax dollars at stake–not theirs. The history of the 20th century demonstrates that the Constitution is violated most egregiously during times of crisis. Many of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression, when the public was anxious and willing to view government as a savior and protector. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution–meaning break the law–in the name of law enforcement.
     The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism” for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; future administrations may consider you a terrorist if you belong to a pro-gun group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
     The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11th attacks because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
     America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 June 2004 Superpower or Superdebtor?
     Since the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, the US government has spent more than 40 million taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi in turn fed the US government lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda in the hope that the US would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and put him in power. To hedge his bets, it appears he made a few deals with the Iranians, delivering US intelligence to that country. How’s that for gratitude? Now we see that the US has raided the house of Ahmed Chalabi and seized his papers and computers to see how much damage he may have caused the US with his Iranian dealings.
     Round and round we go, and we never seem to learn. Regime change plans, whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war, almost always go badly. American intervention abroad–installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the eighties, and propping up dictators in many Arab countries–has had serious repercussions for American interests including the loss of American life.
     It is clear that interventionism leads to the perceived need for more interventionism, which leads to more conflict and to increased resentment and anti-Americanism. It is an endless cycle and the American taxpayer is always left holding the bill. This policy has huge dollar costs at home, which contributes to huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American.
     The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations. But economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation. Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed. At that point it will become painfully obvious to even the most strident supporter of our interventionist foreign policy that the super-power has become a super-debtor, its power and influence greatly diminished, and its people much poorer and more vulnerable. It is not too late to change course. The United States can again be viewed as the shining city on the hill and an example to other nations by re-embracing the kind of foreign and economic policies that made us wealthy and admired across the globe in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. Regaining our economic security will go much further toward guaranteeing our national security in the future.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 June 2004 Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
     A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”
     The Justice department, for its part, is depressingly silent on the issue. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to release an existing Justice department memo on the matter to Congress. Why can’t the American people, much less Congress, see how the Justice department interprets presidential powers and federal torture laws? Why the secrecy? The Justice department is charged with enforcing federal laws, not suspending them or advising federal agencies to ignore them.
     Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.
     The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president’s powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries.
     It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
     We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?
     Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives.
     A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president–one man–too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 June 2004 Zero Down for the American Dream
     The House Financial Services committee on which I serve often passes legislation that wastes taxpayer dollars, harms the economy, and egregiously violates the Constitution. The “Zero Downpayment Act” recently passed by the committee is a striking example of a bill that does all three.
     This legislation is considered completely noncontroversial by both political parties, and will breeze through the full congress later this summer with the blessing of the administration. Nobody in Washington thinks twice about another welfare scheme that further entrenches the something-for-nothing mentality so prevalent today in America.
     The Zero Downpayment Act, as its names suggests, creates a federal program that allows some homebuyers to obtain federally-insured mortgages without making a down payment. “Federally-insured” really means taxpayer-insured, as taxpayers like you foot the bill for defaults. So while Congress congratulates itself on yet another program that supposedly helps the poor, it is taxpayers who pay for the inevitable defaults.
     Every mortgage banker knows that even a modest downpayment greatly increases the likelihood that a buyer will pay his mortgage as promised. A buyer who has consistently saved money for a down payment is by definition a better credit risk, and it’s harder to walk away from an obligation if it means losing a sizable amount of hard-earned money. A downpayment measures a buyer’s willingness and ability to make sacrifices in order to reach a goal and improve his standard of living. Banks used to recognize hard work and thrift as indicators of creditworthiness, and in a free market would demand a significant down payment for virtually all homebuyers.
     But as with all federal intervention in the economy, housing welfare distorts the mortgage industry and makes ordinary Americans poorer. Banks, of course, love federal mortgage programs–after all, the risk of default is transferred to American taxpayers. The lending mortgage banks get paid whether homebuyers default or not, and what business wouldn’t love having the federal government guarantee the profitability of its ventures? Between the Federal Housing Administration, which is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world, and the government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations, the mortgage market is hopelessly distorted. Millions of mortgages in this country are federally insured, and the tax bill for defaults could be astronomical if the housing bubble bursts.
     Despite the congressional rhetoric about helping the poor, federal housing policies often harm poor people by pushing them into houses they may not be ready to buy. Given the realities of insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and repairs, many low-income buyers lose their homes and destroy their credit ratings. Easy credit and low interest rates, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, have dramatically increased housing demand and artificially increased prices. Zero down payment schemes do the same thing by pushing renters into the housing market. This increased demand actually serves to price many poor Americans out of the housing market indefinitely.
     The American dream cannot be lived courtesy of taxpayer handouts. The experience of working hard, saving for a downpayment, and buying a home is the essence of the true American dream. Eventually the beneficiaries of government programs stop thinking of themselves as independent citizens, and start viewing themselves as wards of the state. It is impossible to maintain a free society when more and more people look to the state to provide what Americans used to provide for themselves.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 June 2004 Why can’t Congress Stop Spending?
     Congress spent one evening last week debating a token measure to reduce government spending by implementing very slight caps on some future entitlements. Not surprisingly, even this exceedingly modest bill failed overwhelmingly. The process behind the vote, however, reveals just how deeply ingrained the spending problem really is.
     House leaders knew the spending control bill had little chance of passing. In fact, that’s why they allowed the vote to happen. The real goal was to appease fiscal conservatives in Congress, some of whom have become increasingly uncomfortable with the unrestrained spending contained in the proposed 2004 budget. Some of these conservatives supported an alternative budget that merely spent about 1% less than the proposed budget, and even that nominal act of rebellion earned them the ire of House leadership. The spending control measure considered last week was merely a symbolic gesture designed to quash their complaints and ensure cooperation when the final budget vote is cast later this year. After all, those members now can tell their constituents they voted to keep a lid on spending, even as they please their party bosses later.
     The pressure to go along with the herd in Congress is intense, regardless of which party is in control. Every member knows that thwarting his party’s leadership, particularly on budget matters, is risky. Any opposition to spending bills can result in veiled or even outright threats to cut funding for the member’s district, to limit the member’s committee assignments, and to bury the member’s legislation. Some members who buck the system find themselves facing primary opponents in the next election as a result. The desire to win reelection is paramount, and those who go along get plenty of help from their party’s fundraising machines.
     Predictably, almost all members of the House Appropriations committee–the committee initially responsible for every nickel of federal spending–voted against the bill. This simply highlights the institutional problem that plagues Congress and government in general: no politician ever voluntarily relinquishes power. In Congress, control of the nation’s purse strings represents the ultimate power. Appropriators can reward some lawmakers and punish others with the stroke of a pen, by adding or eliminating federal projects in any congressional district. No amount of talk about spending can change the reality that government power naturally grows.
     Everybody complains about pork, but members of Congress keep spending because voters do not throw them out of office for doing so. The rotten system in Congress will change only when the American people change their beliefs about the proper role of government in our society. Too many members of Congress believe they can solve all economic problems, cure all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity simply by creating new federal programs. We must reject unlimited government and reassert the constitutional rule of law if we hope to halt the spending orgy.
     The words of H.R. Gross, the great libertarian-conservative congressman from Iowa, ring as true today as they did during a budget debate in 1974:
     “No amount of legislation will instill in a majority of the members of the House the ingredient, the element that has been missing. That is fiscal responsibility. Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,000 and remain solvent. Every member knows this government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure. Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes available the money. I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of members of Congress.”

Texas Straight Talk, 5 July 2004 Independence From Washington
     Freedom, self-determination, and the end of allegiance to an unaccountable government: 228 years ago this week a handful of radical American colonists set forth their demands in the Declaration of Independence. They sought independence not only from English rule, but also from the feudal notion of obedience to King and Crown. Their views were not shared even by a majority of their fellow colonists, nor could they hope to match England’s naval and military power–but their courage was undeniable.
     A bloody conflict ensued, and the new Americans emerged victorious. But still we celebrate the 4^th of July as the birth of our nation, rather than the date the Constitution was ratified. We celebrate the day our forefathers boldly proclaimed to the world that liberty was their goal, that the pursuit of individual freedom was paramount.
     Those who signed the Declaration of Independence envisioned a nation based on the rule of law and the right of individuals to live their lives free from oppression. To a degree perhaps unimaginable to that band of radical idealists, their vision has come to pass over these two centuries.
     That vision has been challenged throughout our history, however. The nineteenth century held slavery. The twentieth century saw the rise of socialism and its sister, fascism.
     But rather than focus on where we have failed, we should stay focused on the ideal of freedom. The freedom we enjoy today is the direct result of the commitment of men and women who refused to compromise their ideals. Certainly they failed at times, but they understood that the goal was liberty. Today our government and society seem to have lost sight of this goal.
     For more than six months of every year the average American toils not for his family, for his needs, or for his future. No, for the first six months of the year the average American works to pay the cost of federal, state, and local taxes and regulations. From New Year’s Day until about the 4^th of July, you worked to pay for government. This is unconscionable.
     Our Founding Fathers no doubt would be embarrassed at our squandering of their vision. After all, they revolted at a comparable tax rate in the single digits or less. And yet we willingly suffer an effective tax rate of 50%, and much more in many cases. They tyranny of the Crown has been replaced by the tyranny of the federal government in Washington.
     We are not slaves, but many feel they are indentured servants to government. And by and large it has happened with our willing consent. We have knowingly compromised our sacred liberty for temporary promises of security or false prosperity.
     But it does not have to be so. We can reclaim our independence not with guns, but with our voices. We can reject creeping statism and encourage the blessings of liberty for our land. It will require work, and it will require commitment, and it will require a willingness to stand firm for our beliefs. But that is a small price to pay compared to the sacrifices made by those who founded America.
     Liberty, freedom, and self-determination. Those goals are as worthy of our attention today as they were 228 years ago in a hot convention hall in Philadelphia. Just as devotion to those goals brought forth this great nation then, a renewed adherence to liberty can save our nation today.
     Our Founding Fathers felt freedom was worth their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.” Do we?

Texas Straight Talk, 12 July 2004 None of Your Business!
     You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.
     The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.
     Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!
     I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.
     One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.
     The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research.
     At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16^th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.
     More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 July 2004 Saving the World with Your Money
     The Millennium Challenge Act, a new foreign aid scheme I wrote about back in May, received its hoped-for $2.5 billion from Congress last week. Only 41 members of Congress supported an effort to strip the funding, demonstrating once again that the two parties are not serious about reducing federal spending. Considering all the rhetoric in Washington about runaway spending, one would think a new foreign welfare program would be among the easiest things to cut politically.
     Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, tens of billions of US tax dollars have been given to nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations is no longer in question; even the most earnest liberals are beginning to admit the obvious. Most of the recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise.
     A rational person would argue that failed aid programs should be eliminated. In Washington, however, failed programs get more money thrown at them.
     The Millennium Challenge Act is designed to appease fiscal conservatives and defense hawks by appearing to single out friendly, well-behaved nations for aid payments, ostensibly creating a carrot-and-stick approach. But the Act merely puts a shiny new label on the same old failed policy of trying to remake the world using welfare. Welfare has never worked at home and it’s never worked abroad, no matter what “incentives” Congress tries to attach.
     The proponents of the Millennium Challenge Act tell us this time it will be different. If only we condition foreign aid money on the adoption of certain policies, the recipient nations will clean up their acts. Market economies and democratic political reforms surely will follow, if only American taxpayers provide a little seed money.
     Does anyone actually believe this? It is beyond presumptuous to think Congress can change the politics, economies, and cultures of foreign nations. It is simply preposterous to imagine that foreign aid will be cut off once given, no matter what a nation does or fails to do. After all, we’ve been giving billions to some of our worst enemies for decades. Once a federal program begins, it becomes permanent. Mark my words, the Millennium Challenge Act budget will grow in future years.
     The question nobody in Washington wants to answer is this: What gives the Congress the right to send American tax dollars overseas in the first place? Certainly not the Constitution. Why should American taxpayers, many of whom are poor themselves, be expected to fund foreign welfare? Remember that the poorest Americans are hardest hit by the inflation tax, which is the direct result of deficit spending and the printing of new money to service federal debts.
     Congress hardly needs to concoct another way to spend money. Government debt already exceeds seven trillion dollars, and runaway spending will force yet another increase in the federal debt ceiling law before the end of the year. At its current pace, Congress soon will create single-year deficits of one trillion dollars. Combine this indebtedness with future liabilities–in the form of exploding Social Security and Medicare obligations–and it’s clear that Congress can find better things to do with $2.5 billion than send it overseas.
     My very modest proposal is this: eliminate the Millennium Challenge Act, apply half the money to the national debt, and spend the rest domestically if Congress simply can’t bear to give it back to taxpayers. Even the worst domestic program is better than useless and meddlesome foreign aid.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 July 2004 Resisting Judicial Tyranny
     The US House passed the Marriage Protection Act last week, a bill designed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution is not used to impose gay marriage on Texas or any other state. You may remember Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which explicitly authorizes states to refuse recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitated further congressional action. The Act underscores an important legal point: Marbury vs. Madison did not alter the congressional power to regulate and limit federal court jurisdiction, which is plainly stated in Article III. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. In other words, the federalist concept of checks and balances applies to the judiciary just as it does to the legislative and executive branches. The Marriage Protection Act represents a long-overdue exercise of the congressional power to limit and define federal court jurisdiction.
     Americans need to better understand the role of federal courts. The Supreme Court is supreme only over the lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judicial branch is co-equal under our federal system, nothing more and nothing less. Yet we’ve allowed federal judges to pursue a social agenda that is at odds with a majority of Americans, in essence converting our courthouses into legislatures. In the process average people have lost even more power to affect the laws under which they must live.
     The Founders never intended for a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges to decide social policy for the entire nation. Just as Texas is not required to recognize medical licenses, law licenses, or driving licenses from other states, it ought not be forced to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere. Already some same-sex couples have sued in federal court to force the nationwide recognition of their marriages, so the Marriage Protection Act is needed to preserve states’ rights. Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists
     The definition of marriage–a union between a man and a woman–can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.
     Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with the gay marriage issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.
     Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. The Marriage Protection Act, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, will protect the people of Texas from having marriage defined by federal judges rather than the Texas legislature.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 August 2004 Useless Conventions
     Not all Americans know their taxes fund both the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. In fact, the political parties receive nearly $15 million apiece from the Federal Election Committee to hold their conventions. Checking the little box on your 1040 form to give one dollar to the parties changes nothing, as the convention money comes from general revenues whether you check the box or not.
     Massachusetts and New York taxpayers face an even bigger burden, as security costs and police overtime pay likely will run another $25 million in state and local taxes for each convention.
     Why should taxpayers be expected to pay for private political conventions? There is nothing sacred or noble about political parties, nor do they serve any altruistic purpose. Political parties per se have no basis in the Constitution, yet they hold tremendous power over our lives. Today’s modern two-party political process has narrowed voter choices and emasculated political courage. The parties enjoy a virtual stranglehold on national politics, thanks to outrageously restrictive ballot access laws and campaign finance rules that reward status-quo incumbency. They also receive millions in federal matching funds.
     Potential candidates find they cannot wage effective campaigns without major party fundraising help, but such help comes with strings attached. Once a candidate receives money, he is expected to closely parrot party positions on issues. Once elected, he is expected to put the party ahead of principle when it comes to voting and procedural matters. The result is bland candidates who offer nothing but the same old tired statist ideas.
     Modern political conventions are nothing more than taxpayer-funded infomercials for the major parties. It’s been nearly 30 years since a real nominating process took place at a presidential convention, and the party platforms themselves are not debated at all. Since the only purpose of these events is to cast the host party and its nominee in the most favorable light, surely the two campaigns–which have raised tens of millions of dollars already–should foot the bills.
     Perhaps the worst thing about party conventions is the rhetoric. Conventions lend themselves to pandering, as few politicians can resist the temptation to tell a national television audience how well they will run the country if elected. The problem is that government is not supposed to run the country–we’re supposed to be free. Conventions bring out the worst passions in voters, passions based on the fatal conceit that government is the solution to all of our problems.
     For those who believe in limited constitutional government, last week’s convention speeches were almost unbearable. One speaker after another extolled their benevolent plans for America, always in the form of new programs and new spending. Of course no convention would be complete without assurances that even more money will be spent on the failed federal education bureaucracy. The speakers also promised free health care for all, without the slightest explanation of how health care became a “right.” All of these promises were made, of course, without any mention of exactly what constitutional or moral authority authorizes such grand schemes.
     Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won’t hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 August 2004 Police State USA
     Last week’s announcement that the terrorist threat warning level has been raised in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. has led to dramatic and unprecedented restrictions on the movements of citizens. Americans wishing to visit the U.S. Capitol must, for example, pass through several checkpoints and submit to police inspection of their cars and persons.
     Many Americans support the new security measures because they claim to feel safer when the government issues terror alerts and fills the streets with militarized police forces. As one tourist interviewed this week said, “It makes me feel comfortable to know that everything is being checked.” It is ironic that tourists coming to Washington to celebrate the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence are so eager to give up those freedoms with no questions asked.
     Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. This doesn’t stop governments, including our own, from seeking more control over and intrusion into our lives. As one Member of Congress stated to the press last week, “people who don’t want to be searched don’t need to come on Capitol grounds.” What an insult! The Capitol belongs to the American people who pay for it, not to Congress or the police.
     It is worth noting that the government rushes first to protect itself, devoting enormous resources to make places like the Capitol grounds safe, while just beyond lies one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. What makes Congress more worthy of protection from terrorists than ordinary citizens?
     To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises–whether real or manufactured–serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9-11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad.
     Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won. As commentator Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains, terrorists in effect have been elevated by our response to 9-11: “They are running the country. They determine our civic life. They shape our private life. They decide how public resources are spent. They may dictate who gets to be the next president. It should be obvious that the government doesn’t object. Not at all. The government benefits, by getting ever more reason for ever more money and power.”
     Every generation must resist the temptation to believe that it lives in the most dangerous time in American history. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, but it is not the greatest danger ever faced by our nation. This is not to dismiss the threat of terrorism, but rather to put it in perspective. Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.
     Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 August 2004 Election Monitoring–Insulting yet Inevitable
     Earlier this month Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the request of several members of Congress, invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor our upcoming elections. It is the second time this international organization, of which we are a member, has monitored US elections–the last time was the congressional elections of 2002.
     Of course neither the OSCE nor any other international organization should have a say in how we conduct elections in the United States. But then again neither should the federal government. Unlike the other member states of the OSCE, the United States has a federalist system where no single national authority runs our elections. Under Article II, presidential elections–as opposed to congressional elections–are run by the states themselves. Hence the electoral college, which essentially gives us 50 state elections.
     Therefore the invitation was not Secretary Powell’s to extend. I would bet the idea of OSCE monitors might be received with some hostility by many state and local governments.
     We should be wary about organizations like the OSCE that seek to involve themselves in our electoral process. The OSCE in particular has a terrible record in the newly-democratic countries of central Europe, where it normally operates. According to groups that follow the conduct of the OSCE, this organization does much more to undermine free elections than to promote them.
     In Bosnia in 1996, for example, the OSCE gave its seal of approval to parliamentary elections despite the fact that an impossible 107 percent of the possible voting-age population had voted. In 1998, the OSCE observer team that was to monitor the cease-fire between the Serbs and Albanians was caught sending targeting information back to the US and European Union in advance of the US-led attack on Serbia. This year, the OSCE approved the election of Mikheil Saakashvili in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia with a Saddam Hussein-like 97 percent of the vote! There are dozens more similar examples.
     The problem with the OSCE is that it really is just a policy tool of its larger member countries, primarily the US and European Union. Both the US and EU have made the grave mistake of manipulating the political and electoral process in the former countries of Eastern Europe, leading, ironically, to the remarkable come-back of former communists in most of these new democracies. Have we spent 40 years and countless billions of dollars in our struggle against communism to engineer the return of these kinds of people to power?
     Asked last week about monitoring the US elections, an OSCE spokesperson displayed the arrogance typical of these international bureaucrats, responding that, “The U.S. is obliged to invite us.”
     The real issue goes much deeper than this election, foreign monitors, and the corrupt OSCE, however. The real issue is the sovereignty the United States voluntarily gives up every time it joins an international organization like the United Nations or the OSCE. We have unwisely joined organizations like this so as to meddle in the elections of other member countries, but when they wish to meddle in ours we cry “foul.” We want it both ways–to meddle in the affairs of other countries but to be immune from their meddling in ours. But it doesn’t work that way. Having created this monster, it is now coming back to haunt us.
     We send more than 25 million dollars to the OSCE each year, financing almost ten percent of the organization’s budget. It is time to end this waste of money. We need to end our membership and participation in the OSCE immediately. When we undermine the sovereignty of other nations we undermine our own sovereignty as well.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 August 2004 The 9-11 Commission Charade
     The 9-11 Commission report, released late last month, has disrupted the normally quiet Washington August. Various congressional committees are holding hearings on the report this week, even though Congress is not in session, in an attempt to show the government is “doing something” about terrorism in an election year. The Commission recommendations themselves have been accepted reverently and without question, as if handed down from on high.
     But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11^th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure?
     The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.
     The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn’t need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends.
     Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2^nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves.
     More than anything, our federal government should stop deluding us that more government is the answer. We have far more to fear from an unaccountable government at home than from any foreign terrorist.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 August 2004 A Texas Platform for the GOP
     As the 2004 national GOP convention begins Monday, we should be prepared to hear a Republican agenda that sounds more like FDR or Woodrow Wilson than Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. A party that once defined itself by the fundamental conservative principle that government power should be used sparingly and judiciously, now supports a program of bigger government at home, more militarism abroad, and less respect for constitutional freedoms. An examination of the Texas state GOP platform reveals just how far the national Republican party has strayed from true conservative principles and the ideal of limited constitutional government.
     First and foremost, the Texas GOP is serious about reducing the size and scope of government. The party platform calls for strict congressional adherence to the 10^th amendment, and the abolition of all federal agencies not authorized under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It urges a return to truly republican government, based on limited federal powers and states rights. The language of the platform is refreshingly frank, with quotes like “We believe that government spending is out of control and needs to be reduced” and “We respect our Founders’ intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people.” In fact, whole sections of the document are devoted to worthy subjects like “Limiting the expanse of government power.” Contrast these words with what you’ll hear this week from the big spending, big government Republicans from Washington.
     The Texas party platform is similarly bold when it comes to terrorism, civil liberties, and privacy. Rather than promoting the current mantra that security is our ultimate goal, the platform reminds us that liberty is our most important value. The platform calls for repealing portions of the Patriot Act, calls for less information gathering by government, opposes property seizures without due process, and opposes the creation of a national ID card. The platform asserts that “A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government,” and “We believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism.” You won’t hear this kind of language at the national Republican convention.
     The Texas GOP platform also calls for a congressional audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, and demands full public access to the written minutes from Fed board meetings. Such an audit could at the very least serve to educate the American people about Fed inflation and the dangers of fiat currency. In Washington, the Federal Reserve system is virtually never discussed by Congress or the administration, despite its enormous impact on our economic well-being. Monetary policy is simply off the table as a political and policy matter for both national parties, but the Texas GOP recognizes the importance of sound money.
     When it comes to 2^nd amendment rights, the Texas GOP platform is uncompromising. It calls for outright abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. It also calls for repeal of all laws infringing upon 2^nd amendment rights. This is another example of grassroots conservatives in Texas taking a position that Republicans in Washington lack the courage to endorse.
     Education? The Texas GOP platform calls for the abolition of the Department of Education. Taxes? Texas Republicans urge the repeal of the 16^th amendment and the abolition of the IRS, an agency the platform says is “Unacceptable to taxpayers.” On dozens of other issues, from abortion to activist judges to religious freedom, the Texas Republican party promotes true conservative values and strict adherence to the Constitution. Real conservatives should demand the same from the national Republican Party this week in New York.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 September 2004 Reject the National ID Card
     Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card–and it may well become law before the end of the 108th Congress. The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report released in July recommends a federal identification card and, worse, a “larger network of screening points” inside the United States. Does this mean we are to have “screening points” inside our country where American citizens will be required to “show their papers” to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!
     As I have written recently, the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than ex-government officials and lobbyists advising current government officials that we need more government for America to be safe. Yet it was that same government that failed so miserably on September 11, 2001.
     Congress has embraced the 9/11 Commission report uncritically since its release in July. Now Congress is rushing to write each 9/11 Commission recommendation into law before the November election. In the same way Congress rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act after the September 11 attacks to be seen “doing something,” it looks like Congress is about to make the same mistake again of rushing to pass liberty-destroying legislation without stopping to consider the consequences. Because it is so controversial, we may see legislation mandating a national identification card with biometric identifiers hidden in bills implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have seen this technique used in the past on controversial measures.
     A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. We would do well to remember what happened with the Social Security number. It was introduced with solemn restrictions on how it could be used, but it has become a de facto national identifier.
     Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and “screening points” will actually make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans!
     The federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Instead of forcing all Americans to prove to law enforcement that they are not terrorists, we should be focusing our resources on measures that really will make us safer. For starters, we should take a look at our dangerously porous and unguarded borders. We have seen already this summer how easy it is for individuals possibly seeking to do us harm to sneak across the border into our country. In July, Pakistani citizen Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who is on the federal watch list, reportedly crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico. She was later arrested when she tried to board a plane in New York, but she should have never been able to cross our border in the first place!
     We must take effective measures to protect ourselves from a terrorist attack. That does not mean rushing to embrace legislation that in the long run will do little to stop terrorism, but will do a great deal to undermine the very way of life we should be protecting. Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 September 2004 Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto
     A presidential initiative called The “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” has issued a report recommending forced mental health screening for every child in America, including preschool children. The goal is to promote the patently false idea that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment.
     One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of criminal. It may be easier to teach and parent drugged kids, but convenience is no justification for endangering them. Children’s brains are still developing, and the truth is we have no idea what the long-term side effects of psychiatric drugs may be. Medical science has not even exhaustively identified every possible brain chemical, even as we alter those chemicals with drugs.
     Dr. Karen Effrem, a physician who strongly opposes mandatory mental health screening, warns us that “America’s children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses.” She points out that psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, as authors of the diagnostic manuals admit. She also is concerned that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with the secular orthodoxy that dominates our schools.
     The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders “universal” mental health screening in schools, it really means “mandatory.” Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children’s most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not?
     Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children’s well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 September 2004 Mental Health Screening for Kids–Part II
     Last week I wrote about a presidential initiative called the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,” which issued a report calling for the mandatory mental health screening of American schoolchildren. This new proposal threatens to force millions of kids to undergo psychiatric screening, whether their parents consent or not. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children.
     I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office has been overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.
     Some members of Congress objected to my amendment on the grounds that the federal screening program does not yet exist, so it’s premature to oppose it. But the whole point was to prevent the proposal from being implemented in the first place. Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Congress had a rare opportunity to stop a bad idea in its tracks, before it becomes entrenched. Every member who opposes the idea of forcing kids to undergo mental health screening should have sent a strong statement by voting for my amendment. They will have another chance to kill the initiative when I introduce a stand-alone bill later this year.
     Furthermore, it’s not true that no money has been allocated for the proposal. The Appropriations committee, which distributes your tax dollars to the various federal agencies, specifically allotted $20 million in the HHS/Education bill for state programs in support of the New Freedom commission report. These federally-funded state programs will be the precursors of the broader federal program recommended by the commission.
     Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory. This is why we can never trust new bureaucratic programs: no matter how benevolent their proponents claim them to be, most programs morph into something much larger than originally foreseen. Those who view my concerns as alarmism fail to understand the inevitable nature of bureaucratic growth.
     Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It’s not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.
     American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children’s well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children’s minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 September 2004 The IMF Con
     You won’t hear either presidential candidate say much about the issue of foreign aid during this election season, despite the record levels of federal spending and debt that plague our economy. Very few Americans realize the extent to which Congress sends billions of their tax dollars overseas to fund the most counterproductive foreign welfare schemes imaginable, always in the guise of helping the poor. A recent report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee on which I serve highlights the reckless manner in which one organization, the International Monetary Fund, wastes your money around the world.
     The IMF provides a perfect illustration of the both the folly of foreign aid and the real motivations behind it. The IMF touts itself as a bank of sorts, although it makes “loans” that no rational bank would consider–mostly to shaky governments with weak economies and unstable currencies. The IMF has little incentive to operate profitably like a private bank, since its funding comes mostly from a credulous US Congress that demands little accountability. As a result, it is free to make high-risk loans at below- market interest rates.
     The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds–taxpayer funds–to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion for the poor.
     In fact, IMF loans often do far more harm than good. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations face huge debts they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
     Government-to-government transfers through a middleman like the IMF cannot produce real growth. When capital remains in private hands, it is allocated to its most productive uses as determined by the choices of consumers in the market. Placing capital in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
     American taxpayers already lend various governments more than $5 billion annually through the IMF, at a yearly cost of over $300 million because of loan defaults and subsidized interest rates. Now the IMF wants to double its pool of funding, which will put taxpayers on the hook for $12 billion in loans at a cost of about $750 million each year. Furthermore, since the IMF creates “drawing rights” accounts that are redeemable in US dollars, it in essence prints US dollars when it increases those drawing rights. This is a clear violation of our national sovereignty, and a vivid example of why we should stop participating in international schemes like the IMF altogether.
     The IMF and other complex schemes only serve to obscure the real issue: Why should US taxpayers be forced to send money abroad? Certainly the Constitution provides no authority for foreign aid. In historical and practical terms, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations has done little or nothing to alleviate suffering abroad. Only free markets, property rights, and the rule of law can create the conditions necessary to lift poor nations out of poverty.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 October 2004 Confronting the Imperial Judiciary
     Last week’s debate over the constitutional marriage amendment brought even greater attention to the issue of activist judges. From gay marriage to Boy Scouts to frivolous lawsuits to the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans have grown increasingly distrustful and suspicious of our federal courts–and rightfully so. Never in our history have unaccountable federal judges wielded more power over our lives.
     Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has intensified in the decades since Roe v. Wade. This practice is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
     But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
     The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.
     Congressional cowardice enables judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20^th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
     The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 October 2004 The 9-11 Intelligence Bill is More of the Same
     Last week the House of Representative passed the “9-11 Recommendations Implementation Act,” a bill that ostensibly puts in place the ideas endorsed by the 9-11 Commission. As I related to you back in August, however, the commission amounted to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, but they definitely will make us less free. The Act also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs, designed to prove that money can buy us friends. Instead of expanding the federal police state, Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation’s vital interests, rather than wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.
     Disturbingly, the bill creates a de facto national ID card by mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued drivers’ licenses and birth certificates, even requiring biometric identifiers. State drivers’ license information will be stored in a national database, which will include information about an individual’s driving record that has nothing to do with terrorism.
     Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federal ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It’s just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics. Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.
     This legislation’s foreign policy provisions are similarly objectionable and should be strongly opposed. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page report, there is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will not be safer.
     Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new office–the National Intelligence Director–we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Yet ever since the National Security Act of 1947, the agencies created have been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. When considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, or CIA training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean eliminating the CIA altogether and turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 October 2004 “I Have a Plan...”
     As election time nears, we are bombarded with political ads and speeches by candidates telling us their great plans for running the country. At the end of the recent presidential debate, for example, the Democratic nominee recited a litany of supposed cures for nearly everything that ails us, beginning each sentence with the phrase “I have a plan…”
     The problem is that government is not supposed to plan our lives or run the country; we are supposed to be free. That our public discourse strays so far from this principle is an unhappy sign of our times. Those who believe in limited constitutional government should worry every time a politician says, “I have a plan.”
     Remember, there is a simple dictionary definition for government planning of the production and provision of goods and services: socialism. No matter how much the grand planners from both political parties deny it, many of their programs and proposals are socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, price controls, and interest rate manipulations all represent socialist interventions in the economy. True, we do not yet have a fully socialist economy. But that is why we must be vigilant and label socialist proposals for exactly what they are, so we can maintain and expand economic freedom in America.
     Both history and economic theory prove conclusively that centrally-planned economies lower the standard of living for everyone except government elites. Historically, centralized economic planning goes hand in hand with hardship and bloodshed. Modern soft socialism, found in nations like Sweden and France, is beginning to implode of its own weight as governments realize they simply cannot fund cradle-to-grave programs without imposing tax rates that kill any last remnants of productive spark in their citizens.
     By contrast, capitalism–which is to say economic freedom–raises the standard of living for everyone in a society. But we must understand what capitalism really is. Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties.
     In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense. Such was the system envision by the Founding Fathers, who strictly limited regulatory and tax powers in the Constitution. They were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown, so they created a servant government that would allow freedom and capitalism to flourish.
     Today’s political rhetoric demonstrates that the servant has become the master. Most politicians, and too many Americans, have accepted the premise that government should plan our lives and control the economy. This subservient mindset encourages political pandering, as candidates strive to convince voters of their superior plans to take care of all of us. For a nation founded upon rugged individualism and self-reliance, the modern political landscape represents a wake-up call. Unless and until Americans begin to reclaim the mentality that made us great, we are destined to slide further into an economic and political malaise that cannot be solved by the grandiose plans of politicians.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 October 2004 Government Debt–The Greatest Threat to National Security
     Once again the federal government has reached its “debt ceiling,” and once again Congress is poised to authorize an increase in government borrowing. Between its ever-growing bureaucracies, expanding entitlements, and overseas military entanglements, the federal government is borrowing roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
     Federal law limits the amount of debt the U.S. Treasury may carry, and the current amount–a whopping $7.4 trillion–has been reached once again by a spendthrift federal government. Total federal spending, which now exceeds $2 trillion annually, once took more than 100 years to double. Today it doubles in less than a decade, and the rate is accelerating. When President Reagan entered office in 1981 facing a federal debt of $1 trillion that had piled up over the decades, he declared that figure “incomprehensible.” At its present rate of spending, the federal government will soon amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year.
     Government debt carries absolutely no stigma for politicians in Washington. The original idea behind the debt limit law was to shine a light on government spending, by forcing lawmakers to vote publicly for debt increases. Over time, however, the increases have become so commonplace that the media scarcely reports them–and there are no political consequences for those who vote for more red ink. It’s far more risky for politicians to vote against special interest spending
     Since 1969, the federal government has spent more that it received in revenues every year. Even supposed single-year surpluses never existed, but were merely an accounting trick based on stealing IOUs from the imaginary Social Security trust fund. Remember that the total federal debt continued to rise rapidly even during the claimed surplus years. Since Congress is incapable of spending only what the Treasury takes in, it must borrow money. Unlike ordinary debts, however, government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money–they’re repaid by you and future generations.
     The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes–our largest creditors–are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It’s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.
     Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the world’s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks “Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.” Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about “A kind of global balance of financial terror,” noting our dependency on “the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries.”
     Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. We’re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 November 2004 The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
     Tuesday’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the electoral college, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.
     This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended electoral college votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.
     A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.
     Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.
     The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states–derided as “flyover” country–tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.
     Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 November 2004 Social Security: House of Cards
     President Bush should be commended for promising to address the looming Social Security crisis during his second term, a crisis that Congress and successive presidents have ignored for decades. Hopefully Americans will realize that the notion of Social Security as an insurance program is a lie, and that Congress has not put their Social Security contributions into any trust fund.
     Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren’t big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.
     Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem until it becomes acute. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
     The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.
     We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”
     Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company’s honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
     The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 November 2004 The Middle East Quagmire
     The death of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat last week once again brings the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the international forefront. The Bush administration finds itself in an uncomfortable but familiar role as peacemaker for yet another intractable, ancient, and deadly Middle East conflict. The popular press and political world both accept without question the notion that the United States is somehow responsible for resolving any and all conflicts around the globe, but especially in Palestine.
     We conveniently forget, however, that American tax dollars militarized the entire region in the first place. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
     Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
     This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, many Muslims hate the United States despite the billions we give to their governments.
     It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
     Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right. The interventionist approach that has dominated American foreign policy since World War I has produced an unmitigated series of disasters. From Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, American military and economic meddling has made numerous conflicts worse, not better. Washington and Jefferson had it right when they warned against entangling alliances, and the history of the 20th century proves their point. The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 November 2004 Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
     Last week Congress increased the mortgage on your future yet again, by voting to allow the federal government to borrow another $800 billion to pay its bills. This latest increase in the federal debt limit represents merely another chapter in the unprecedented explosion in federal spending that has occurred in recent years. At its present rate of spending, the federal government soon will amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year. By contrast, the entire federal debt was only $1 trillion when President Reagan took office in 1981.
     It’s particularly galling when members of Congress pledge never to raise taxes, but then vote to increase the debt limit. By doing so, they are voting to raise taxes on future generations pure and simple. Debt does matter, despite the flawed arguments of the supply-siders. It will have to be repaid by future generations who did not incur it. To hear supposed conservatives argue the case for more federal debt is disgraceful, quite frankly. Deficit spending is the antithesis of conservatism.
     Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today. Does anyone really believe this will be the last time, that Congress will tighten its belt if granted one last loan? What a joke! There is only one approach to dealing with an incorrigible spendthrift: cut him off. Congress wastes hundred of billions of dollars every year on countless agencies and programs. Rather than raising the federal government’s credit limit, Congress easily could mandate cuts in the existing bloated budget.
     Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes–currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands taxpayers a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.
     Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt at current interest rates. What will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy our debts?
     The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy. The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card and refuse to allow Congress to borrow one red dime.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 November 2004 TSA–Bullies at the Airport
     If you traveled by air last week for the Thanksgiving holiday, you undoubtedly witnessed Transportation Security Administration agents conducting aggressive searches of some passengers. A new TSA policy begun in September calls for invasive and humiliating searches of random passengers; in some instances crude pat-downs have taken place in full public view. Some female travelers quite understandably have burst into tears upon being groped, and one can only imagine the lawsuits if TSA were a private company. But TSA is not private, TSA is a federal agency–and therefore totally unaccountable to the American people.
     TSA was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Although the National Guard, DOD, FBI, CIA, NSA, and FAA utterly failed to protect American citizens on that tragic day, federal legislators immediately proposed creating yet another government agency. But the commercial flying community did not want airport security federalized, and my office was inundated with messages from airline pilots opposing the creation of TSA. One pilot stated, “I don’t want the same people who bring me the IRS and ATF to be in charge of airport security.” But Congress didn’t listen to the men and women who spend their working lives flying, so it created another agency that costs billions of dollars, employs thousands of unionized federal workers, and produces poor results.
     Problems within TSA are legion. In the rush to hire a new workforce, 28,000 screeners were put to work without background checks. Some of them were convicted felons. Many were very young, uneducated, with little job experience. At Kennedy and LaGuardia airports in New York, police arrested dozens of TSA employees who were simply stealing valuables from the luggage they were assigned to inspect. Of course TSA has banned locks on checked luggage, leaving passengers with checked bags totally at the mercy of screeners working behind closed doors. None of this is surprising for a government agency of any size, but we must understand the reality of TSA: its employees have no special training, wisdom, intelligence, or experience whatsoever that qualifies them to have any authority over you. They certainly have no better idea than you do how to prevent terrorism. TSA is about new bureaucratic turf and lucrative union makework, not terrorism.
     TSA has created an atmosphere of fear and meek subservience in our airports that smacks of Soviet bureaucratic bullying. TSA policies are subject to change at any moment, they differ from airport to airport, and they need not be in writing. One former member of Congress demanded to see the written regulation authorizing a search of her person. TSA flatly told her, “We don’t have to show it to anyone.” Think you have a right to know the laws and regulations you are expected to obey? Too bad. Get in line and stay quiet, or we’ll make life very hard for you. This is the attitude of TSA personnel.
     Passengers, of course, have caught on quickly. They have learned to stay quiet and not ask any questions, no matter how ludicrous or undignified the command. It’s bad enough to see ordinary Americans bossed around in their stocking feet by newly-minted TSA agents, but it’s downright disgraceful to see older Americans and children treated so imperiously. But any objection, however rational and reasonable, risks immediate scrutiny. At best, complainers will be taken aside and might miss their flight. If they don’t submit quickly and attempt to assert any rights, they will end up detained, put on a TSA list that guarantees them hostile treatment at every airport, and possibly arrested or fined for their “attitude.”
     Airlines should be using every last ounce of their lobbying and public relations power to stop TSA from harassing, delaying, humiliating, and otherwise mistreating their paying passengers. They should be protecting their employees, passengers, and aircraft using private security and guns in the cockpit. After all, who has more incentive to create safe skies than the airlines themselves? Many security-intensive industries, including nuclear power plants, oil refineries, and armored money transports, employ private security forces with excellent results. Yet the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so they cannot be held accountable if another disaster occurs. But airlines are finding out the hard way that millions of Americans simply won’t put up with TSA’s abuse. Wealthy Americans are using private planes via increasingly popular fractional ownership plans, while ordinary Americans are choosing to drive to their destinations and vacation closer to home. Even business travelers are finding ways to consolidate trips and teleconference. Who can blame anyone for avoiding airports altogether?
     While millions of Americans undoubtedly welcome any TSA indignity under the guise of “preventing terrorism,” millions more are not willing to give blind obedience to arbitrary authority. TSA creates only a false sense of security, at great cost not only financially but also in terms of our dignity. How we as Americans react to authoritarian agencies like TSA is an indicator of how much we still value freedom over our persons and effects.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 December 2004 Gold Exposes the Dollar The existence of gold in the economy is a constant reminder of the poor quality of the government paper, and it always poses a threat to replace the paper as the country’s money. Economist Murray Rothbard
     One year ago I wrote about the precipitous decline in the value of the U.S. dollar against other world currencies, a decline that continues unabated today. A Euro note worth only 89 cents shortly after its introduction was worth about $1.16 at the end of 2003. Today it’s worth $1.33. In fact, the dollar has fallen to an all-time low against the Euro, and a 12-year low against the British pound. Since 2000, the dollar has lost 30% of its value.
     Gold, by contrast, has surged 70% in the same period. The New York Times last week acknowledged that gold “was now a more favored currency than the U.S. dollar.” As analyst Harry Schultz points out, when gold prices are low the financial press calls gold a commodity. When prices are high, they call it a currency. Investors cannot afford to sit idly by while their dollar accounts lose another 30% in value, so the rise in demand for gold is hardly surprising.
     The world financial markets are betting against the dollar. Our creditors, particularly Asian central banks, are losing their appetite for U.S. Treasuries. Our federal government’s huge debt and voracious appetite for deficit spending make our economy dependent on the actions of foreign governments and central bankers. Yet few Americans realize the extent to which their own government has sold out American sovereignty by borrowing money overseas.
     Washington seems oblivious to the problem. Our current account deficit is roughly 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness is over $3 trillion. We borrow $1.8 billion every day! Unfortunately, our politicians and the public will ignore the problem until the combination of dollar inflation, price inflation, and higher interest rates brings the borrowing frenzy to an end. Americans, like their government, seem to have lost the ability to live within their means. When their standard of living falls, however, they will look for someone to blame in Washington.
     The consequences of a rapidly declining dollar are not yet obvious to the American public. A trip to Europe costs more than it did a few years ago, but most Americans still don’t sense they are becoming poorer as the dollar falls. The long-term significance has not yet begun to sink in. However, our relative wealth as a nation is measured in dollars, and the steady erosion of the value of those dollars means we will all be poorer in the future. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has relentlessly increased the money supply throughout his tenure, ostensibly to keep the economy expanding. But this artificial stimulation through cheap money comes with a price. When dollars are abundant, they are worth less. This is the reality facing Americans today, especially older Americans who rely on savings to finance their retirement years.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 December 2004 Ignoring Reality in Iraq
     A recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.” This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.
     Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.
     These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.
     This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again.
     The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
     Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.
     Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”–in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution–limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs–has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 December 2004 It can’t Happen Here
     In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11^th era: Is America becoming a police state?
     The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer–always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.
     Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency–including TSA at the airport.
     Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority–all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.
     Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?
     Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain–anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.
     After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
     It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
     Those who believe a police state can’t happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 December 2004 Hands Off the Electoral College
     The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the electoral college, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
     The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
     The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
     By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
     Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 January 2005 Another UN Insult
     Let me take this opportunity to wish readers of this weekly column a very happy New Year. I appreciate your willingness to work for liberty by staying informed about the actions of your government, and I hope you will redouble your efforts this year to spread the message of freedom. Remember to visit my congressional website–www.house.gov/paul–throughout 2005 to find new weekly messages and speeches, which you are free to distribute to your family and friends.
     You may have heard one United Nations official comment that America is being stingy with its offer of millions of dollars in aid for tsunami victims. His attitude toward your money is typical of globalist bureaucrats, who ultimately view the UN as a means for transferring wealth from America to other nations. Americans are very generous people, and undoubtedly will donate tens or even hundreds of millions to private organizations to help the victims of this terribly tragedy in Asia. We hardly need the UN to chide us about our supposed lack of generosity.
     The oil-for-food scandal brewing in the United Nations also has provoked long-overdue denunciations of the organization from several pundits and politicians on the right. Of course most of you didn’t need a scandal to convince you that the UN is anti-American, or that it egregiously wastes our tax dollars. I’m glad more Republicans are finally catching on to what many Constitutionalists, libertarians, Birchers, Goldwaterites, and religious conservatives have been saying for decades: we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of America. I certainly agree with these newly minted critics, having advocated getting out for twenty-five years. This growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the organization is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution.
     Obviously, many of those now calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. Few Americans realize, however, that the resolution passed by Congress cited various UN resolutions more than twenty times as justification for invading Iraq–in contrast to the media images of President Bush “going it alone” and disregarding the UN. So despite the anti-UN bluster from the right, a Republican president’s stated reason for invading Iraq was that it failed to obey UN resolutions!
     This approach gives us the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we grant credibility to the ideas of international law and global government–signaling our willingness to surrender precious sovereignty in the bargain. Yet we gain little in exchange. Other nations still consider us only too willing to ignore the international rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain deeply mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 January 2005 Private Help for Tsunami Victims
     In the past ten days, Americans have donated several hundred million dollars to help Asian tsunami victims. Despite this outpouring of support for private charities, the Bush administration has pledged to send at least $350 million in federal aid, a figure that is open-ended and certain to climb. It’s admirable that Americans have been so willing to open their hearts and pocketbooks for the victims of this enormous tragedy, but it’s not the job of the federal government to make a show of generosity to the world with your tax dollars. Remember, government officials cannot be generous or charitable, because the money they dispense does not belong to them.
     The original coalition of donor governments has been disbanded, meaning the United Nations will control all government-funded relief efforts going forward. Surely the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds, yet that’s precisely who will be overseeing the expenditure of our $350 million. Bush administration officials have promised to keep a tight watch over how those tax dollars are spent, but the truth is that we cannot control this money once it’s sent overseas for UN administration.
     We are mistaken when we assume governments must be the central organizing agents of the relief efforts. Private-sector charities and free-market social cooperation are the real saviors in any natural disaster, despite the intense desire of politicians to be seen as heroes on a white horse–heroes who use other people’s money. Government-to-government transfers are inherently inefficient, and adding the UN as a middleman will only ensure that even less of the money actually reaches those who need it most.
     Money is critical for disaster relief, but it is not the only issue. Efficient organization of relief services is equally important, and efficiency means circumventing the government bureaucracies that tend to boss people around after natural disasters. Doctors Without Borders, a private group known for providing medical care in poor nations, actually requested that people stop sending them money last week. Their operating model relies on very low overhead and complete independence from governments, and they understand that throwing more and more money at a disaster is not necessarily the best approach.
     Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explained the problem of government “generosity” for disaster relief in the context of the 2004 Florida hurricanes:
     “The whole enterprise of disaster aid has become one of the great rackets of modern government. Today we have the disgusting spectacle of senators and presidents coming to visit weather-injured places, as if they have within their capacity the ability to size up damage and make provisions for making it all correct. We are supposed to believe that they know more about the proper course of action than insurance adjusters and property owners.”
     “If we had honest politicians, they would say: ‘Of course I’m sorry about what happened to that beach in Florida, but my presence there would only distract from the essential work being done by owners and their insurers. I don’t know anything about the topic, and even if I did, I would not want to steal from some to give to others to realize my political priorities.”
     The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can. But let’s get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 January 2005 UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
     Two weeks ago I discussed the growing sentiment among conservatives in America that we should consider getting out of the United Nations. Much of this sentiment has been generated by the oil-for-food scandal, but this strikes me as misguided. Sovereignty is the issue, not scandals, and many newly-minted critics of the UN were happy to support the organization when it did our foreign policy bidding.
     Why in the world are we surprised by this oil-for-food scandal? Power without accountability naturally leads to corruption, and the UN is nothing if not unaccountable. Just as Washington politicians are too far removed from the Americans they purport to represent, UN bureaucrats are utterly distanced from the “world citizens” they wish to govern. The UN is nascent global government, no matter what its supporters claim–it attempts to issue legally binding decrees. Centralized, faraway government is always less accountable than localized government. The average American has no say whatsoever over what happens at the UN, even though he’s forced to pay taxes to support it. Given the reality that UN bureaucrats operate totally outside the bounds of any national laws or oversight, we hardly should be surprised when the organization becomes arrogant, corrupt, and mismanaged.
     The real problem, however, is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. The ultimate test for the ostensible validity of any government is whether its authority comes from the people it governs, rather than from the use of force or arbitrary edicts. In other words, legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. This is the fundamental democratic principle. It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. Yet so many of those on the political left in America, who claim to believe in democracy above all, vigorously champion the inherently undemocratic UN.
     We cannot reconcile American sovereignty with our membership in the UN. Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people. Americans have not consented to laws passed by foreign individuals or bodies.
     American citizens abroad, of course, are subject to the laws of their host nation. At home, however, American citizens are subject only to our domestic laws. Congress, and Congress alone, has the constitutional power to craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can legally usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. Not even the wildest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress simply to abandon its lawmaking power to another body. Yet this is what UN advocates would have us believe when the UN attempts to dictate or influence our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws–as it already has.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 January 2005 Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.
     Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam. The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending–and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs–millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things.
     In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years. Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.
     Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money will be there earning interest, right? If your money is put away in a trust fund account with your name on it, what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program?
     The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year–not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue. Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades.
     The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
     If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution.
     Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 January 2005 Don’t Let Congress Fund Orwellian Psychiatric Screening of Kids
     Every parent in America should be made aware of a presidential initiative called the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.” This commission issued a report last year calling for the mandatory mental health screening of American schoolchildren, meaning millions of kids will be forced to undergo psychiatric screening whether their parents consent or not. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children.
     Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has no legitimate authority to interfere in your family’s intimate health matters. Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, and the drugs regularly prescribed produce serious side effects, especially in children’s developing brains. The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government.
     Unfortunately, however, the mental health screening initiative received funding from House and Senate appropriators in the 2005 federal budget. This funding allows states to create or expand mental health screening programs with your tax dollars. More importantly, the commission recommends a broader federal program in the near future.
     Last fall I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a year-end spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office was overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.
     Accordingly, the first bill I introduced this year bill forbids federal funds from being used for any mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents. The bill is known as “The Parental Consent Act of 2005,” or HR 181. This legislation strikes a vital blow for parents who oppose government interference with their parental authority, and strengthens the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
     It is important to understand that powerful interests, namely federal bureaucrats and pharmaceutical lobbies, are behind the push for mental health screening in schools. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to run our lives, and the pharmaceutical industry is eager to sell psychotropic drugs to millions of new customers in American schools. Only tremendous public opposition will suffice to overcome the lobbying and bureaucratic power behind the president’s New Freedom Commission.
     Your help is needed. Please tell everyone you know about HR 181, and ask them to call their representatives and senators in Washington to voice strong opposition to forced mental health screening. Demand that the Department of Health and Human Services receive no tax dollars in this year’s appropriation bill for screening programs, and that states receive no federal dollars for programs of their own. Refer to my congressional website for articles from September 2004 about mental health screening, and sobering statistics about anti-depressant drugs and kids in the text of HR 181. Most of all, talk with your friends, family, and colleagues about the underlying issue of whether the state owns your kids. Remind them that freedom can be maintained only when state power is limited, especially when it comes to fundamental freedoms over our bodies and minds.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 February 2005 What does Freedom Really Mean? “…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” –Ronald Reagan
     We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
     George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
     The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
     A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
     Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
     Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
     The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive–and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
     The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state–but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.
     Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
     Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
     * Politics and the English Language, 1946.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 February 2005 The National ID Trojan Horse
     The U.S. House of Representatives passed a national ID bill last week that masqueraded as “immigration reform.” The bill does nothing to address immigration policy, however, nor does it propose deporting a single illegal alien already in our country. It does nothing to address the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico, which is the fundamental problem. In reality, the bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to con a credulous Congress into sacrificing more of our constitutionally protected liberty.
     Supporters claim the national ID scheme is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary, and the proponents of the national ID know that every state will have no choice but to comply. Federal legislation that nationalizes standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple.
     It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Such domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.
     This bill establishes a huge, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. The bill even provides for this sensitive information of American citizens to be shared with Canada and Mexico! Imagine a corrupt Mexican official selling thousands of identity files, including Social Security numbers, to criminals!
     This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on drivers’ licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID means the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, could know where American citizens are at all times.
     What will this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our drivers’ license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database. This will further degrade our precious privacy, which is the hallmark of a civilized society. As Ayn Rand said, the “Savage’s whole existence is public.”
     A national ID card will have the same effect as gun control laws: criminals will ignore it, while law abiding people lose freedom. A national ID card offers us nothing more than a false sense of security, while moving us ever closer to a police state. The national ID proposal should die a well-deserved death in the Senate, and it should be denounced as authoritarian and anti-American.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 February 2005 The Maestro Changes his Tune
     Nearly 40 years ago, Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan wrote persuasively in favor of a gold monetary standard in an essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom. In that essay he neatly summarized the fundamental problem with fiat currency in a few short sentences: “The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value… Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
     Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly. As the ultimate insider, he cannot or will not challenge the status quo, no matter what the consequences to the American economy. To renounce the fiat system now would mean renouncing the Fed itself, and his entire public career with it. The only question is whether history will properly reflect the destructive nature of Mr. Greenspan’s tenure.
     I had an opportunity to ask him about his change of heart when he appeared before the House Financial Services committee last week. Although Mr. Greenspan is a master of evasion, he was surprisingly forthright in his responses to me. In short, he claimed he was wrong about his predictions of calamity for the fiat U.S. dollar, that the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard, and that inflation is well under control. He even made the preposterous assertion that the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending. In other words, he utterly repudiated the arguments he made 40 years ago. Yet this begs the question: If he was so wrong in the past, why should we listen to him now?
     First, the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. The clearest example of this lies in our current account deficit, which our fiat currency encourages. Under a gold standard we would not have exchange rate distortions between the Chinese renminbi and the U.S. dollar, for example. True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.
     Second, inflation is a much greater problem than the federal government admits. Health care, housing, and energy are three areas where costs have risen dramatically. The producer price index is rising at the fastest rate in seven years. Bond prices are rising. To suggest that rapid expansion of the money supply and artificially low interest rates do not ultimately cause price inflation is absurd.
     Third, Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Fiat currency and big government go hand-in-hand. Without a gold standard, Congress is free to spend recklessly and fall back on monetary expansion to pay the bills. Politically, it’s easier to print new dollars than raise taxes or borrow overseas. The Fed in essence creates paper reserves that enable Congress to undertake spending measures that far exceed tax revenues. The ill effects of this process are not felt by the politicians, who can always find popular support for new spending. Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are “confiscated through inflation,” as Mr. Greenspan termed it.
     It’s not enough to question the wisdom of Mr. Greenspan. Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves. The laws of supply and demand work better than any central banker to determine both the correct supply of money in the economy and the interest rate at which capital is available–without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 February 2005 Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
     The World Trade Organization, which the United States joined in 1994, has been disastrous for American sovereignty. A tax bill passed last year provides a vivid example of just how blatantly Congress is surrendering our sovereignty to quasi-governmental bodies like the WTO. For years, high-tax Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American law to comply with European rules.
     Make no mistake about it: WTO ministers tell Congress to change American laws, and Congress complies. In fact, congressional leaders obediently scrambled to make sure the corporate tax bill passed before a WTO deadline. Thousands and thousands of bills languish in committees, yet a bill ordered by the WTO was pushed to the front of the line.
     Americans should expect to see more of the laws we live under being dictated by international bodies. Later this year, all European Union countries will unify their food supplement laws to conform with rules established by a United Nations commission. This commission, called Codex Alimentarius, calls for strict control of dietary supplements. Under the Codex rules, Europeans will need a doctor’s prescription to obtain even basic vitamins. Thanks to the WTO, Americans may find their supplements similarly restricted in an attempt to harmonize the regulatory playing field between the U.S. and Europe. After all, this is the new reality in the WTO era: no nation may enjoy an “unfair” trade or regulatory environment.
     This affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”
     Our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional, which is to say illegal. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. When Congress in essence transfers its authority over trade matters to the WTO, it acts illegally.
     Fortunately, Congress has an opportunity this year to withdraw our membership in the WTO. When the U.S. first joined the organization in 1994, a rushed lame-duck Congress inserted a 5 year review clause to garner some last-minute votes. This clause allows members of Congress to bring a resolution every 5 years calling for a vote on our continued membership. I plan to join with other House colleagues this year in demanding withdrawal from the WTO. Our sovereignty is a precious national asset, and the American people are tired of watching Congress sell out one constitutional principle after another.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 March 2005 Tax Reform is a Shell Game
     Tax reform is back in the news, brought to the political forefront by a recent meeting of the president’s advisory panel on tax reform. Once again, politicians and former politicians are lamenting the complexity of our tax laws, as though their own spending measures have nothing to do with it. But we’ve heard this song before. In fact, we’ve been promised a simpler, fairer, and better income tax system many times, most recently in 1997 and 1986 when Congress made relatively significant changes to the tax code. Yet the federal tax system remains an embarrassment, both in terms of the tax burden itself and the outrageous compliance costs engendered by its complexity.
     One tax reform idea tacitly endorsed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan calls for a national retail consumption tax to replace the existing income tax. Absent the outright repeal of the 16^th Amendment, however, we cannot be sure that an income tax would not reappear at some point. One can easily imagine popular support for retaining the income tax on the “very rich,” which of course is how the 16^th amendment originally was sold to a gullible public in the 1910s.
     The president has thrown cold water on the consumption tax proposal, however, by announcing he opposes any reform that eliminates mortgage and charitable deductions. This leaves us with variations on the flat tax concept, which was savaged by the political left when advocated by the likes of House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Steve Forbes in the 1990s.
     Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute offers a very simple test for any tax reform proposal: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes.
     The reform debate is strictly about politics and not serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but don’t propose truly significant tax reductions. Both sides use the outrageous expression “cost to government” when talking about the impact of tax legislation on revenues. This implies that government owns everything, and that any tax rate less than 100% costs government some of its rightful bounty.
     Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.
     Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 35% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.5 trillion from us–and more each year–the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 March 2005 Deficits Make You Poorer
     Most Americans are vaguely aware that Congress has run up huge deficits in recent years, but the numbers involved are so large that it’s hard to grasp what our government’s indebtedness really means to us as individuals. The total federal debt is quickly approaching $8 trillion, courtesy of an administration that borrows roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
     Ultimately, the U.S. government will either repay its debts or default on them. We need only look at the Argentine debt crisis of 2001 for an example of what happens when a government fails to make even minimum payments to creditors. The Argentine economy virtually collapsed, and the value of her money tumbled. This is something most Americans cannot fathom, especially a political class that mistakenly thinks it can’t happen here.
     Repaying trillions of dollars will not be easy, however. Interest payments alone already consume nearly 10% of the annual federal budget, and Congress shows no sign of abating its spending appetite anytime soon. In fact, present spending rates will produce single-year deficits of $1 trillion in coming years unless the public finally gets fed up and demands an end to it.
     When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.
     Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. The federal government still consumes more of the private economy than it ever has except during World War II, despite the administration’s anti-tax rhetoric.
     Deficits mean more monetary inflation. Deficit spending necessitates the creation of more fiat dollars by the Federal Reserve to keep the government afloat. Congress knows it can always fall back on the Fed money machine, which of course encourages more deficit spending. It’s a vicious cycle that ultimately makes every dollar you have worth less.
     Deficits mean more borrowing overseas, which threatens U.S. sovereignty. Never before has the American economy depended so much on the actions of foreign governments and central banks. China and other foreign creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders.
     The economic situation today is reminiscent of the 1970s. The economic malaise of that era resulted from the profligacy of the 1960s, when Congress wildly expanded the welfare state and fought an expensive war in southeast Asia. Large federal deficits led to stagflation–a combination of high price inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. I fear that today’s economic fundamentals are worse than the 1970s: federal deficits are higher, the supply of fiat dollars is much greater, and personal savings rates are much lower. If the federal government won’t stop spending, borrowing, printing, and taxing, we may find ourselves in far worse shape than 30 years ago.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 March 2005 Where is Your Money Going?
     Last week Congress spent another $82 billion in an “emergency” supplemental appropriations bill. There is no emergency, however: Congress simply exceeded its fiscal year budget once again and needs more money. The 13 standard appropriations bills, which provide about $2.4 trillion to run the federal government in 2005, are not enough to satisfy the ravenous spending appetites of Congress and the administration. Hence the so-called emergency supplemental bill, which cravenly combines troop funding with useless foreign aid and domestic pork.
     Supplemental spending bills are particularly galling because “emergency” funds are not subject to the same congressional budget rules. This allows Congress to spend billions of dollars completely outside the stated budget, with little or no public attention. It also underscores how meaningless government budgets really are–unlike families and businesses, the political class never has to worry about busting the budget.
     Remember the optimistic claims about how the Iraq war would pay for itself? The liberated Iraqis would exploit the country’s oil resources and gratefully write a check to Uncle Sam, so the story went. Yet we don’t hear much about repayment from the Iraqis these days. American taxpayers already have spent over $200 billion in Iraq, and now Congress is digging us deeper into debt with the supplemental bill.
     Worse yet, much of the supplemental spending is exceedingly wasteful foreign aid. Consider some of these expenditures of your tax dollars:
     -$656 million for tsunami relief. As I’ve written before, Americans have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to tsunami victims. Why should we be taxed further? Why is flooding in Sri Lanka or Thailand more important than flooding in Wharton, Victoria, or Galveston, Texas?
     -$94 million for Sudan, another candidate for charity rather than government aid;
     -$582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq, an outrageous sum considering that entire luxury resorts are built for less than $500 million;
     -$76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait, one of the wealthiest countries on earth;
     -Over $500 million to address the drug trade in Afghanistan, despite clear evidence that the production of opium has grown exponentially since America began pouring billions of tax dollars into that country in 2001;
     -$200 million in economic aid for the Palestinians;
     -$150 million for Pakistan, which is run by an unelected dictator;
     -$34 million for Ukraine, where the U.S. already intervened in last year’s elections using your tax dollars. Ukraine recently repaid our generosity by dumping the U.S. dollar and adopting an exchange rate that includes the Euro.
     Finally, the emergency supplemental bill enables the District of Columbia to use taxpayer funds to build a new baseball stadium. This is perhaps the greatest insult of all in a bill that amounts to extortion cloaked in patriotic “support the troops” rhetoric.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 March 2005 Pro-life Politics?
     The Terri Schiavo saga has made millions of pro-life Americans understandably upset about the state of our culture, our courts, and our legislatures. Many worry that legal niceties have trumped morality, leading us down a slippery slope that cheapens life.
     My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.
     Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics. As law professor Butler Shaffer explains, politics is about obtaining power over the lives of others through government force. Thus politics is a rejection of the sanctity of life. So it is a mistake to assume that a pro-life culture develops through political persuasion or government power. Respect for human life originates with individuals acting according to their consciences. A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government. History teaches us that governments overwhelmingly violate the sanctity of human life rather than uphold it.
     The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
     This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 April 2005 Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
     Many military veterans were shocked to see that the federal budget for 2006 makes several cuts in veterans benefits and services. Under the proposed budget, the Veterans Administration will increase once again the co-pay cost of prescription drugs, while adding a new annual fee for medical benefits. The budget also calls for the reduction of veterans home funding and limits the number of VA nursing home beds. Some members of Congress have even suggested rewriting the definition of “veteran“ in a way that could deny VA health benefits for millions of retired servicemen.
     Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in their government has been breached time and time again, and the recent budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.
     Our invasion of Iraq will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Sadly, health issues arising from the first war with Iraq still have not been addressed. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the VA should stop insulting Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future.
     It’s easy to talk about honoring veterans and their sacrifices, even while the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars funding countless unconstitutional programs, but fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.
     We can best honor both our veterans and our current armed forces by pursuing a coherent foreign policy. No veteran should ever have to look back and ask himself, “Why were we over there in the first place?” Too often history demonstrates that wars are fought for political and economic reasons, rather than legitimate national security reasons. Supporting the troops means never putting them in harm’s way unless America is truly threatened.
     Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own Congress via an express declaration of war–NOT by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them.
     Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 April 2005 Theology, Not Politics
     Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.
     I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.
     Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America–and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.
     Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.
     Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.
     To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin–he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.
     Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.
     The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.
     Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion–it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 April 2005 Why Do We Fund UNESCO?
     At the end of 2002 President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, an educational agency of the United Nations. One year later the First Lady was dispatched to Paris for a ceremony marking the end of our 20-year absence from UNESCO, where she assured the world that the US would be a “ full, active and enthusiastic participant” in the organization.
     Rejoining UNESCO, of course, means paying for it. Our new commitment to UNESCO costs $60 million annually for starters, fully one-quarter of the agency’s budget. Sadly, I believe the administration made this decision as a concession to our globalist critics, who decry supposed American unilateralism.
     UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; and UN control of federal land in America through so-called World Heritage sites.
     President Reagan rightly withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, citing the organization’s financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and general hostility to freedom. He believed the organization had become too politicized, too bloated, and too hostile to free markets. Furthermore, UNESCO enjoyed rapidly expanding budgets during the 1970s and 1980s, which President Reagan felt American taxpayers should not shoulder. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that did not act in America’s interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget for that privilege.
     From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans?
     To better understand the origins and ambitions of UNESCO, we need only consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following:
      “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”
     Those who supported rejoining UNESCO claim the organization has been reformed over the years. Yet it’s strange that in two decades since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about purported reforms in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly twenty years of business as usual, a large bureaucracy like UNESCO suddenly reinvented itself in a few short years? Is it worth spending $60 million every year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism? President Reagan’s politically brave withdrawal from UNESCO portended an era of greater disengagement from the United Nations itself. Congress can revitalize that worthy goal by urging the administration to rethink its terrible decision to entangle the American people with an organization as rotten as UNESCO. I recently introduced a congressional resolution urging an official withdrawal from UNESCO, and I plan to attach the resolution as an amendment to a foreign aid spending bill this summer. It will be interesting to see whether the same members of Congress who savaged the UN before the Iraq war actually vote to get America out of UNESCO.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 April 2005 Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
     Millions of Americans take dietary supplements every day, and the numbers are growing as the Baby Boom generation ages. More and more Americans understandably are
     frustrated with our government-controlled health care system. They have concluded
     that vitamins, minerals, and other supplements might help them stay healthy and less
     dependent on the system. They use supplements because they can buy them freely at stores and research them freely on the internet, without government interference in the form of doctors, prescriptions, HMOs, and licenses. In other words, they use supplements because they are largely free to make their own choices, in stark contrast to the conventional medical system.
     But we live in an era of unbridled government regulation of both our personal lives and the economy, and Food and Drug administration bureaucrats burn to regulate supplements in the same manner as prescription drugs.
     The health nannies insist that many dietary supplements are untested and unproven, and therefore dangerous. But the track record for FDA-approved drugs hardly inspires confidence. In fact, far more Americans have died using approved pharmaceuticals than supplements. Not every dietary supplement performs as claimed, but neither does every FDA drug.
     The FDA simply gives people a false sense of security, while crowding out private watchdog groups that might provide truly disinterested consumer information. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility among people who assume a government stamp of approval means a drug must be safe, and that they need not study a drug before taking it.
     The FDA, like all federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics, which is why the FDA should not be trusted with power over our intimate health care decisions.
     The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them.
     Over the past decade the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress bowed to overwhelming public pressure and passed the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act, which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of the Act, which demonstrates how strongly Americans feel about health freedom.
     The FDA simply has thumbed its nose at Congress and ignored the new rules in many instances, by attempting to suppress information about health supplements. But in 1999 a federal appellate court affirmed that the American people have a First Amendment right to such information without interference from the FDA. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court order.
     My regular listeners already know about another looming threat to dietary supplement freedom. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an offshoot of the United Nations, is working to “harmonize” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. As Europe moves ever closer to adopting Codex standards, it becomes more likely that the World Trade Organization will attempt to force those standards on the United States. This is yet another example of how the WTO threatens American sovereignty. By cooperating with Codex, the FDA is blatantly ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 May 2005 Reconsidering the Patriot Act
     When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11^th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?
     Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.
     Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us–we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”
     But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11^th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.
     Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.
     The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
     The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mail s and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”
     It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 May 2005 National ID Cards Won’t Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration
     The US House of Representatives passed a spending bill last week that contains provisions establishing a national ID card, and the Senate is poised to approve the measure in the next few days. This week marks the American public’s last chance to convince their Senators they don’t want to live in a nation that demands papers from its citizens as they go about their lives.
     Absent a political miracle in the Senate, within two years every American will need a conforming national ID card to participate in ordinary activities. This REAL ID Act establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical characteristics. The legislation also grants open-ended authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to require biometric information on IDs in the future. This means your harmless looking driver’s license could contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology.
     Think this sounds farfetched? Read the REAL ID Act, HR 418, for yourself. Its text is available on the Library of Congress website. A careful reading also reveals that states will be required to participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” which was crafted by DMV lobbyists years ago. This agreement creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that can be shared with Canada and Mexico!
     Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9-11 attacks. In fact, a 1996 bill sought to do exactly what the REAL ID Act does: transform state drivers’ licenses into de facto national ID cards. At the time, Congress was flooded with calls by angry constituents and the bill ultimately died.
     Proponents of the REAL ID Act continue to make the preposterous claim that the bill does not establish a national ID card. This is dangerous and insulting nonsense. Let’s get the facts straight: The REAL ID Act transforms state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. Nationalizing standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates in a federal bill creates a national ID system, pure and simple. Having the name of your particular state on the ID is meaningless window dressing.
     Federally imposed standards for drivers’ license and birth certificates make a mockery of federalism and the 10th amendment. While states technically are not forced to accept the federal standards, any refusal to comply would mean their residents could not get a job, receive Social Security, or travel by plane. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.
     One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 May 2005 Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
     Last week I had an opportunity to present the case against US membership in the World Trade Organization at a seminar in Washington. Later this summer Congress will have a similar opportunity to raise objections about the WTO when several colleagues and I bring a resolution to the House floor seeking the wholesale withdrawal of the US from the organization.
     The World Trade Organization by its own admission is not just about trade. According to the WTO website, liberalizing trade actually takes a back seat to its more activist ambitions, such as “development”–a euphemism for wealth-transfers from rich nations to poor nations. Likewise, their own website promises that, “In the WTO, commercial interests do not take priority over environmental protection.” In 1994 the WTO created the Trade and Environment Committee to bring “environmental and sustainable development issues into the mainstream of WTO work.” What does this mean? It would not take much imagination to tie any environmental issue to trade and thus invite WTO meddling.
     What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming? Clearly the Kyoto Accords, to which the United States has not agreed, will affect world trade. Will this be an open door for the WTO to act as enforcer toward the United States and other countries that refuse to sign Kyoto? Two leading UN observers, Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International and Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, have reported that the WTO is widely recognized as the enforcement tool of choice for the Kyoto treaty.
     Even Newt Gingrich, a supporter of American membership in the WTO, recognized in 1994 that far more than trade rules were at stake:
     I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.
     In reality, the WTO is the third leg of the globalists’ plan for a one-world, centrally-managed economic system. The intention behind the creation of the WTO was to have a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining two institutions created by Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide. International organizations can never “manage” trade better than it naturally occurs in a true free market of goods and services. At best, WTO acts as a meddling middleman, taking a cut for unnecessary services provided. At worst, it forces the United States to change its domestic laws in ways that seriously harm our economy and our sovereignty.
     Economist Murray Rothbard said it best: You don’t need a treaty to have free trade. Governments and quasi-government bodies like the WTO can only politicize and interfere with the natural flow of goods and services across borders. When we cede even a fraction of our sovereignty to an organization like the WTO, we can hardly hope to become more prosperous or more free.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 May 2005 Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
     Last week the US Treasury department issued a warning to the Chinese government with regard to its policy of pegging the value of the Chinese yuan to the US dollar. In essence, the Treasury department accuses China of artificially suppressing the value of its currency by tying it to the dollar, thus making Chinese imports very cheap and worsening our trade imbalance.
     This kind of bluster may serve political interests, but in reality we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the sharp decline in the US dollar. Congress and the Federal Reserve, not China, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the US government must either borrow or print money to operate–both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.
     If anything, the US government should be embarrassed that another nation has depressed its currency by tying it to the US dollar. An economically sound nation would take pride in its currency, one that maintains a stable value and provides incentive for savers. Yet here we are, mad at China for our own sin of flooding the world with cheap dollars.
     The root of the problem is the Federal Reserve and our fiat monetary system itself. Since US dollars and other major currencies are not backed by gold, they have no inherent value. Their relative values are subject to political events, and fluctuate constantly in highly volatile currency markets. A fiat system means every dollar you have can be eroded into nothing by the actions of politicians and central bankers. In essence, paper currencies like the US dollar operate as articles of faith–faith in the policies of the governments and central banks that issue them. When it comes to a government as deeply indebted as our own, that faith is sorely lacking among investors worldwide. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool financial markets over time. The precipitous drop in the US dollar over the past few years is proof that investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government.
     Unlike wealthy currency traders, most Americans are stuck with their U.S. dollars. Average people, particularly those who depend on savings or fixed incomes to fund their retirement years, cannot abide the continued devaluation of our currency. A true strong-dollar policy would not depend on the actions of China or any other nation. It would, however, require a constriction of the money supply and higher interest rates, both of which would cause some short-term pain for the American economy. In the long run, however, such a correction is the only alternative to the continued erosion of our dollars.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 May 2005 Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
     Medical and scientific ethics issues are in the news again, as Congress narrowly passed a bill last week that funds controversial embryonic stem cell research. While I certainly sympathize with those who understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it.
     Congressional Republicans, eager to appease pro-life voters while still appearing suitably compassionate, supported a second bill that provides nearly $80 million for umbilical cord stem cell research. But it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit. The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is never considered.
     Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.
     The debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious, and ethical question–questions Congress is particularly ill equipped to resolve. The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious. When we insist on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington, we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local, decentralized decision-making. This approach is not perfect, but it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter. Decentralized decisions and privatized funding would eliminate much of the ill will between supporters and opponents of stem cell research.
     Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 June 2005 CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
     The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.
     I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.
     We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.
     It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.
     The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.
     CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.
     CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 June 2005 NeoCon Global Government
     This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.
     The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves–specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.
     The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes–and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.
     What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime–regardless of the nature of that regime.
     What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance–even resistance to the UN itself–is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
     This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.
     Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?
     The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures–as this legislation does–and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 June 2005 Can the UN Really be Reformed?
     Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever.
     The supposed reform bill will not change the bureaucratic nature of the UN, nor will it transform the nations of the world into wise, benevolent, selfless actors. It will, however, expand the UN’s role as world policeman and establish the precursor to a UN army. If you don’t think American armed forces should serve under a UN command, you should know that the reform bill establishes a “Peacekeeping Commission” charged with bolstering the UN’s ability to respond with military force to conflicts around the globe–even in wholly internal conflicts that do not affect the US in the slightest.
     Many conservatives have bought into the neoconservative dream of using the UN as a tool to advance an aggressive US foreign policy. But granting more power to the UN can only serve the interests of globalists, who see national sovereignty as an obstacle to their goals. The more we involve ourselves with the UN, the more we entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations to our own detriment. America has nothing to show for our 60 years in the UN except for tens of thousands of dead or injured soldiers, and hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars. The 20^th century–the UN century–was the bloodiest in the world’s history. We must stop fooling ourselves that the UN is an instrument of world peace.
     The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 June 2005 Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
     On Friday Congress defeated an amendment I introduced that would have prevented the federal government from moving forward with an Orwellian program to mandate mental health screening of kids in schools. This program, recommended by a presidential commission, has not yet been established at the federal level. However, your tax dollars are being given to states that apply for grants to establish their own programs–and a full-fledged program run by the Department of Health and Human Services is on the way.
     Nearly 100 members of Congress supported my amendment. Many of these members represent Texas and Illinois, two states that already have mental health screening programs in place. They have heard from their constituents, who believe intimate mental health problems should be addressed by parents, kids, and their doctors–not the government. These parents do not appreciate yet another government program that undermines their parental authority.
     The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. We should be especially careful about medicating children with psychotropic drugs when their brains are still developing. Far too many children are being stigmatized by dubious diagnoses like Attention Deficit Disorder, and placed on drugs simply because they exhibit behavior that we used to understand as restlessness or rambunctious horseplay. This is especially true of young boys, who cannot thrive in our increasingly feminized government schools. Sadly, many parents and teachers find it easier to drug energetic boys than discipline them.
     Dr. Karen R. Effrem, a pediatrician and leading opponent of government mental health screening, makes the following points about such programs:
     -Parental rights under such programs are at best unclear, at worst nonexistent;
     -Many parents already have been forced by schools to put their children on psychotropic drugs, and this surely will accelerate under a federal screening program;
     -Screening programs do not prevent suicide;
     -Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective and based on “social constructions”;
     -Most psychiatric drugs do not work in children;
     -We do not know the long-term consequences of using psychiatric drugs on children; and
     -Screening programs will be influenced by politics. Children of religious parents, for example, risk being labeled “homophobic.”
     Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but that does not mean it is the role of government to subject every child to arbitrary screening without the consent of parents. Most Americans still understand that certain things are none of the government’s business, even if Congress does not. If you are a parent, do everything you can to protect your children by demanding to be notified of any screening program in their schools. As a voter, let your state and federal legislators know that you don’t want tax dollars spent on mental health screening programs. If we act now, we still can prevent the federal government from creating a nationwide, mandatory program that will place millions of American youngsters into a stigmatized, drugged, mental health ghetto.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 July 2005 Lessons from the Kelo Decision
     One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4^th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.
     The City of New London, Connecticut essentially acted as a strongman by seizing private property from one group of people for the benefit of a more powerful private interest. For its services, the city will be paid a tribute in the form of greater taxes from the new development. In any other context, what’s happening in Connecticut properly would be described as criminal. However, the individuals losing their homes understand that stealing is stealing, even if the people responsible are government officials. The silver lining in the Kelo case may be that the veneer of government benevolence is being challenged.
     Kelo has several important lessons for all of us. We are witnessing the destruction of any last remnants of the separation of powers doctrine, a doctrine our founders considered critical to freedom. The notion that the judicial branch of government serves as a watchdog to curb legislative and executive abuses has been entirely exposed as an illusion. Judges not only fail to defend our freedoms, they actively infringe upon them by acting as de facto legislators. Thus Kelo serves as a stark reminder that we cannot rely on judges to protect our freedoms.
     It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices. In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor. Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced. America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government. A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself.
     The Kelo case also demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it’s easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope that things don’t get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.
     If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5^th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases–not only when it serves our interests. The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut could start by removing from office the local officials who created the problem in the first place.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 July 2005 What Should America do for Africa?
     At the G8 summit in Scotland last week, we heard once again how the wealthy nations of the world have not done enough to raise Africa out of poverty. At the Live 8 music festival that preceded it, we heard angry demands for “Justice, Not Charity” in Africa. Implicit in such demands is the collectivist fallacy that wealth is a zero sum game, and therefore western prosperity is possible only at the expense of African misery. As usual, Americans and other western nations are portrayed as villains who somehow conspire to keep Africa poor.
     The White House attempted to quell criticism that America is not doing enough to save Africa by announcing that the U.S. would double its economic aid to the continent, from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion, over the next few years. Neither Congress nor the American people were consulted prior to this pronouncement, I might add. I think the public might not share the administration’s generous mood, especially as we spend billions in Iraq and face single year deficits of $500 billion. Frankly, a federal government with nearly $8 trillion in debt has no business giving money to anybody.
     British Prime Minister Tony Blair went a step further, promising that the G8 nations will provide $50 billion in economic aid to Africa by 2010, along with canceling hundreds of millions in debt owed to taxpayers of several western governments. But why should foreign leaders have any say over how American tax dollars are spent? Is our annual federal budget now subject to foreign scrutiny and approval? America is an incredibly charitable nation, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by private citizens for tsunami relief last year. We don’t need lectures or guidance from the world when it comes to foreign aid.
     African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
     As commentator Joseph Potts explains, western money enables dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to gain and hold power without the support of his nation’s people. African rulers learn to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income, which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals. Once comfortably in power, and much to the horror of the western governments that funded them, African dictators find their subjects quite helpless and dependent. Potts describes this process as giving African politicians the “power to impoverish.” The bottom line is that despite decades of western aid, more Africans than ever are living in extreme poverty. Foreign aid simply doesn’t work.
     Despite this reality, western political leaders who offer to increase aid are always praised for their compassionate and progressive policies. But what about the people who are suffering here at home, whether from hunger, illness, or poverty? Are their lives and well being less important? Where is the constitutional provision allowing American tax dollars to be sent overseas? The president is promising money we don’t have to solve a problem we didn’t cause. Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations. But government-to-government foreign aid doesn’t work, and it never has. We should stop kidding ourselves and ignore the emotionalist pleas of rock stars. Suffering in Africa cannot be helped by delusional, feel-good government policies.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 July 2005 CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
     The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.
     The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.
     Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?
     Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.
     Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however–especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.
     This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.
     The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry–so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost–if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 July 2005 The Patriot Act Four Years Later
     Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured.
     The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11^th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.
     One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.
     Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4^th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.
     The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 August 2005 The Sausage Factory
     Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
     Late-night arm-twisting by House leaders to get votes is of course nothing new. We witnessed far worse when Congress passed the ruinous Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night two years ago. Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the US House. That’s right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated.
     Here’s how. As the vote progressed, the tally was neck and neck. When the 15-minute period ended, CAFTA had gone down in flames. But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules. House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.
     What kind of deals? Well, one member of House leadership told reluctant legislators, “ We’ve got to have you; you tell us what you want.” And tell they did. Lawmakers in textile producing states were bought off with promises of textile subsidies. Lawmakers in sugar-producing states were bought off with promises of special treatment in the 2007 farm bill. On and on it went, with promises of new bridges, parks, and whatever else it took to pass CAFTA.
     Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes. Every favor granted and every pet project funded comes on top of the pork-laden appropriations bills already passed in the House this year. These new goodies will be added to the final House-Senate versions passed later this year. One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion. That’s right, $50 billion to win a vote. Is this what you want from your representatives in office?
     Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote. Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor. So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to “get tough” on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers. A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China. One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor! So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day. This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil. So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing. Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.
     The president’s press secretary called the CAFTA vote “a real victory for the American people.” The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it. CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se. CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more. Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty. What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 August 2005 Immigration and the Welfare State
     More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.
     The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans–including immigrants–want immigration reduced, not expanded.
     Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?
     We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants–certainly not all–receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
     Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens to take low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.
     Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs–programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.
     Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.
     Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual–including a potential terrorist–can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
     We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
     If we took some of the steps I have outlined here–eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders–we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 August 2005 Politics and Judicial Activism
     The nomination of Judge John Roberts to sit on the Supreme Court has reopened a bitter cultural divide in America, and the Senate confirmation hearings in September may exhibit more of the partisan rancor that characterized the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings.
     It’s sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.
     Dozens of political pressure groups stood ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by President Bush, while dozens of others stood ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.
     Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
     Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20^th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
     The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9^th and 10^th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.
     The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.


Texas Straight Talk, 22 August 2005 Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
     Few Americans truly understand how our Federal Reserve system enables Congress to spend far beyond its means, but the cycle of spending and printing money affects all of us. Simply put, the more money our Treasury prints, the less every dollar is worth. Our pure fiat money system, in place since the last vestiges of a gold standard were eliminated in the early 1970s, has reduced the value of your savings by 80%. Disregard the government’s Consumer Price Index, which substantially underreports price inflation. Monetary inflation is true inflation, and we only need to look at the cost of homes, cars, energy, and medical care to recognize that a dollar buys far less today than ever.
     Economist Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute lays out a sobering case against the long-term health of the U.S. dollar. He identifies several facts and trends that bode ill for millions of Americans counting on dollar-denominated assets to fund their retirements.
     First, federal debt continues to grow exponentially and shows no sign of abating. Americans were shocked at the notion of a $1 trillion federal debt in 1980; just 25 years later the total approaches $8 trillion. The Bush administration and the current Congress have increased spending at rates unseen since the New Deal and Great Society eras, and single-year deficits now exceed $500 billion. There is zero political will in Washington to curb spending, as evidenced by the shameful transportation bill recently passed by Congress.
     Second, federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare will not be “fixed” by politicians who are unwilling to make hard choices and admit mistakes. Demographic trends will force tax increases and greater deficit spending to maintain benefits for millions of older Americans who are dependent on the federal government. Faced with uncomfortable financial realities, Congress will seek to avoid the day of reckoning by the most expedient means available–and the Federal Reserve undoubtedly will accommodate Washington by printing more dollars to pay the bills.
     Third, future administrations are unlikely to challenge a foreign policy orthodoxy that views America as the world’s savior. We are hemorrhaging billions of dollars every month in Iraq, and we waste billions more every year through foreign aid and overseas meddling. A foreign policy based on nation-building and the imposition of “democracy” abroad, in direct contravention of our founders’ admonitions, is not economically sustainable. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly one trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. A permanent military presence in Iraq and the wider Middle East will cost enormous amounts of money.
     Finally, we face a reordering of the entire world economy. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks are increasingly reluctant to hold more U.S. dollars, understanding that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.
     All of these factors make it likely that the U.S. dollar will continue to decline in value, perhaps precipitously, in the coming decade. Will it take an economic depression before the American public finally holds the political class accountable for its reckless borrowing, spending, and counterfeiting?
     The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch–Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference–that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 August 2005 Hey, Big Spender
     When Congress returns to Washington in September, final touches in the form of last-minute pork will be added to the enormous 2006 federal budget. Rosy predictions about a balanced budget in five years will be made, and both parties will pat themselves on the back for crafting another budget agreement. There will be little partisan acrimony, and the media scarcely will report the results of the vote. Congressional spending, which dramatically affects every American, never generates much public interest–while distractions like Terri Schiavo and Michael Jackson occupy the nation’s attention for months.
     Congressional budget agreements really don’t mean much. A congressional budget passed in 2005 has absolutely no impact on spending decisions in the future, and will be quickly forgotten as all past budgets have been. No politician or government official in 2010 will be heard to say, “Gee, we promised back in 2005 to spend less than this, so we better stick to that pledge.” Only a fool can believe that Congress will consider itself bound by past budgets, and constitutionally the budget is passed one year at a time. Anything else is just talk. Congress can make all the deals it wants, but it can only implement a budget for the coming fiscal year.
     What is being called a “balanced budget” by 2010 is merely a hopeful projection of spending, matched with projected, hypothetical economic forecasts. To say the federal government can correctly predict exactly how the economy–which is the sum total of the spending and savings habits of everyone in the nation–will behave five years from now is ludicrous.
     For more than 25 years there have been promises about balancing the budget five years out using government forecasts. It’s always the same story: “Just give us a little more time, and we promise we’ll stop spending so much. We just have to fix X, Y, and Z first.” Congress is like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, without the slightest intention of doing so. The voting public is like the battered wife who somehow keeps believing the promises.
     We will never have a balanced budget until Congress either raises taxes or cuts spending. It’s really that simple. I support balancing the budget by cutting the budget, but most people in Washington abhor that option. They abhor making real cuts to the budget because it means cutting the sacred cows of modern American politics. If we cut spending, we cut the power of Congress. Most people do not realize it, but absolutely no major program has been cut one cent in many, many years.
     What programs can we cut? What agencies and departments should go? A better question is: What should stay on a permanent basis? That’s easy: only those functions specifically outlined in the Constitution. Is foreign aid allowed by the Constitution? No. Is public housing in the Constitution? No. Is federal involvement in education? No. Are the EPA, OSHA, and the BATF? No. Is protecting our borders? Yes.
     The bottom line is that everyone in Washington says they oppose pork and want government to spend less, but few in Congress actually vote that way. Most DC politicians are far too dependent on special interest money to make any waves. “Go along to get along” is the creed of the political class, and nothing will change unless and until the American public stops electing and re-electing the big spenders to office.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 September 2005 Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
     My constituents in the Texas gulf coast are very concerned about the price of gasoline, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Katrina has left nine gulf coast refineries inoperable, and reduced capacity at four. This will mean the loss of 20 to 40 million barrels of oil in coming months, and prices at the pump well over $3.
     Congress can help immediately by suspending federal gas taxes, which alone add 18.4 cents to the cost of every gallon. The state of Texas adds another 20 cents per gallon in taxes. Citizens are always asked to sacrifice during crises; why are governments never expected to do the same? Immediate, short-term relief for every American at the pump could be a reality when Congress returns to Washington this week. Congress should pass, and the president should immediately sign, a bill suspending the federal gas tax. This would create pressure for states to do the same. This is the simplest, fastest, and soundest way to drop gas prices and ease the financial impact of Katrina. Wouldn’t it be better to leave that money in the pockets of the American public at least temporarily, especially as we’re all being asked to provide financial help to hurricane victims?
     Many people are upset with oil companies, which is understandable given the frustrations of steadily rising gas prices. But the fundamental problem is not a lack of regulation or price gouging, but rather the lack of price competition between oil companies. The maze of regulatory and environmental rules makes it nearly impossible for would-be competitors to explore new domestic sources of oil or build new refineries. When was the last time you heard of a new start-up oil company? This is because of too much government regulation, not too little. History proves time and time again that the best way to provide any good is too allow markets to operate freely.
     The bulk of our refining capacity is concentrated along the gulf coast, leaving the nation’s gas supply vulnerable to annual hurricanes. Without new oil exploration and new refineries, our domestic capacity is fixed. As demand rises with the growth of the U.S. population, we find ourselves increasingly dependent on oil-rich nations–many of which have questionable governments. With worldwide demand for oil increasing, and our domestic supply fixed, we face a new era. We must increase domestic production, pure and simple. We cannot afford to be held hostage by unrealistic environmental rules that threaten to strangle our economy. Existing refineries cannot carry the nation if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices.
     Turmoil in the Middle East demonstrates that we cannot depend on OPEC nations to make up for our lack of domestic production. As recently as 2002, before we went into Iraq, oil cost less than $20 per barrel. Now it’s nearly $70 per barrel. Before the war, many predicted that a renewed flow of cheap Iraqi oil would benefit American consumers. The opposite has taken place. Iraqi oil production has come to a halt, and OPEC prices have risen steadily over the last few years.
     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.
     It is easy to call for drastic government action in the emotional aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but we must not ignore history, logic, and basic economics. The Nixon administration imposed price controls on gasoline, but the result was shortages and long lines at the pump. The price mechanism is necessary to create an incentive for oil companies to increase the amount of refined gasoline available. Price controls also discourage the development of alternative fuels. When President Reagan later lifted price controls, worldwide oil production increased dramatically and gas prices plummeted.
     Electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel vehicles may be the future, but for the foreseeable future the American economy will continue to depend on oil. We must face this reality and increase the number of domestic refineries, while considering immediate tax relief at the pump. Long term, we must rethink our foreign policy to focus on the interests of American citizens rather than spending billions on nation-building exercises. We are spending more than one billion dollars every week in Iraq, and thousands of National Guard soldiers are assigned there. Those dollars and that manpower are sorely needed in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 September 2005 Responding to Katrina
     Texans and all Americans have responded wonderfully to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, opening their wallets and their homes to help displaced victims. Private donations already have topped $600 million. This outpouring shows there is hope for rebuilding and breathing life back into New Orleans and other destroyed communities, if the American entrepreneurial spirit is permitted to operate freely.
     When it comes to government relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Congress must be very careful with the nearly $52 billion dollars approved last week–almost all of which goes to FEMA. The original $10 billion authorized by Congress for hurricane relief was spent in a matter of days, and there is every indication that FEMA is nothing but a bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability. Any federal aid should be distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA. We cannot let the Katrina tragedy blind us to fiscal realities, namely the staggering budget deficits and national debt that threaten to devastate our economy.
     Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made–before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.
     Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.
     The examples of FEMA blocking relief efforts are numerous: Wal-Mart trucks containing water and supplies were turned away; the Coast Guard was prevented from delivering diesel fuel; a 600-bed Navy hospital was left unused; firefighters were ordered away from flood sites; donated generators were refused; and rescue attempts by private citizens were rebuffed. Is FEMA really an agency that should be given another $50 billion?
     In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.
     Once again the federal government is attempting to impose a top-down solution to the disaster. No one questions where this $52 billion will come from. The answer, of course, is that the federal government simply is going to print the money. There will be no reductions in federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair.
     We should consider more constructive ways to help New Orleans and the other affected areas recover from this tragedy. There are numerous approaches, such as the creation of tax-free enterprise zones, which would attract private capital to the area and result in a much quicker and more responsive recovery. Katrina’s victims and the rest of the country deserve a more sustainable and financially rational approach than simply printing and spending money.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 September 2005 Deficit Spending for Katrina
     Some economists estimate that rebuilding New Orleans and other areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina will cost taxpayers at least $200 billion, which may be a conservative figure considering it could takes decades to fully restore the city. The problem is that our Treasury does not have an extra $200 billion dollars on hand. This means the money either will be printed or borrowed, both of which bode ill for the American economy. Several conservatives in Congress, however, are cautioning against throwing more and more taxpayer money at the problem with no accountability. While we all want to help the victims of Katrina, we must remember that no one is better off if we create record deficits that hobble our children and grandchildren for generations.
     The tragic scenes of abject poverty and distress in New Orleans prompted two emotional reactions. One side claims Katrina proves there is not enough government welfare and government spending in general. The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into FEMA, the very agency that performed so badly, while giving it extraordinary new police powers. Both sides simply assume hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending are needed. But history shows us that “compassionate” deficit spending hurts poor people the most, by devaluating the value of the dollar.
     When the Treasury prints new money, the ruling class benefits because they can cash in on inflated assets like stock or real estate early in the cycle of printing and spending. The poor, by contrast, are totally dependent on the immediate buying power of their meager resources. A fiat money system that engenders cycles of new money and deficit spending is not the savior of the poor, but rather their worst enemy. Every new dollar makes the dollars that eventually trickle down to the poorest Americans worth less and less. Do we really believe we can resurrect New Orleans, and address the needs of her poorest citizens, by printing money out of thin air?
     Katrina also has exposed the failed welfare policies of the past 60 years. In New Orleans, hundreds of thousands of impoverished citizens lacked any resources to safeguard their families and their property from the storm. Virtually everyone who stayed behind was poor. It is time to recognize that government assistance over several generations did not eradicate poverty in New Orleans, but rather created a deadly form of dependency on government.
     Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. As with all rapid government expenditures, the amount of waste and mismanagement will be staggering. Congress knows it won’t need to raise taxes to pay the bill, because the Federal Reserve will accommodate reckless deficit spending. My simple suggestion to my colleagues is this: Find dollar-for-dollar offsets for all hurricane relief spending while public attention remains focused on the destruction in New Orleans. Once interest in Katrina fades, other spending priorities will reassert themselves and any sense that tax dollars are finite will be lost. Congressional spending habits, in combination with our flawed monetary system, could bring us a financial whirlwind that makes Katrina look like a minor storm.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 September 2005 Praising the Texas Gulf Coast Response to Rita
     It appears there were very few deaths in Texas due to Hurricane Rita, for which we should be very thankful. We can only wonder whether God was watching over us, sparing our nation from another calamity on the heels of Hurricane Katrina. Yet we also should recognize that competent and thorough planning ensured the safety of those in south Texas.
     In the 14^th congressional district, local leaders did an exceptional job of preparing for Hurricane Rita. Officials and citizens in Galveston and Brazoria counties deserve special praise for showing the nation and the world the right way to prepare for a natural disaster. They proved that the best emergency planning takes place at the state and local level, by people who know the local citizens, roads, coastlines, and topography.
     The 14^th district was fortunate to escape the worst of Rita. Brazoria county came through the storm mostly unscathed, with some wind damage and power outages. Surfside Beach and Freeport were worst hit, but coastal areas further south in Matagorda county thankfully suffered little or no damage.
     Galveston Island suffered the worst destruction, but much of it was caused by fires from downed electrical poles. As of today some of the island already has power, a remarkable achievement considering the storm hit just 48 hours ago.
     Evacuation of Galveston county residents began on Monday and Tuesday, leaving plenty of extra time to move those in nursing homes and hospitals. The coordination of city buses for those without cars was magnificent: all buses left from a central community center, and a hotline was set up for those who needed a ride to the staging area. A private organization called the Citizens’ Response Team also assisted in making sure everyone who needed a ride received one. Special provisions were made to allow pets on the buses, which prevented any agonizing decisions. Televised images of the long line of buses leaving Galveston in an orderly convoy provided a stark contrast to events in New Orleans just a few weeks ago.
     Residents of Brazoria and Galveston counties followed the designated evacuation routes perfectly, and experienced no problems until they reached Harris County and points north. The real traffic problems were caused by the huge exodus of Houston drivers. State officials will have to reconsider evacuation routes out of Houston, but Brazoria and Galveston counties clearly were not part of the problem.
     Local police and emergency personnel in Galveston worked 12 hour shifts, and stayed up all night Friday monitoring the situation. They had special cell phones and satellite phones that work even when cell towers are overloaded or knocked down, ensuring they could communicate no matter what. The City even had a plan in place for decision making in the event the mayor was not available.
     When the storm did hit Galveston, local emergency personnel had help from fire departments in nearby Dickinson, Friendswood, and La Marque. Galveston Police Chief Kenneth Mack reported that there was no looting whatsoever, a testament to a job well done.
     Special kudos are in order for Galveston Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas and Galveston City Manager Steve LeBlanc. Both provided plain-spoken, calm, collected, confident leadership throughout the week. Neither was overwhelmed by the task at hand or the national media spotlight. Every city in the nation must be jealous of the big-time leadership exhibited in a town of just 60,000 people.
     The people of south Texas relied not on FEMA or federal Homeland Security, but rather on themselves, their families, their neighbors, their local police and fire crews, and their local officials. The Texas Department of Public Safety and Governor Perry played strong supporting roles, but the real work was done locally, community by community. Nobody in Washington can know what is best for Galveston or any other community when facing a natural disaster. Of course federal tax dollars should be returned to south Texas to fund rebuilding in ways that strengthen our infrastructure against future hurricanes. But the real lesson of Katrina was taken to heart in Texas: local citizens must take the initiative and take care of themselves when emergencies arise. Congratulations to everyone in the 14^th district for the tremendous show of Texas self-reliance in the face of Hurricane Rita.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 October 2005 Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform
     Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty–a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.
     I have been concerned for some time about the establishment of a UN Peacebuilding Commission, an idea I first found so troubling when the International Relations Committee marked-up the UN Reform Act containing this provision earlier this year.
     According to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council members, major donor states, major troop contributing countries, United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key coordinating body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core of a future UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere.
     The misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United States? What if the US is determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?
     Most disturbing, however, is the UN adoption of the “Responsibility to Protect,” a report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (www.iciss.ca/report-en). Whenever the UN names a commission to study intervention and state sovereignty you can bet that it is to promote the former and undermine the latter. This “Responsibility to Protect” report adopted by the UN commits member states to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign states if the state in question does not protect its population from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity,” or does not protect its population from the “incitement” to such crimes. Who determines the criteria for this policy of global pre-emption? The UN, of course.
     While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly conceivable that at some future date a weakened US may face a financially and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within US borders after determining that the US has not lived up to its “responsibility to protect.” This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a “reform” process that is actually strengthening the United Nations. What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this turns out to be our own?

Texas Straight Talk, 10 October 2005 Our Political Federal Courts
     The nomination of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her qualifications and political ideology. Conservatives and liberals alike fear that Ms. Miers will not represent their views, and will rule on issues in ways that harm our nation. But clearly we are not asking the right questions about Supreme Court nominees. The issue is not how candidates intend to wield judicial power, but rather whether they understand that the Constitution imposes limits on that power in the first place. We are guilty of permitting our federal courts to become politicized, when the proper role of those courts is to protect us from the very abuses that arise from politics.
     Instead of viewing federal judicial nominees as liberals or conservatives, we ought to be viewing them as activists or originalists. Judicial activism is a popular and often misused term in politics today, but if we define it properly we can better understand the problem with our courts. Judicial activism is the practice of judges legislating from the bench, by interpreting law in a manner that creates an outcome to fit their political views. But judicial activism is more than this. Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place–particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9^th and 10^th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20^th century. Activist courts enable activist government.
     The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess. Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake.
     How did this come to pass? Unfortunately, our nation has embraced the flawed notion that only scholars, judges, or attorneys are qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution. We have come to accept that constitutional law must be revealed to us from on high by our black-robed masters. Yet nothing could be further from the ideal of constitutional jurisprudence envisioned by our founders. The Constitution is written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it. It simply establishes a system of shared, limited power between the three branches of the federal government, while reserving most government power to the states themselves.
     It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles. The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 October 2005 Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?
     The president’s advisory panel on tax reform held a public meeting last week to discuss possible changes to our tax code, which most Americans view as a disgrace. Unfortunately, the reform panel consists almost entirely of Washington beltway insiders who have absolutely nothing in common with ordinary American taxpayers. The members are former Congressmen and Senators, DC think tank scholars, university professors, and–unbelievably–a former commissioner of the IRS! It’s hard to imagine someone more opposed to taxpayer interests than the head of the IRS, the very agency that millions of Americans want abolished.
     It’s doubtful that former politicians and tax bureaucrats will propose meaningful tax reform. After all, we’ve heard this song before. Remember the big tax reform bills of 1986, 1997, and 2001? We were promised a simpler tax code each time, but it never happened. Some slight progress has been made in terms of very modest rate reductions and a slow phaseout of the estate tax, but even those changes may be reversed by revenue-hungry future congresses.
     The reform panel should have two simple goals: make taxes lower, and make taxes simpler. Anything else quite frankly is insulting to the American public. But during several hours of discussion last week, the various panelists talked about everything but those two objectives. Instead they embraced the practice of using the tax code as a tool for social engineering, debating what exemptions, credits, and deductions should be tinkered with to steer taxpayers toward or away from certain activities.
     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?
     When it comes to actual tax reform legislation in Congress, don’t underestimate the lobbying influence of accountants, tax attorneys, tax preparers, IRS employees, and mortgage companies, just to name a few. Many, many groups and industries benefit from our Byzantine tax system in one way or another. They will not accept major changes to the tax code without a fight. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 October 2005 Will the Estate Tax ever be Repealed?
     Just two years ago, Congress was poised to eliminate the hated estate tax permanently. Today, however, several U.S. Senators are using their own wasteful spending habits to justify retaining the tax. In the eyes of these Senators, budget deficits are never the result of too much spending, but rather too little taxing. They cannot imagine giving up even the tiny fraction of federal revenues raised by the estate tax. Why is a one percent revenue cut unthinkable to these lawmakers, while annual three or five percent spending increases are considered business as usual? To answer this question, look no further than the transportation bill passed last week in the Senate. It is perhaps the most pork-filled, wasteful appropriations bill passed in years. The bottom line is that spending money is what keeps these Senators in office. They won’t stop pork spending because the American voting public rewards them for it.
     The estate tax, more accurately known as the death tax because it is levied when a taxpayer dies, confiscates anywhere from 37% to 55% of a individual’s assets. While these rates are unconscionable, the death tax also represents an especially galling form of double taxation. Americans already pay federal and state income taxes throughout their working lives. They pay income and capital gains taxes on money they save and invest. They pay local property taxes on their homes. They pay various sales taxes whenever they buy something. They even pay steep federal taxes on gasoline and telephone use. Yet after a lifetime of burdensome taxes, the death tax punishes Americans one last time simply because they worked hard, saved, and invested to pass something on to their families.
     In 2001 the House debated an outright repeal of the estate tax. Political considerations–based on the false argument that the estate tax only applies to some imagined class of dynastic families–prevented the passage of an immediate repeal. Instead, a slow ten-year phaseout bill passed in both the House and Senate chambers. Incredibly, however, the Senate added a provision that would cause the tax rules to revert back to the current system after the ten-year period. In other words, the death tax will return after 2011! So a taxpayer dying in 2010 would pay no estate tax, while his unfortunate neighbor dying the next year would get a whopping bill from the IRS. Accountants and tax attorneys might support this crazy system, but it creates an estate planning nightmare for American families. Some doctors even warn it could give elderly people a morbid incentive to time their deaths out of concern for their loved ones.
     The tired argument that the estate tax only affects the rich simply is false. Many of my constituents are farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. They are hardly rich, but some of them have built up valuable businesses they would like to pass on to their children. Yet when they die, their children rarely have the liquid cash needed to pay the death tax bill. Often the business must be sold or divided to raise money for the IRS. Many family farms across this country have been bought by large corporations because of the estate tax.
     Ultimately, the argument against the death tax is a moral one. People should not be punished for working hard, saving, and building wealth. Our society should respect the most basic property right, namely the right to dispose of one’s property as one chooses. The American dream is based on making a better life for one’s children, despite the empty rhetoric of the class-warfare politicians in Washington. Building wealth is not sinister, it is admirable. Our tax rules should encourage the decidedly American virtue of saving for the future.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 October 2005 A Free Market in Gasoline
     Many Americans understandably are upset with the sharp spike in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August, and are concerned by reports of oil company profits. But we must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.
     Consider Marathon Oil, which operates a refinery in Texas City. Marathon recently announced the construction of new refinery that will bring several hundred thousand barrels of oil online every day–which is exactly what the nation needs. But building a new refinery is a daunting task that requires billions of dollars in capital investment. The process of obtaining federal permits alone can take several years. As a result, we won’t see a drop of refined gasoline from the new Marathon facility until 2009.
     Federal subsidies and regulations are largely responsible for limiting the supply of refined gasoline in this country. The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added. Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices. We need more competition, which means we need less government.
     Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil. Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: “Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil–indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government’s restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement.”
     Reisman also explains how abolishing restrictions on coal production, natural gas production, and nuclear power would further reduce the OPEC stranglehold. By increasing the supply of these other energy sources, demand for oil would decrease and prices would drop.
     Note that much of the support for unrealistic environmental regulations comes from northeastern politicians and media, who weren’t nearly as interested in oil fortunes when the business hit rock bottom in the 1980s. Texas and the gulf coast have always been willing to supply the nation’s energy, and it’s a bit disingenuous to hear criticism from those who are happy to use oil but don’t want refineries in their backyards.
     Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much.
     Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration’s immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.
     What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump? First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon. In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 November 2005 Deficits at Home, Welfare Abroad
     In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with an ongoing war in Iraq that costs more than $1 billion per week, taxpayers might think Congress has better things to do with $21 billion than send it overseas. Yet that’s exactly what Congress did last Friday, approving a useless and counterproductive foreign aid spending bill. Never mind that the total federal debt recently topped $8 trillion, or that a major US city was virtually destroyed only a few months ago. Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world.
     Consider just a few of the ways your money will be used under the new bill:

$638 million for the unelected Musharraf government in Pakistan;
$735 million to continue dangerous drug meddling in South America;
$150 million for development in Gaza, in addition to the millions we already give the Palestinians every year;
$110 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, ostensibly for economic development, although the recipient nations include oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why in the world are American taxpayers giving welfare to OPEC governments?
Over $500 million for various republics in the former Soviet Union. Even as those nations spawn millionaires and even billionaires, Americans are expected to provide welfare for their poor.
$95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund, which meddles with foreign governments but never seems to change them;
$34 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which lectures poor people about having too many children;
$440 million for international population planning;
$80 million for the dubious Global Environment Facility, run by the World Bank to fund anti-capitalist environmental projects around the world.

     Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. But there also is a strong moral case to be made against taking money from Americans and giving it to foreign governments. Foreign aid doesn’t help poor people; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites. Everyone in Washington knows this, but the same lofty rhetoric is used over and over to sell foreign aid programs. Corporate welfare is bad enough, but corporate welfare in the guise of helping poor foreigners is indecent.
     In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
     Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, tens of billions of US tax dollars have been given to nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations is no longer in question; even the most earnest advocates deep down must admit the obvious. Most of the recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise.
     A rational person would argue that failed aid programs should be eliminated. In Washington, however, failed programs get more money thrown at them. The American public deserves to know why there is room in the budget for foreign aid, when taxpayers face record deficits and debt at home.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 November 2005 Too Little Too Late
     Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending. Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget.
     Ignore the talk about Congress “slashing” vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn’t slash spending if the members’ lives depended on it.
     Remember, this is a Congress that has increased spending by 33% since President Bush took office in 2001. And we’re not talking about national defense or anti-terrorism spending. We’re talking about a one-third increase in garden variety domestic spending. This is also a Congress that passed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. So there’s not much credibility to be found on Capitol Hill when it comes to reducing the federal budget.
     The proposed bill calls for such tiny reductions in spending that frankly it’s shameful for Republicans to claim it represents a victory for fiscal conservatism. And it’s equally preposterous for Democrats to claim it represents some great threat to precious entitlements. The dollar amounts contained in the bill are so insignificant that both parties are guilty of meaningless grandstanding.
     The budget reconciliation bill reduces spending by a mere $5.6 billion in a 2006 budget of nearly $2.5 trillion. This represents just a fraction of one percent, a laughable amount. Does anyone seriously believe the federal budget cannot be trimmed more than this? Consider that the federal budget was only about $1 trillion in 1990, a mere 15 years ago–and government was far too large and too intrusive then. After all the talk about deficit spending, this is the best a Republican congress and Republican president can come up with? What a farce.
     Projections of big savings beyond 2006 because of this bill are pure fiction. Congress has no authority to pass budgets or appropriate money beyond the next fiscal year. Future Congresses will not pay one whit of attention to this bill, and its hopeful predictions will be forgotten.
     Furthermore, we need to get our budget cutting priorities in order. Why are we cutting domestic programs while we continue to spend billions on infrastructure in Iraq? In just the past two weeks Congress approved a $21 billion foreign aid bill and a $130 million scheme to provide water for developing nations. Why in the world aren’t these boondoggles cut first?
     The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program. But we’ve reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises. Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause. And we’re doing it to ourselves, from within.
     Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?
     Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 November 2005 Slashing the Budget?
     Only in Washington DC can a spending increase be called a spending cut–but that’s exactly what happened last week. Congress passed a budget bill that merely slows the rate at which some federal spending grows by a tiny percentage, and both parties acted as though a revolution had taken place.
     Republicans trumpeted the measure as a huge victory for fiscal conservatism, while Democrats were enraged by the supposed “slashing” of government programs. The uproar shows just how entrenched the spending culture has become on Capitol Hill–even insignificant reductions in the rate of growth in federal spending are seen as earth-shattering. But if we’re really serious about cutting federal spending, why not simply cut 10% from the 2006 budget?
     Remember, the same Republicans claiming victory for slowing spending next year also passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which will add over $50 billion to the federal budget in 2006 alone! In just one year the Medicare bill adds ten times in new spending what the budget bill purportedly cuts. So nobody who voted for the Medicare drug bill has any business talking about government spending. Neither do those who refuse to consider cutting one penny from the military and foreign aid budgets. You cannot conduct a foreign policy based on remaking whole nations using military force and pretend to operate a frugal government.
     The Democrats, by contrast, never want to cut spending on anything, no matter how much the federal budget grows–and it’s doubled in 15 years. A $2.4 trillion federal budget is woefully inadequate in their eyes, and ten years from now they’ll say the same thing about a $5 trillion budget. No amount of spending will ever satisfy those who believe government should address every human problem and involve itself in every aspect of our lives.
     The budget bill fails to address the root of the spending problem–this belief that Congress continually must create new federal programs and agencies. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities–Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid–projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of a smoke-and-mirrors approach, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to fund only those government functions that are consistent with the Constitution.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 November 2005 More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
     Benjamin Bernanke, a former member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, is all but certain to be confirmed by the Senate as the next Chairman of that institution. He may find that the adulation given to Mr. Greenspan does not carry over into his tenure so easily, especially if he continues to help Congress run up huge deficits.
     Mr. Bernanke is a consummate Fed insider, widely seen by the financial press as the logical heir to Alan Greenspan. In fact, judging by his public statements he may be more like Greenspan than Greenspan himself.
     What I mean is that Mr. Bernanke appears to have embraced the idea that the Federal Reserve can create prosperity more than Mr. Greenspan ever did. Like his predecessor, Mr. Bernanke views our system of fiat currency as a tool for creating wealth out of thin air by producing more dollars, whether paper or electronic. But he seems to take things further than Greenspan by refusing even to consider the destructive consequences of monetary expansion. In fact, he earned dubious notoriety for this quote in a 2002 speech discussing the supposed threat of deflation in the American economy: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
     But there is a cost, and it’s a heavy one. It’s called monetary inflation, which destroys the value of the dollar and punishes those who save and invest. The money supply, as measured by the Fed’s own M3 figure, has increased about 5 times since 1980. Yet for years officials at the Fed have insisted that inflation is firmly in check.
     Inflation is not in check, as anyone who examines the cost of housing, energy, medical care, school tuition, and other basics can attest. In one sense the remarkable rise in housing prices over the last decade really just represents a drop in the value of the dollar. The artificial boom in the 1990s equity markets, engineered by Mr. Greenspan’s relentless monetary expansion and interest rate cutting, ended badly for millions of Americans holding overinflated stocks. What will happen when the same thing happens with housing?
     The fundamental question is whether a central bank can manage the supply of money and credit better than the free market otherwise would. We shouldn’t kid ourselves about the true nature of the Fed, which is inherently incompatible with real free market capitalism. Centralized planning of the money supply is a form of economic control that significantly affects prices, wages, and production levels. Remember how market economists once criticized central planning of prices, wages, and production levels in the former Soviet Union?
     I encourage all Americans to learn more about the Federal Reserve system and what it means for our economic future. An excellent resource is economist Murray Rothbard’s book “What Has Government Done to our Money,” which provides a brief yet devastating critique of centralized banking and the reckless government spending it enables. We need to demystify the Federal Reserve to understand the enormous political and economic impact of a system that essentially allows government to print money at will to pay its bills.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 December 2005 What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
     The market price for an ounce of gold rose to over $500 last week, a significant milestone for economists watching precious metals and commodities markets. The last time gold topped $500 was December 1987, in the wake of the “Black Monday” stock market collapse earlier that fall.
     Gold prices historically rise when faith in paper currencies erodes, as investors seek the intrinsic value of gold to protect themselves from inflation. It’s interesting to note that while the U.S. dollar has regained some of its value relative to other paper currencies like the Euro, it continues to lose value relative to gold and other hard assets. This shows the folly of using one fiat currency to value another.
     Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. Expansion costs money, and politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now manage all of the world’s major currencies.
     Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. Even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception.
     President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The “value” of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the money supply, and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value. What does this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 December 2005 Don’t Complicate Immigration Reform
     Congress is poised to consider an immigration reform bill this week, but as usual the devil will be in the details. A sensible bill would bolster enforcement of existing immigration laws, reject any form of amnesty, and address the underlying welfare state that adds to the problem. I fear, however, that Congress will bow to the president and accept some sort of amnesty. Even worse, I fear Congress may use the immigration bill to create a national employment database that has nothing to do with border control and everything to do with monitoring American citizens and employers.
     Most Americans understandably want Congress to do something about illegal immigration, which has become a national embarrassment. One important solution is better enforcement of the laws we’ve got–which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported. Congress can pass any law it wants, but unless federal agencies enforce those laws they are meaningless.
     The ultimate responsibility for our immigration mess, therefore, lies squarely with successive presidents, not Congress. For decades our chief executives simply have lacked the political will, the manpower, or the desire to police our borders and deport lawbreakers. It’s been nearly impossible politically for presidents or candidates to suggest the obvious, namely that illegal immigration mocks the rule of law and creates huge social and economic problems. But the tide is turning, and a majority of Americans will demand real action on immigration by the next administration.
     Real immigration reform will be difficult, but it need not be complicated.
     First, enforce existing laws by controlling the borders once and for all. We must recognize that true national defense means defending our own borders and coastlines. This is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. This means it’s time to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas military adventures and countless alphabet soup domestic agencies. Borders should be the number one national priority, plain and simple. Does the federal government have something better to do?
     Second, we must end birthright citizenship by constitutional amendment, if necessary. House Joint Resolution 46, which I introduced earlier this year, begins the process in Congress. As long as illegal immigrants know that their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
     Finally, we must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants–certainly not all–receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
     Immigration admittedly is a difficult issue, and nobody wants America to become an unwelcoming fortress. On the contrary, we need to attract the best and brightest people by remaining an entrepreneurial society that rewards initiative and hard work. But we must gain control of our borders not only to strengthen our national security, but also to preserve our national identity.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 December 2005 Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform
     Congress passed an immigration bill last week that takes some small steps toward asserting control over our nation’s porous borders. I supported the bill despite its lack of substance, in the hope that it will move America in the right direction on the critical issue of illegal immigration.
     Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve “operational control of the borders”? Shouldn’t the federal government already have “operational control of the borders”?
     Here is a road map for real immigration reform. First we need better enforcement of the laws we’ve got–which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported and for our borders to be secured. These things are already law, but the executive branch has failed to enforce them for decades.
     Second, we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally enter the country, the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet. Failure to address these in an immigration bill raises questions about achieving real results. That is why I introduced three amendments to this bill, in the hopes that we can finally do something about the problem of illegal immigration. I introduced an amendment to end so-called “birth-right citizenship,” whereby anyone born on US soil is automatically an American citizen. I also introduced an amendment to end the practice of providing US Social Security payments to non-US citizens. And finally I introduced an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving food stamps, student loans, or other federally provided assistance. Without these magnets, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
     There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, HR 4437 “treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.”
     Congress and the administration are still way behind the American people on the immigration issue. American culture is rooted in political and legal traditions based on liberty and constitutionally limited government–and we rightfully expect immigrants to respect and learn about those traditions. Real immigration reform, based on asserting our sovereign right to retain a cultural identity, will be a huge issue in next year’s congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 December 2005 Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
     Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens’ emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.
     Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act’s most harmful provisions.
     Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers–such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4^th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?
     We’re told that September 11^th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11^th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
     The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11^th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.
     Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on–which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 January 2006 Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
     The ongoing war in Iraq, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and congressional scandals all served to make 2005 a tough year for America. We can hope and pray that 2006 is a happier and more peaceful year for our nation.
     All Americans, regardless of their views on the Iraq war, can share the hope that the killing in that country will end in 2006–and that our troops can begin to come home.
     Our goal in Iraq at this point must be self-determination for the Iraqi people, nothing more and nothing less. Nation building doesn’t work and we can’t afford it. We should seek to get our troops out of the country as soon as possible and remain neutral toward the various factions still vying for power. The ultimate solution may be for Iraq to break up into several countries based on ethnic and religious differences.
     Regardless of the outcome, we must have the courage and integrity to admit that our founders’ wise counsel against foreign entanglements was correct. Once the rationale for the war shifted from weapons of mass destruction to installing democracy, our credibility became dependent on true Iraqi sovereignty–even if the government that emerges is not to our liking. True sovereignty for Iraq cannot be realized unless and until we end our occupation and stop trying to engineer political outcomes.
     Meanwhile, prosperity at home cannot be achieved if we allow government to engage in the kind of runaway spending that marked the final months of 2005. The fiscal year 2006 budget, already bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending, became an 11^th hour Christmas grab bag for every group or industry seeking a handout. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies needlessly received even more funding than originally requested by the administration.
     Dangerous foreign aid spending also grows next year, sending more of your tax dollars overseas to fund dubious regimes that often later become our enemies–as we’ve seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. No reasonable person can argue that a $2.4 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress, especially when we are waging an off-budget war in Iraq that costs more than $1 billion every week.
     It is easy for us to lose sight of the primary responsibility of our government during troubled times, and many Americans are anxious to have the administration spend any amount and ignore the Constitution to achieve some mythical standard of security. Yet we should not forget that peace and prosperity are best secured by a government that secures liberty for its citizens. The best formula for securing liberty is limited government at home and a noninterventionist foreign policy abroad. Americans deserve better from their government in 2006 than huge deficits, scandals, domestic spying, and mindless partisanship.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 January 2006 Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands,
will ever be liable to abuse.” –James Madison
     The Washington political scandals dominating the news in recent weeks may be disheartening, but they cannot be considered surprising. We live in a time when the U.S. government is the largest and most powerful state in the history of the world. Today’s federal government consists of fifteen huge departments, hundreds of agencies, thousands of programs, and millions of employees. It spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year. The possibilities for corruption in such an immense and unaccountable institution are endless.
     Americans understandably expect ethical conduct from their elected officials in Washington. But the whole system is so out of control that it’s simply unrealistic to place faith in each and every government official in a position to sell influence. The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society. The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes–and the temptation for politicians to sell them–is enormous. Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution. The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians’ power and you take away the very currency of corruption.
     Undoubtedly the recent revelations will ignite new calls for campaign finance reform. However, we must recognize that that campaign finance laws place restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill.
     The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The fundamental problem is not with campaigns or politicians primarily, but rather with popular support for the steady shift from a relatively limited, constitutional federal government to the huge leviathan of today.
     We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. It’s time to reconsider exactly what we want the federal government to be in our society. So long as it remains the largest and most powerful institution in the nation, it will remain endlessly susceptible to corruption.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 January 2006 Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
     The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week’s hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.
     The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week’s hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political.
     Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial “laws” forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?
     Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court.
     We’re being told two very troubling things:
     First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.
     Second, if the American people don’t like any of the “laws” created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.
     The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people’s elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.
     Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 January 2006 New Rules, Same Game
     Last week I mailed each of my congressional colleagues a copy of a speech outlining my views on the lobbying and ethics scandals engulfing Washington. I’m afraid many of them won’t like my conclusion: to reduce corruption in government, we must make government less powerful–and hence less interesting to lobbyists.
     I find it hard to believe that changing the congressional ethics rules or placing new restrictions on lobbyists will do much good. After all, we already have laws against bribery, theft, and fraud. We already have ethics rules in Congress. We already have campaign finance reform. We already require campaigns and lobbyists to register with the federal government and disclose expenditures. We already require federal employees, including the president and members of congress, to take an oath of office. None of it is working, so why should we think more rules, regulations, or laws will change anything?
     Lobbying, whether we like it or not, is constitutionally protected. The First amendment unequivocally recognizes the right of Americans to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We can’t deal with corruption in government by ignoring the Constitution.
     I don’t believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people–always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. What’s another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.
     It’s no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. When we consider the enormous entitlement and welfare system in place, and couple that with a military-industrial complex that feeds off perpetual war and encourages an interventionist foreign policy, the possibilities for corruption are endless. We shouldn’t wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade–and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high priced commodities.
     The dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, made possible by our shift from a republican to a democratic system of government, is the real scandal of the ages. If we merely tinker with current attitudes about the role of the federal government in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution.
     After all, criminals by definition ignore laws; unethical people ignore the rules of ethics. Changing the rules or the players is merely a band-aid if we don’t change the nature of the game itself.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 January 2006 Federalizing Social Policy
     As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
     Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
     Under the 9^th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
     The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
     Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it’s far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
     Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don’t fight for them ourselves.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 February 2006 A Real Washington Scandal
     Supreme Court nominations, congressional ethics scandals, and insider politics dominated the Washington headlines in recent weeks. But perhaps the most important story, in terms of its impact on average Americans, has gone virtually unreported.
     Later this month our Treasury once again will hit the “debt ceiling,” a figure based on federal law that limits the amount of money the federal government can borrow. The total amount of federal debt as of this month is a staggering $8.2 trillion, a number that is almost incomprehensible. The effects of this debt, however, will be felt by all of us in the form of inflation, higher interest rates, and a weakened U.S. economy.
     New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faces a difficult dilemma. Our overseas creditors, particularly Asian central banks, already hold billions of U.S. dollars and are losing their appetite for lending us more money. They are wary of our enormous federal deficits and reckless economic policies. Ask yourself a simple question: would you loan the U.S. government money, given its spending habits? It’s clear we can’t go on borrowing $1.8 billion every day to finance the government!
     The simplest way for the Fed to overcome these fears and maintain worldwide enthusiasm for the dollar is to raise interest rates and stop putting new dollars into circulation. But the Greenspan “boom” was based on the opposite approach. By cutting interest rates to the bone and vastly increasing the money supply, Greenspan made Americans feel rich–first with the stock market bubble of the 1990s, and later with the housing bubble that is only now starting to burst. Greenspan was brilliant at making debt feel like wealth, but Mr. Bernanke inherits a very difficult situation. To maintain the value of the dollar, he must put the brakes on the money supply and raise the cost of borrowing. Such tough action is unlikely, however, given Mr. Bernanke’s troubling public statements about the benefits of government printing presses.
     For years the Federal Reserve Bank and Congress have maintained a cozy relationship. The Fed, by pumping more and more money into the economy, has allowed Congress to spend wildly beyond the amount collected each year by the Treasury. Congress loves deficit spending, because new programs are always politically popular and tax hikes are always unpopular. In return, Congress has maintained a completely hands-off approach toward the Fed system, allowing Mr. Greenspan free reign to “run the economy” with tremendous deference from both the public and the press.
     The results are not pretty. True inflation, correctly measured by the amount of money and credit available, has skyrocketed in the last 15 years. At the same time, federal deficits have exploded. Congress is addicted to spending, and the Fed is happy to supply the fix by providing easy money.
     As economist Addison Wiggin states, however, “The Grand Experiment with paper money is running its inevitable course. Bernanke’s biggest challenge is the challenge of central banking itself: You can control some things, but not everything. In the Fed’s case, it can control the quantity of money or the quality of it, but not both at the same time.”
     All of these factors make it likely the U.S. dollar will continue to decline in value, perhaps precipitously, in the coming decade. Will it take an economic depression before the American public finally holds the political class accountable for its reckless borrowing, spending, and counterfeiting?

Texas Straight Talk, 13 February 2006 The Ever-Growing Federal Budget
     The Bush administration released a proposed 2007 budget last week that increases federal spending to a staggering $2.77 trillion, a sum that is 4 times larger than the Reagan-era budgets of the early 1980s. With a public angry about useless earmarks and bridges to nowhere, and a Republican congressional delegation promising to restore some small measure of fiscal discipline, it’s troubling that the administration chooses to ignore economic reality and increase spending without regard to revenues and deficits.
     Consider these sobering facts:
     � With a 7% rate of growth, federal spending will double in a decade.
     � Federal spending has grown twice as fast under Bush than Clinton, averaging 6 and 7% increases compared to the 3 and 4% increases of the 1990s.
     � The biggest increases in federal spending under Bush are not related to the war on terror or homeland security. Education spending, for example, grew a whopping 137% between 2001 and 2005.
     � The projected deficit for 2006 is $423 billion, $100 billion more than 2005. The real 2006 deficit, including the $5 billion per week we spend in Iraq, will be much, much higher.
     � The administration will ask for at least $120 billion in so-called “off budget” funds for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, perpetuating the deception that war spending somehow doesn’t count toward the budget deficit.
     � The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost at least $30 billion in 2006, and is projected to cost $1.2 trillion over the coming decade. The program creates an unfunded liability twice the size of future Social Security obligations.
     There has been a great deal of talk in Washington about scandals lately, but few seem to understand that enormous federal budgets provide the mother’s milk for every backroom deal, questionable earmark, and sleazy lobbying trick. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously vote for enormous budget bills, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we consider that the federal budget in 1990 was far less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was not big enough just 16 years ago?
     Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do the proposed expenditures, and the resulting taxes, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the budget process.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 February 2006 Katrina Relief Six Months Later
     The Senate concluded hearings last week on the federal mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and the findings were troubling. In short, the federal government wasted literally billions of dollars responding to the disaster, dollars that did little to help Katrina victims at all.
     The grotesque amounts of waste, mismanagement, and outright fraud involving those funds are staggering.
     FEMA spent millions on unusable temporary housing that did not meet FEMA’s own regulations for placement in flood zones. $2000 debit cards were issued to nonexistent people; some cards were used for everything from tattoos to bail bonds. Emergency relief checks were issued to nearly one million bogus applicants. Some evacuees were housed in $400 per night hotel suites. The list goes on and on.
     These abuses were inevitable, unfortunately. They are the direct result of a top-down, centralized, bureaucratic system that wrongly assumes Washington planners always know best, that every issue and problem should be addressed at the federal level. But clearly Washington officials were in no position to know what was needed in the gulf coast in the aftermath of a hurricane.
     Congress reacted to Katrina in typical Washington-knows-best fashion. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with no planning or debate, mostly to show that government was “doing something.” Political grandstanding masqueraded as compassion. As with all rapid government expenditures, the money was spent badly. Every member of Congress must have known that throwing $50 billion at FEMA, the very agency that failed so badly to prepare for Katrina, would not turn out well.
     All federal aid for Katrina should have been distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA and Homeland Security. Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government at both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood no doubt would have been better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction.
     The best way to rebuild New Orleans is to provide entrepreneurial incentives for people and businesses willing to do the hard work involved. I voted for several bills last fall that provide some measure of tax relief for Katrina victims, but more could be done. Imagine the revitalization that would occur if Congress declared New Orleans a federal tax-free zone for 5 or 10 years. It’s not compassionate simply to throw money at a problem, especially when that money is wasted and does not help the very people who need it most. It’s not compassionate for politicians to spend money that doesn’t belong to them. It’s not compassionate to instill false hope that Washington can solve every problem and respond to every emergency. It’s certainly not compassionate to create huge deficits that hurt poor people the most through inflation, as government prints more and more money to pay its bills.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 February 2006 The Port Security Controversy
     Many Americans are upset by the thought of a Dubai-based corporation running port operations in several major American cities. The company involved now has agreed to delay taking over those operations while the Bush administration and Congress settle their differences and address the ire of the American people.
     There’s nothing necessarily wrong with a company from the United Arab Emirates being involved in U.S. port operations. After all, Islamic terrorists have lived in many European countries, and nobody suggests that E.U. corporations should be similarly disqualified.
     But this is not a matter of one foreign company buying another and taking over existing operations in the United States. The Dubai company, DP World, is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. It is in essence an agent of a foreign government, which raises questions: Does DP World truly operate like any corporation, answering to a board of directors, serving shareholders, and working to boost profitability? Or does it serve the foreign policy and economic goals of the United Arab Emirates?
     This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security.
     It’s important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.
     There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport?
     I strongly support those governors who have indicated they do not intend to allow the federal government to dictate who will run their ports. I hope Texas state officials display the same determination and resist a potentially dangerous federal dictate regarding the operation of our ports.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 March 2006 International Taxes?
     April 15th is once again approaching and with it the necessity of filling out your tax return. It is a good time to reflect on the taxes you do pay–and especially on the taxes you may soon be forced to pay. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes and numerous miscellaneous taxes on your vehicles and gasoline and so many other things. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these layers of taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations once again has launched a plan to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us.
     The latest UN tax scheme was revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. At this conference of the world’s financial elite, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unveiled a UN plan to take seven trillion dollars from developed nations for use by the UN to save the rest of the world from all of its problems.
     The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault.
     Where will the seven trillion dollars to fund the latest UN scheme come from? Much of it is to come from a UN-imposed fine on countries that in the UN’s judgment are polluting too much. This attack on productivity will slow our economy and lead to a loss of jobs in the United States. The UN global tax plan also resurrects the long-held dream of the “Tobin Tax,” and doubles the targeted income from such a tax to a whopping three trillion dollars.
     The “Tobin tax,” named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
     Since I was elected to Congress I have been fighting continuously against these UN efforts to pick your pocket. In the 109^th Congress I successfully amended the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2005 to prohibit any of the funds in the Act from being used by the U.N. to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person to raise revenue for the U.N. or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies.
     I also introduced H. R. 1017 in the current Congress which would permanently prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations if that organization develops, implements, or publicizes any proposal to tax Americans.
     Of course, my preference is that the United States end its participation in the corrupt UN entirely, and I introduce HR 1146 in every Congress to do just that. But until my colleagues are willing to take this important step, I will continue to offer measures like my amendment last year to help protect your hard-earned money from the greedy hands of the globalist United Nations.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 March 2006 How Government Debt Grows
     Today our national debt stands at $8.2 trillion, which represents about $26,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Interestingly, the legal debt limit is only $8.18 trillion, a figure that was reached a few weeks ago. This means the Treasury department must ask Congress to raise the debt limit very soon, most likely as part of a larger bill so it can be hidden from the American people.
     Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Congress raised it many times over the last 15 years, despite the supposed “surpluses” of the Clinton years. Those single-year surpluses were based on accounting tricks that treated Social Security funds as general revenues. In reality the federal government ran deficits throughout the 1990s, and the federal debt rose steadily.
     Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made it easier for Congress to obscure the extent of federal debt. He endorsed a change in the law that redefined Social Security and veterans pensions. In reality those obligations are debts, just like any other bill that must be paid in the future. But Mr. Greenspan urged renaming these obligations “intergovernment accounts,” which magically changed them from debts to “accrued liabilities.” This semantic shift frees up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing.
     Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes at least 25% of the American economy and still can’t balance its books is a government that vastly overspends.
     I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn’t matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much ultimately will destroy its own economy. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.
     When government borrows money, the actual borrowers–big spending administrations and politicians–never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.”
     For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It’s time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 March 2006 Another “Emergency” Spending Bill
     Congress funds the federal government through 13 enormous appropriations bills, but even an annual budget of more than $2 trillion is not enough to satisfy Washington’s appetite for new spending. As a result, a new category of spending bill has emerged, known as the “emergency supplemental” appropriation. There’s no real emergency, however; Congress simply needs a 14^th spending bill as a grab bag filled with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens of amendments to be added to the supplemental bill, all with more money for somebody.
     So-called emergency supplemental spending bills, once a rarity, have become the norm over the last ten years in Washington. There’s always some excuse why Congress cannot stick to its budget, so supplemental bills are passed to permit spending extra “off-budget” funds. “Emergency” spending now has become routine, planned spending.
     American taxpayers should know this latest emergency supplemental bill spends almost $92 billion, making it the largest supplemental appropriation in the history of the U.S. Congress. The entire federal budget was less than $92 billion in the early 1960s!
     Is there really an “emergency” that requires $1.2 billion to pay off our allies for their help in Afghanistan? If Pakistan, Jordan, and other nations chose to join our war effort, why can’t their taxpayers foot the bill? Won’t those nations in closer proximity to Afghanistan benefit from the stability we are told U.S. troops will provide? Perhaps they should pay us for stabilizing their neighborhood. But it’s always American taxpayers who end up paying.
     What is the emergency that requires $36 million for taxpayer-funded broadcasting programs overseas? How about $30 million to build roads in Liberia?
     If we’re serious about spending money for emergencies, surely $92 billion could be better spent addressing the aftermath of two domestic emergencies, namely hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
     The real emergency is in Washington, where Congress is spending and borrowing America into a perfect storm. As economist James Turk explains, the federal government now relies upon debt to finance 20% of its spending. Low interest rates during the 1990s and early 2000s kept interest payments on government debts–Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills–somewhat manageable. During the same period, however, the Federal Reserve greatly increased the money supply, which has caught up to us in the form of price inflation. The Fed now must raise rates to combat this inflation, but higher interest rates will chill economic growth and slow tax revenue. To quote Mr. Turk, “The federal government faces a potentially toxic mix of constrained revenues, soaring expenditures, ballooning debt, and rising interest rates.”
     This is the real emergency that must be addressed in Washington, and the only solution is to reduce government spending substantially. If we don’t put the brakes on the spending spree soon, we may find ourselves facing another period of economic malaise that rivals the 1930s.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 March 2006 The Perils of Economic Ignorance
     Last week in this column I wrote of a perfect economic storm facing America, caused by a federal government that spends, borrows, and prints so much money that our dollars are eroding in value at an alarming rate. Year after year our federal government spends beyond its revenues, prints new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. With too many dollars and debt instruments in circulation, and no political will in Washington to cut spending, we’ve created a monster. Our perceived prosperity depends on keeping the great debt and credit engine pumping, but the only way to attract new lenders to fuel the engine is higher interest rates. At some point one of two things must happen: either the party in Washington ends, or the supremacy of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency ends. It’s a sobering thought, but a choice must be made.
     How did this happen? How did we get to such a state? The answer is found in the nature of politics itself. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don’t understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.
     I believe one of the greatest threats facing this nation is the willful economic ignorance of the political class. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.
     I certainly have seen firsthand a great deal of economic ignorance in Congress over the years. Few members pay any attention whatsoever to the Federal Reserve Bank, despite the tremendous impact Fed policy has on their constituents. Even many members of the banking and finance committees have little or no knowledge of monetary policy. Perhaps this is why so many in Congress seem to believe we can all become rich by printing new dollars, or that we can make 2+2=5 by taking money from some people and giving it to others.
     We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy.
     I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frederic Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
     If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 April 2006 The Immigration Question
     The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.
     We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.
     Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans–including immigrants–want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.
     We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume–especially medical care.
     We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
     Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
     We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 April 2006 Cough Up
     April 15^th, our national tax day, comes this year just as Congress prepares to pass the 2007 federal budget. If you think paying taxes was painful this year, I’ve got some bad news: the new budget is a grotesque illustration of everything wrong with the federal government. At $2.7 trillion, it’s the largest budget in U.S. history by a long shot. Like it or not, the pressure to raise your taxes will be enormous in coming years no matter who controls Congress. The amount of money government spends, borrows, and prints simply cannot be sustained.
     For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. It requires them to confess their actions over the past year to the IRS in excruciating detail. It’s an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month.
     Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government.
     The only tax reform needed is to lower or abolish existing taxes. When reform proposals seem complicated, the reason is simple: they obscure their true nature as schemes to shift the tax burden around. It’s not who pays or how we pay; it’s how much we pay.
     The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.
     But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion–a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15^th.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 April 2006 Sanctions against Iran
     As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.
     Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
     In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.
     While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn’t work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.
     It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.
     Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.
     It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America.
     Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations “strengthen people’s loyalties to each other and weaken government power.” To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
     For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.
     Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.
     Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 April 2006 Policy is More Important than Personnel
     President Bush has been under pressure to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom many view as the architect of a failed approach in Iraq. Even many ardent war hawks are unhappy with the Secretary for not having more troops on the ground in Iraq, and for conducting the war less aggressively than they would like.
     But the issue is not who serves as Secretary of Defense, the issue is how, when, and why the United States uses military force. It makes no sense simply to replace Mr. Rumsfeld with someone else who holds the same view, namely that it’s the job of American soldiers and U.S. taxpayers to police the world. We should be debating the proper foreign policy for our country–utopian nation building vs. the noninterventionism counseled by our founding fathers–rather than which individual is best suited to carry it out.
     I happen to agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on the matter of downsizing the military as a whole and remaking it to reflect modern realities of warfare. A swifter, nimbler military would be better suited to tracking individuals like bin Laden who do not operate under the flag of any particular nation or army. The war in Iraq shows that we’re trying to adapt our military to fit our foreign policy, rather than the other way around. For all our high-tech advantages, we are mired in a simmering urban civil war that does not play to the true strengths of our troops.
     The old model of warfare, based on invading and occupying whole nations, is unsustainable. Both financially and in terms of manpower, American simply cannot afford any more Koreas, Vietnams, or Iraqs. Many people in the Pentagon understand that America’s armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation building. The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm’s way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers.
     It’s interesting to note that our founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.
     Consider the words of James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution:
     “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home…”
     Madison continues:
     “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few..... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
     In other words, Madison understood that large military forces can become the tools of tyrants, and can bankrupt the nations that support them. Instead of debating who should be Secretary of Defense, we should be studying the writing of our own founding fathers. Perhaps then we will question the wisdom of an open-ended, vague war on terror and the realities of trying to remake whole societies in our image.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 May 2006 True Foreign Aid
     A recent Hudson Institute study found that, last year, American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise.
     There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.
     There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy for example. The “aid” money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins “democratic” elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
     Likewise with the so-called Millennium Challenge Account, which sends US aid to countries that meet US-determined economic reform criteria. The fact is, countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.
     Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.
     Private assistance organizations, on the other hand, are more subject to market forces and thus much more effective. When Americans feel motivated to part with their hard-earned money to help someone overseas, they want to make sure it goes only to the most effective charities. Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself.
     Sadly, this does not happen when government aid is mismanaged. More often than not, the very government agencies that mismanaged the assistance in the first place come back to Congress for a budget increase to solve the problem they created.
     So we should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 May 2006 Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
     The burning issue in Washington today is high gas prices, and it won’t go away anytime soon. Americans are not happy about paying $3 per gallon at the pump, and they want something done about it.
     But price controls won’t work, and allegations of price gouging and “windfall profits” amount to nothing more than congressional grandstanding. No government official or politician is fit to define a “fair” price for gas or a “fair” profit for oil companies. This is not the Soviet Union. The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies.
     The price of oil, like everything else, depends on supply and demand. What we really need to focus on is how government keeps the supply of refined gasoline too low. This is not as easy as demanding price controls, and does not fit into 30-second sound bites. But as with so many issues, we must peel away decades of government interference to really understand the problem.
     Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere.
     The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Soaring gasoline prices are one giant unintended consequence of the war, pure and simple.
     Even so, many war hawks are seriously agitating for an attack on Iran–another major supplier of worldwide oil. They are not concerned one bit about the impact such an attack would have on the wallets of average Americans; their obsession with regime change in Iran trumps all common sense. But let me be clear: An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon.
     We also must understand the effect monetary policy has on gas prices. The price of gas, like the price of all things, goes up because of inflation. And inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise–some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
     If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system.
     And in the meantime, let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. That alone would save Americans 18.4 cents per gallon. By contrast, oil companies only make about 10 cents per gallon. So maybe it’s government that’s being greedy. – Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. And it cannot overcome a monetary policy destined to inflate our dollars into oblivion.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 May 2006 The Declining Dollar Erodes Personal Savings
     A recent article in BusinessWeek magazine by James Mehring paints a stark picture of the ongoing decline of the U.S. dollar. The dollar has lost 5% against a blend of worldwide currencies just since April, falling to a 12-month low against the Euro and an 8-month low against the Japanese yen. Overall, the dollar fell 28% against other currencies between 2002 and 2004. It then rebounded slightly, but even the cheerleaders in the American financial press cannot shrug off this latest decline.
     Of course the real measure of just how far the dollar has fallen can be found in the price of gold, which has reached a 25-year high of more than $700 per ounce. It’s much more accurate to measure the dollar against a stable store of value like gold, rather than against other fiat currencies. Gold has nearly tripled against the dollar since 2001, when the price was $250 per ounce. By this measure the dollar is losing value at an alarming rate.
     Remember, gold is static. Gold isn’t going up, the dollar is going down. And it’s going to continue until the American people demand an end to deficit spending by Congress and unrestrained creation of new dollars by the Federal Reserve and Treasury department.
     A sharply rising gold price is really a vote of “no confidence” in Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East.
     As Mr. Mehring suggests, the Federal Reserve may have no choice but to raise interest rates to maintain foreign enthusiasm for our dollar. It’s a serious problem that new Fed Chair Benjamin Bernanke must address sooner or later: propping up the dollar with higher interest rates without killing the U.S. economy in the process.
     The world financial markets are betting against the dollar and against Mr. Bernanke’s chances of correcting the imbalances caused by Alan Greenspan. Our creditors, particularly Asian central banks, are losing their appetite for U.S. Treasuries. Our federal government’s huge debt and voracious appetite for deficit spending make our economy dependent on the actions of foreign governments and central bankers. Yet few Americans realize the extent to which their own government has sold out American sovereignty by borrowing money overseas.
     The consequences of a rapidly declining dollar are not yet fully understood by the American public. The long-term significance has not sunk in, but when it does there will be political hell to pay in Washington. Our relative wealth as a nation is measured in dollars, and the steady erosion of the value of those dollars means we will all be poorer in the future. The artificial stimulation of our economy through cheap money comes with a price. When dollars are abundant, they are worth less. This is the reality facing Americans today, especially older Americans who rely on savings to finance their retirement years.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 May 2006 Avoiding War With Iran
     In recent weeks the Bush administration has stated its willingness to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran, which is a welcome change from previous policy. Let’s hope it’s more than just a change in tone. With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $5 billion per week, record levels of federal spending and debt, and oil hovering around $70 per barrel, American taxpayers certainly cannot afford another war.
     Iran, like Iraq, is a major source of global oil. For all our posturing, the truth is that worldwide crude prices would spike rapidly if we attacked Iran. With summer coming, demand will increase and gas prices at the pump will be over $3 for most of the nation. Airlines are raising ticket prices to compensate for jet fuel prices that have nearly doubled in a year. A strike on Iran in coming months would create serious trouble for an American economy that is already struggling with high energy prices.
     It’s time for a foreign policy based on reality, a foreign policy that serves the interests of ordinary Americans. The reality is that we will continue to use oil as a major source of energy in this country for the foreseeable future, and therefore the health of our economy will be affected by the price of oil. Like it or not, some of that oil will continue to come from the Middle East even if we get serious about tapping domestic sources.
     The US has not used diplomacy with Iran for nearly 26 years, since the hostage crisis of the Carter era. But this “no negotiation” stance hasn’t worked: Iran’s defiant behavior continues, and its uranium enrichment program has not been dismantled.
     Is Iran a nuclear threat? Not according to our own CIA, which says Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. This is not to say we should sit back as nuclear weapons proliferate in the Middle East. But we shouldn’t allow war hawks to wildly overstate the threat posed by Iran, as they did with Iraq.
     Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan–much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an arch enemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.
     Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
     Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
     Government power in Iran is divided, and President Ahmadinejad–the man responsible for hateful comments about Israel–does not control their nuclear policy. We should ignore him as a pariah, and deal instead with Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s National Security Council, who has made several reasonable statements about the US and shows a desire to have direct diplomatic talks.
     Discussions with Iran are not appeasement. On the contrary, dialogue is needed to explain clearly that America’s objectives of non-proliferation and peace in the Middle East will not be compromised. 25 years of isolating Iran has moved us farther from, not closer to, achieving those objectives.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 May 2006 Stop the NAIS
     The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers out of business. The National Animal Identification System, known as NAIS, is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock–cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses–to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.
     In typical Washington-speak, NAIS is “voluntary”–provided USDA bureaucrats are satisfied with the level of cooperation. Trust me, NAIS will be mandatory within a few years. When was the last time a new federal program did not expand once implemented?
     As usual, Congress is spending millions of dollars creating a complex non-solution to a very simple problem. NAIS will cost taxpayers at least $33 million for starters.
     Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners face a costly mandate if NAIS becomes law.
     Larger livestock operations will be able to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device. Smaller ranchers and farmers, however, will be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. And NAIS applies to anyone with a single horse, pig, chicken, or goat in the backyard–no exceptions. NAIS applies to children in 4-H or FFA. Once NAIS becomes mandatory, any failure to report and tag an animal subjects the owner to $1,000 per day fines.
     NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant–a blatant violation of the 4^th amendment.
     NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place, and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won’t help find the sources of disease.
     More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob Parker stated, NAIS is “too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.”
     NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 June 2006 The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
     This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas.
     Why is foreign aid so bad? Isn’t it our obligation to help those less fortunate? What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. Foreign aid is the transfer of US dollars from the treasury of the United States to the governments of foreign countries. It is money that goes to help foreign elites, who in turn spend much of it on contracts with US corporations. This means US tax dollars ultimately go to well-connected US corporations operating overseas.
     Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power. Also, it is important to remember that forced charity is not charity at all. While I believe strongly in the moral value of helping the less fortunate, charity must come voluntarily from the heart, not under threat from the IRS.
     This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide.
     Also, this year Congress will nearly double funding for the monstrous Millennium Challenge program. This is billed as a different kind of foreign aid, in that it only goes to governments that pursue “free market” economic and social reforms. Of course this is a waste of money: governments that pursue wise economic policies will attract much more in foreign private investment than the US government can send them. The true reward for sound economic policies is increased prosperity. Foreign aid does not purchase that prosperity but in fact distorts internal markets and props up inefficient companies.
     Americans concerned about high taxes, out of control gas prices, and economic downturn should think hard about what the US government is doing with the money it takes from them. The greatest “foreign assistance” we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 June 2006 Why Won’t Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
     The U.S. Senate had a golden opportunity to repeal the federal estate tax last week, but fell a few votes short. I fear that vote might represent the high-water mark in the movement to get rid of this destructive tax once and for all.
     Fortunately, estate taxes no longer devour 60% of some individuals’ wealth when they die. Congress passed legislation in 2001 that reduced estate tax rates and increased the amount of assets exempt from the tax. Yet Congress has been unable to abolish the estate tax altogether, and due to a political compromise the old rates will be back in effect come 2011 unless Congress acts first.
     The estate tax raises very little money. In fact, even at its height the estate tax accounted for only a little more than 1% of federal revenues. A congressional Joint Economic committee report estimates that Americans spend as much avoiding estate taxes–paying attorneys and accountants–as they do paying estate taxes. A study by a Stanford professor concluded that “True revenues associated with estate taxation may well have been near zero, or even negative.”
     It’s no longer a matter of tax policy or economics–the arguments in favor of the estate tax have all been demolished. Instead, the estate tax survives purely because of politics.
     The real motivation behind the estate tax is a deep-seated hostility to property rights, and a misguided fear of family dynasties. But people don’t keep money in mattresses anymore. Money inherited from an estate is either spent, saved, or invested–all of which are better for the economy than sending it to Washington, where bureaucratic overhead consumes at least 50 cents of every dollar.
     If you truly own your property, you have the right to dispose of it any way you wish. You can sell it, give it away, or direct who will receive it when you die. This control is the essence of property rights. If you can’t control what happens to your property, you don’t really own it.
     That’s why the estate tax is so destructive. Since people don’t want the government controlling their property when they die, they twist themselves into pretzels finding ways to avoid turning assets over to the IRS. Some create elaborate trusts to minimize their taxes, supporting the economically wasteful estate-planning industry. Others simply lose their entrepreneurial spark, stop working, and spend their money–succumbing to a “die broke” attitude.
     Again, the issue is control. People who have worked hard to build wealth simply cannot stand to see government take a big chunk of their assets when they die, so they do anything they can–even economically harmful things–to prevent it. This is what supporters of the estate tax cannot seem to understand.
     For smaller, family-owned farms and ranches, the estate tax is especially threatening. Such operations may be worth several million dollars when the value of land, livestock, buildings, and equipment are considered. Yet when the owner dies, his heirs often do not have liquid cash to pay a hefty tax bill. As a result, all or part of the family business may be sold to pay the IRS. This has accelerated the trend toward corporate ownership of American farms and ranches.
     As William Beach at the Heritage Foundation summarizes, the estate tax does four things–all of which are bad for the economy and frankly un-American:
     First, it discourages savings and investment.
     Second, it undermines job creation and wage growth.
     Third, it stifles investment.
     Forth, it contradicts a central premise of American life, namely, building wealth and “getting ahead.”
     For all of these reasons, it’s time to get rid of the estate tax once and for all.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 June 2006 Congress Rejects UN Taxes
     Let me ask you a question: Do you think you pay enough taxes? Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes every time you bought something, and you paid numerous miscellaneous taxes such as vehicle license fees and federal gas taxes. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these city, county, state, and federal taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations now wants to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us.
     UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations–a lot more–simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
     Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us–laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
     Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The “Tobin tax,” named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN.
     The Tobin tax is not the only idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we’ve all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority. Fortunately, the House of Representatives last week passed my language in the 2007 Foreign Operations bill that prohibits the Treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. But that only protects us for another year. Given the stated goals of the UN, it would be foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 June 2006 The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
     The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4^th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms–the right to bear arms.
     The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2^nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
     Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2^nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
     Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11^th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
     So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
     For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
     It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.
     They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda? The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 July 2006 A New Declaration
     On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free.
     They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.
     In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
     One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better.
     Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.
     In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education.
     It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond.
     Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut–but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15^th.
     Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.
     When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 July 2006 Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
     For years officials at the Federal Reserve Bank, including Chairman Bernanke himself, have assured us that inflation is under control and not a problem–even as the price of housing, energy, medical care, school tuition, gold, and other commodities skyrockets.
     The Treasury department parrots the Fed line that consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But even many mainstream economists now admit that CPI grossly understates true inflation. The most glaring problem is that CPI excludes housing prices, instead tracking rents. Everyone knows the cost of purchasing a home has increased dramatically in the last ten years; in many regions housing prices have more than doubled in just five years. So price inflation certainly is alive and well when to comes to the largest purchase most Americans make.
     When the Federal Reserve increases the supply of dollars in circulation, both paper and electronic, prices must rise eventually. What other result it possible? The supply of dollars has risen much faster than the supply of goods and services being chased by those dollars. Fed policy makers have more than doubled the money supply in less than ten years. While Treasury printing presses can print unlimited dollars, there are natural limits to economic growth. This flood of newly minted US currency can only increase consumer prices in the long term.
     Mr. Bernanke has stated quite candidly that he will use government printing presses to stimulate the economy as necessary. He is famous for joking that he would endorse dropping money from helicopters if needed to prevent an economic slowdown. This is nothing short of an express policy to destroy our money by inflation. Every new dollar erodes the value of existing dollars based on simple supply and demand. Does anyone really believe the Treasury can make us rich simply by printing more money?
     The coming dollar crisis is not likely to be “fixed” by politicians who are unwilling to make hard choices, admit mistakes, and spend less money. Demographic trends will place even greater demands on Congress to maintain benefits for millions of older Americans who are dependent on the federal government.
     Faced with uncomfortable financial realities, Congress will seek to avoid the day of reckoning by the most expedient means available–and the Federal Reserve undoubtedly will accommodate Washington by printing more dollars to pay the bills. The Fed is the enabler for the spending addicts in Congress, who would rather spend new fiat money than face the political consequences of raising taxes or borrowing more abroad. – The irony is that many of the Fed’s biggest cheerleaders are the same supposed capitalists who denounced centralized economic planning when practiced by the former Soviet Union. Large banks and Wall Street firms love the Fed’s easy money policy, because they profit at the front end from the resulting loan boom and artificially high equity prices. It’s the little guy who loses when the inflated dollars finally trickle down to him and erode his buying power. Someday Americans will understand that Federal Reserve bankers have no magic ability–and certainly no legal or moral right–to decide how much money should exist and what the cost of borrowing money should be.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 July 2006 IRS Threatens Political Speech
     Five years ago, I wrote about threats made by the Internal Revenue Service against conservative churches for supposedly engaging in politicking. Today, the IRS is again attempting to chill free speech, sending notices to more than 15,000 non-profit organizations–including churches–regarding its new crackdown on political activity.
     But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
     I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the government’s business. Congressman Jones introduced legislation that addresses this very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches engaging in conservative political activity. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector.
     The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any “separation of church and state,” yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
     The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
     Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
     The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
     The Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of “politics.” We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.

Texas Straight Talk, 31 July 2006 What Congress Can Do About Higher Gas Prices
     Gasoline prices are soaring and the American people are angry. They want something done about it–now!
     $100 rebate checks to American motorists won’t cut it, nor will mandatory mileage requirements for new vehicles. Taxing oil profits will only force prices higher. But there are some very important things we can do immediately to help.
     First: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure oil. Before the Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped 50%. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple.
     Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is nowhere near getting one. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel.
     Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise–some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
     Exploding deficits, due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of overseas engagements, create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we’re all paying at the pump.
     If we want to do something about gas prices, Congress should greatly reduce federal spending, balance the budget, and eliminate regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. And in the meantime let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 August 2006 The Threat of Rising Property Taxes
     In recent weeks I’ve written about how inflation is alive and well, especially when it comes to the cost of housing, energy, gas, and education. But perhaps the most worrisome type of inflation comes in the form of steadily rising property taxes.
     Property taxes keep going up for most Texans, and people living on fixed incomes are especially concerned. They often find their homes being reassessed every year at values far beyond what they originally paid. So an annual property tax bill that once was a manageable $500 or $700 might now be $1500 or $2000.
     Of course Texas tax laws are made in Austin, not Washington. Assessments are made at the county level. And the Texas legislature recently passed HB1, which does provide some real property tax relief over the next three years.
     But as a Texas taxpayer myself, I would like the state legislature to consider an additional proposal.
     Specifically, end the practice of annual assessments. Properties should be reassessed for tax purposes only when sold or ownership is otherwise transferred. The current system is terrifying for seniors forced to pay more and more each year, with no idea where they will find the money. And unlike other bills, property taxes must be paid or else one’s home can be taken away. My office hears from seniors who may have no choice but to leave Texas altogether because they cannot live with the uncertainty of arbitrary property tax increases. They literally fear losing their homes.
     At the federal level, Congress can act now to provide relief to those paying high property taxes. Although property taxes are deductible on your federal tax return, the current rules require taxpayers to itemize to take the deduction. Many people have a hard time paying $2,000 or $3,000 in property taxes, but they don’t have enough other itemized deductions to exceed the standard deduction.
     I introduced HR 5860 to address this problem. This legislation creates an “above the line deduction” on the first page of your 1040, meaning you can deduct every penny of your property taxes without itemizing and still enjoy the full value of your standard deduction. Even taxpayers using 1040A or 1040EZ forms can take the deduction. This means average and lower income taxpayers can take the same deduction for their property taxes that high-income taxpayers with complex deductions now enjoy.
     Property taxes are only one piece of the puzzle. Overall, most Americans hand over at least 40% of every dollar they make to government at some level. The appetite for your tax dollars–whether at the federal, state, or local level–will continue to grow year after year unless we begin to rethink the proper role for government in our lives. If you think you’ve been squeezed for every last drop of taxes, demand that both your representatives in the statehouse and Washington do something to address spiraling property taxes.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 August 2006 Your Taxes Subsidize China
     Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way.
     Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to the largesse of Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US tax dollars into Beijing’s coffers.
     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.
     Some of your money went to fund a nuclear power plant in Shanghai owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-run company. Many US-based multinational corporations benefit directly from Export-Import Bank subsidies to China, including Boeing, Westinghouse, and McDonnell Douglas. So it’s not hard to understand that business trumps the feelgood rhetoric condemning China.
     There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith.
     In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn’t work that way. I believe that by engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse. The laws of economics dictate that a communist system cannot stand for long. But in the same way, I firmly believe there is a higher law which dictates that people exposed to the principles of liberty will not for long allow themselves to remain shackled to an oppressive government. Economic freedom, i.e. capitalism, now has a strong foothold in China. The Chinese people may soon demand political, religious, and personal freedom as well. But in the meantime let’s stop sending tax dollars to support a government we claim to despise.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 August 2006 Lowering the Cost of Health Care
     As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
     We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses–but not individuals–to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
     While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government–in the form of “universal coverage”–is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
     For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
     The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone–doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies–to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
     The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
     HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief–including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums–to make medical care more affordable.
     HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors–especially obstetricians–out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase “negative outcomes” insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
     HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children’s medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
     HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits–yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 August 2006 A North American United Nations?
     Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP).” In reality, this new “partnership” will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
     According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a “dialogue” launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
     What is a “dialogue”? We don’t know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a “dialogue” that many see as a plan for a North American union.
     According to the SPP website, this “dialogue” will create new supra-national organizations to “coordinate” border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
     Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
     Let’s examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP’s US government website:
     “We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007”
     Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a “trilateral regulatory cooperation” not undermine our national sovereignty?
     The website also states SPP’s goal to “[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research.” Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
     Also alarming are SPP pledges to “work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products.” That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans’ health freedom.
     Even more troubling are reports that under this new “partnership,” a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
     This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda.” I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any “broad and ambitious” effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 September 2006 Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights
     In recent weeks I’ve written about the threat of rising property taxes posed by state and local governments hungry for more and more of your money; and the threat of widespread eminent domain actions posed by a planned North American superhighway running straight through Texas. It’s clear that many political and business interests are only too willing to drive people literally out of their homes to make way for the grand schemes of those in power.

     This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.

     Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.
     The Kelo case demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it’s easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope things don’t get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.
     Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property.� I’ve introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation.� But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. �The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas,�could start by removing from office local officials who�have so little respect for property rights.\n
     Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I’ve introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 September 2006 Immigration Reform in 2006?
     With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.
     But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now–not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.
     Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.
     Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points:
     First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals.
     Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
     Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.
     Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
     Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth.
     Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
     If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 September 2006 Amnesty and the Welfare State
     Last week I spoke about simple steps Congress should take to address the problem of illegal immigration. Simple, however, does not mean easy. While the American people are demanding real immigration reform, many in Washington lack the political will to do what is required.
     That’s why I’ve joined my colleagues in the House Immigration Reform caucus in demanding legislation this year that focuses on securing physical control of our borders while rejecting amnesty in any form. Congress has taken notice, and took an important first step last week by passing the Secure Fence Act of 2006–legislation that provides physical security by lengthening border walls and creating a virtual border fence that extends thousands of miles.
     But many Senators, Representatives, and administration officials remain committed to pursuing amnesty in some form. The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and most of the immigration reform proposals in both chambers of Congress certainly meet that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa and ultimately citizenship. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.
     What message does this send to the rest of the world? If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
     The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants–certainly not all–receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here.
     Illegal immigrants also threaten to place a tremendous strain on federal social entitlement programs. Successive administrations support so-called “totalization” agreements that allow millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for Social Security and other programs–programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning. Social Security is in serious trouble already, and sending benefits abroad to millions of illegal aliens who once worked here will cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Every American who hopes to collect Social Security someday should stridently oppose totalization and amnesty proposals. The problems associated with illegal immigration will not be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address them until we take the hard steps of securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reclaiming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 September 2006 Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
     No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care very troubling.
     The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
     It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
     One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.
     Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
     As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 October 2006 Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
     A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14^th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.
     In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.
     This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.
     No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.
     Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.
     Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.
     Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
     I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14^th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.
     Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14^th amendment.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 October 2006 Deficit Spending and Social Security
     During a speech in Washington last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation will place tremendous strains on the nation’s budget and economy. He stresses that Social Security and Medicare must be reformed sooner rather than later, because demographic trends make the current system unsustainable over time. In future decades there will be too many retirees and not enough younger taxpayers.
     Still, the problem seems vague and faraway for most. Today’s seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress doesn’t want to face the problem until it becomes an acute crisis. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant problem. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
     The only honest solution to the future insolvency of Social Security is for Congress to stop spending so much money. When Congress outspends federal revenues, it raids Social Security funds to cover the difference. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending–and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs–millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things.
     Congress can begin addressing the problem immediately by cutting at least 5% from other areas of the federal budget every year for the next five years. The budget has nearly tripled just since 1990; surely Congress can find 5% worth of fat to cut each year. When members of Congress vote for bigger and bigger appropriations bills each year, they threaten the very solvency of Social Security. That’s why I vote against every wasteful appropriations bill.
     Social Security contributions are supposed to be set aside from general revenues and placed in a trust fund. The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Over the decades Congress found itself simply unable to sit on a big pile of money, so it began treating Social Security contributions as general revenues to fund the ever-growing federal government. Today your Social Security account is nothing more than a ledger filled with IOUs.
     I introduced legislation to end this terrible practice. Under my bill, HR 219, your Social Security contributions are set aside in an interest-bearing account and cannot be spent. In other words, your Social Security account would be treated as YOUR account and not a slush fund for Congress. This is the simplest approach to Social Security reform, and it has the added benefit of making it harder for Congress and the administration to mask the deficit spending that is the real cause of our problems.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 October 2006 Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
     In Washington we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts, but the rhetoric does not always match the reality. For most Americans, taxes remain too complex and too high. After the tumult of the upcoming midterm election, it is imperative that Congress gets back to basics and addresses our terrible tax system.
     Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes–rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury.
     Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16^th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us–and more each year–the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.
     I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system.
     The question to ask yourself is this: What would I do with the money withheld from my paycheck each month? The answer is simple: you would spend, save, or invest the money, all of which do more for the economy and society than sending it to Washington. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!
     Tax relief is important, but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts–and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending.
     Cutting spending would not be hard if Congress simply showed the political will to tackle the problem. I’m not talking about cutting the rate at which government spending grows, but cutting the actual amount of money spent by the federal government in a single year.
     If federal spending grows at 5% rather than 7% one year, that’s hardly a great achievement on the part of Congress. The current federal budget of around $2.7 trillion could be cut to $2.5 trillion quite easily. The vast majority of Americans would not even notice. But we must begin chipping away at the federal budget if we hope to address the underlying problem of government debt.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 October 2006 Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
     Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose–through their elected representatives–to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
     You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!
     Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
     I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
     Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1^st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
     One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible–the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.
     Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 October 2006 The NAFTA Superhighway
     By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
     This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.
     This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.
     Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.
     The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.
     The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.
     The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
     The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution–which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
     The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union–complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
     A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election. Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight–and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 November 2006 Gun Control on the Back Burner
     For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes.
     The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11^th terrorist attacks and last year’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.
     Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
     The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the “assault rifles” vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market.
     The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
     It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, “That could never happen here, this is America.” But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.
     Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
     Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best–and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms–is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 November 2006 Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State
     The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is an investigative arm of Congress charged with the thankless task of accounting for the money received and spent by the federal government. As you might imagine, people who spend all day examining the nitty-gritty realities of federal spending and deficits might not share the voters’ enthusiasm for grand campaign promises.
     David Walker, Comptroller General at GAO, has been on a speaking tour of the U.S recently–and he pulls no punches when explaining just how precarious our nation’s entitlement system really is.
     He explains that Social Security and Medicare are headed for a train wreck because of demographic trends and rising health care costs. The number of younger taxpayers for each older retiree will continue to decline. The demand for “free” prescription drugs under Medicare will explode. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes.
     Furthermore, Walker asserts, we cannot grow our way out of this problem. Faster economic growth can only delay the inevitable hard choices. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.
     In short, Mr. Walker is telling the political class that the status quo cannot be maintained. He is to be commended for his refreshing honesty and unwillingness to provide excuses for the two political parties, the administration, or the even the entitlement-minded American public.
     I urge everyone interested to visit the GAO website at www.gao.gov, where you can view a report entitled: “Our Nation’s Fiscal Outlook: The Federal Government’s Long-Term Budget Imbalance.” This report should be required reading for every politician in Washington.
     Are ever growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do these expenditures, and the resulting deficits, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should younger taxpayers be expected to provide retirement security and health care even for affluent retirees? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded by Congress each year constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain programs were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people must ask, even though Congress lacks the courage to do so.
     If we hope to avoid a calamitous financial future for our nation, we must address the hardest question of all: What is the proper role for government in our society? The answer to this question will determine how prosperous and free we remain in the decades to come.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 November 2006 Milton Friedman 1912-2006
     The death of economist Milton Friedman last week at the age of 94 marks a great loss for advocates of freedom everywhere. He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20^th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy. Many modern politicians, including Ronald Reagan, considered him a major influence in their careers.
     Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense.
     I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life.
     His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.
     The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don’t understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.
     Our schools teach children virtually nothing about economics and personal finance, which leaves them woefully unprepared for the working world. It also creates whole generations of young Americans who are incredibly vulnerable to the worst pandering politicians.
     We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 November 2006 Rethinking the Draft
     Once again the possibility of reinstating a military draft is being discussed in Washington, and while the idea seems remote it is not unthinkable.
     Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, soon to be a powerful committee chair, has openly called for reinstating the Selective Service System. Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey claims that our ground forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq are stretched far too thin, and desperately need reinforcements. Meanwhile, other political and military leaders suggest that several hundred thousand additional troops might be needed simply to restore some semblance of order in Iraq. We are nearing the point where a choice will have to be made: either decrease our troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan significantly, or produce thousands of new military recruits quickly. So a discussion of military conscription is not purely academic.
     Yet the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft. A Pentagon report stated that draft registration could be eliminated “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.
     So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country labeled a threat or deemed ripe for regime change. Given the choice, many in Congress would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.
     Military needs aside, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government. The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm’s way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state–a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence.
     To many politicians, the American government is America. This is why, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
     I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but also preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and resign military conscription to the dustbin of American history. Five hundred million dollars have been wasted on Selective Service since 1979, money that could have been returned to taxpayers or spent to improve the lives of our nation’s veterans.
     Ronald Reagan said it best: “The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral.” The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 December 2006 Monetary Inflation is the Problem
     The financial press reported last week that the value of the U.S. dollar plummeted to a 14-year low against the British pound, and weakened against the Euro and Yen. Many financial analysts predict continued rough times for the dollar in 2007, given reduced expectations for economic growth at home and less enthusiasm among foreign central banks for holding U.S. debt.
     This decline in the value of the dollar is simple to explain. The dollar loses value as the direct result of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury increasing the money supply. Inflation, as the late Milton Friedman explained, is always a monetary phenomenon. The federal government consistently wants to spend more than it can tax and borrow, so Congress turns to the Fed for help in covering the difference. The result is more dollars, both real and electronic–which means the value of every existing dollar goes down.
     Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faces two basic ongoing choices: raise interest rates to prop up the dollar, but risk pushing the economy into a recession; or lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, but risk further declines in the dollar. This unfortunate dilemma is inherent with a fiat currency, however.
     Of course Mr. Bernanke inherited this tightrope act from his predecessor Alan Greenspan. The Federal Reserve did two things to artificially expand the economy during the Greenspan era. First, it relentlessly lowered interest rates whenever growth slowed. Interest rates should be set by the free market, with the availability of savings determining the cost of borrowing money. In a healthy market economy, more savings equals lower interest rates. When savings rates are low, capital dries up and the cost of borrowing increases.
     However, when the Fed sets interest rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. Individuals incur greater amounts of debt, while businesses overextend themselves and grow without real gains in productivity. The bubble bursts quickly once the credit dries up and the bills cannot be paid.
     Second, the Fed steadily increased the monetary supply throughout the 1990s by printing money. Recent Fed numbers show double-digit annual increases in the M2 money supply. These new dollars may make Americans feel richer, but the net result of monetary inflation has to be the devaluation of savings and purchasing power. The precipitous drop in the dollar shows how investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When government policies in a fiat system are the sole measure of a currency’s worth, the currency markets act as a reliable barometer of how those policies are viewed around the world. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 December 2006 Who Makes Foreign Policy?
     The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”
     In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.
     The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
     The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
     Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:

The president’s authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.

     But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
     Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
     So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct–and bring to a conclusion–properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
     It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20^th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.


Texas Straight Talk, 18 December 2006 The Original Foreign Policy It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. George Washington
     Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
     But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
     I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
     Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
     Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
     Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
     Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
     It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 December 2006 More of the Same in 2007
     Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. In Iraq, however, war rages on with no end in sight.
     The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same–much more–when it comes to Iraq.
     President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory.
     In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible.
     In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars.
     This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation–which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same.
     The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has requested an additional $100 billion to keep the war going. This money will not be included in the annual budget or deficit numbers, but will be whitewashed as an “off-budget” expenditure.
     If all this were not enough, the president has ordered aircraft carrier groups to position themselves in the Persian Gulf in a new show of bellicosity toward Iran.
     Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same.
     In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it–or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government.
     Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 January 2007 The World’s Reserve Currency
     The financial press reported last week that the euro, the new currency created only five years ago and used by most European nations, has supplanted the U.S. dollar as the most widely used form of cash internationally. There are now more Euros in circulation worldwide than dollars.
     This alone is not necessarily troubling, as the dollar remains the world’s most important reserve currency. About 65% of foreign central bank exchange reserves are still held in dollars, versus only about 25% in euros. And the European Central Bank faces the same inflationary pressures that our own Federal Reserve Bank Governors face, including a growing entitlement burden that threatens economic ruin as both societies age. European politicians want to spend money just as badly as American politicians, and undoubtedly will clamor to inflate–and thus devalue–the euro to fund their creaky social welfare systems.
     Still, the rise of the Euro internationally is another sign that the U.S. dollar is not what it used to be. There is increasing pressure on nations to buy and sell oil in euros, and anecdotal evidence suggests that drug dealers and money launderers now prefer euros to dollars. Historically, the underground cash economy has always sought the most stable and valuable paper currency to conduct business.
     More importantly, our greatest benefactors for the last twenty years–Asian central banks–have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.
     Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
     At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate–both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.

Texas Straight Talk, 8 January 2007 Totalization is a Bad Idea
     Through a Freedom of Information Act Request, a private group recently obtained a copy of a 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to receive Social Security benefits.
     The agreement creates a so-called “totalization” plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.
     Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
     It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work.
     There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousand of noncitizens to the Social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.
     Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it’s unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.
     Also, totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits–especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
     Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country’s aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.

Texas Straight Talk, 15 January 2007 Escalation in the Middle East
     While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.
     The president stated last week that, “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity–and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.” He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran.
     As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran–possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!
     This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran?
     We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.
     The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.
     The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:
     “… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.”
     In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism.

Texas Straight Talk, 22 January 2007 Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?
     Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
     Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
     The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.
     Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.
     Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.
     This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.
     It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace. The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

Texas Straight Talk, 29 January 2007 Inflation and War Finance
     The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit projections. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.
     This is fundamentally dishonest: if we’re going to have a war, let’s face the costs–both human and economic–squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.
     As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
     Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
     The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
     Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That’s why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
     For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.
     The $500 billion we’ve officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it’s really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 February 2007 Political Power and the Rule of Law
     With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We’re subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word “power,” or considers its connotations. It’s simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.
     The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us–we’re supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
     Remember that one’s relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
     The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20^th century’s worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
     Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate–not political victories.
     Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.
     In a free society, government is restrained–and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
     Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision. Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 February 2007 Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
     Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon–and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.
     Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.
     Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007–and the administration has made it clear that we will–the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.
     I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.
     Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.
     The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future. We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down–all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now–by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 February 2007 Monetary Policy is Critically Important
     Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies twice every year before the congressional Financial Services committee, and I look forward to these opportunities to raise questions about monetary policy. I believe monetary policy is critically important yet overlooked in Washington. Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation’s currency means control over its economic well being. Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates. Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck. So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.
     The following are some excerpted comments from my opening remarks at the hearing with Mr. Bernanke:
     Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.
     Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.
     The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.
     But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.
     Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power–especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition–is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.
     We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few. Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.
     For example: Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker’s pay. Today, it’s closer to 500 times. It’s hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity. One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion. There’s little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.
     In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.
     How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?
     We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 February 2007 Hypocrisy in the Middle East
     Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11^th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
     Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11^th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East.
     The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
     Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.
     The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan–just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
     A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries–as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.

Texas Straight Talk, 5 March 2007 The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
     David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.
     If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”
     When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed–it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.
     The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.
     The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private sector output!
     The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.
     The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars–a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.
     Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.
     The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Texas Straight Talk, 12 March 2007 The DC Gun Ban
     Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2^nd Amendment rights in the nation’s capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia’s nonsensical argument that the 2^nd Amendment confers only a “collective right,” something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
     Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1^st, 4^th, and 5^th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. “Group rights” is an oxymoron.
     Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King’s soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
     In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2^nd Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia,” it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
     The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
     Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe–as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book “More Guns, Less Crime,” scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control–like Washington DC–experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
     Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People’s lives and safety are at stake.
     Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

Texas Straight Talk, 19 March 2007 Don’t Blame Market for Housing Bubble
     The U.S. housing market, long considered vulnerable by many economists, is now on the verge of suffering a serious collapse in many regions. Commodities guru and hedge fund manager Jim Rogers warns that real estate in expensive bubble areas will drop 40 or 50%. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are reporting breathlessly about the possibility of widespread defaults on subprime mortgages.
     When the bubble finally bursts completely, millions of Americans will be looking for someone to blame. Look for Congress to hold hearings into subprime lending practices and “predatory” mortgages. We’ll hear a lot of grandstanding about how unscrupulous lenders took advantage of poor people, and how rampant speculation caused real estate markets around the country to overheat. It will be reminiscent of the Enron hearings, and the message will be explicitly or implicitly the same: free-market capitalism, left unchecked, leads to greed, fraud, and unethical if not illegal business practices.
     But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy–through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money–caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending.
     The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.
     This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed’s easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed.
     The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it.
     Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom.
     The Federal Reserve provides the mother’s milk for the booms and busts wrongly associated with a mythical “business cycle.” Imagine a Brinks truck driving down a busy street with the doors wide open, and money flying out everywhere, and you’ll have a pretty good analogy for Fed policies over the last two decades. Unless and until we get the Federal Reserve out of the business of creating money at will and setting interest rates, we will remain vulnerable to market bubbles and painful corrections. If housing prices plummet and millions of Americans find themselves owing more than their homes are worth, the blame lies squarely with Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

Texas Straight Talk, 26 March 2007 More Funding for the War in Iraq
     Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.
     I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.
     Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.
     What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.
     While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.
     In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.
     Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.
     To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran–as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 April 2007 The 2008 Federal Budget
     The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
     To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
     About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
     For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
     The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
     My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
     Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.
     The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 April 2007 The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
     Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better “regulate” things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues’ questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke’s job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
     Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
     Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
     The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch–Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference–that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
     The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement. The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic–or so they believe.
     Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 April 2007 Racism and Government
     The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
     The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.
     It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1^st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”
     Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
     In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
     The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
     Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
     The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
     More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 April 2007 Security and Liberty
     The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11^th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
     Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
     The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
     Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
     I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
     Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 April 2007 Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again
     This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation.
     In this final version, the House leadership retained billions of dollars in pork meant to attract skeptical votes, retained a watered-down version of the problematic “benchmarks” that seek to micromanage the war effort, and continued to play politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance. In other words, this final version was even worse than the original in almost all respects.
     As I wrote when this measure first came before the House, we have to make a clear distinction between the Constitutional authority of Congress to make foreign policy, and the Constitutional authority of the president, as commander in chief, to direct the management of any military operation. We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request.
     If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general.
     What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible.
     Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 May 2007 Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
     Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
     There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
     HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts–as opposed to willful criminal acts–is inconsistent with a free society.
     HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
     Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
     Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 May 2007 Security, Washington-Style
     Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans.
     Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created.
     I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.
     When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that–at the least–FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission–to protect us from external threats–and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy.“
     Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement.
     Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so.
     Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 21 May 2007 Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq
     Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.
     More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq.
     According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:
     “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
     (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
     I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States.
     As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
     With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?
     This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq.
     Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 May 2007 Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
     The much-vaunted Senate “compromise” on immigration is a compromise alright: a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment. That anyone in Washington believes this is a credible approach to solving our immigration crisis suggests just how out of touch our political elites really are.
     The reality is that this bill will grant amnesty to virtually all of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. Supporters use very creative language to try and convince us that amnesty is not really amnesty, but when individuals who have entered the United States illegally are granted citizenship–regardless of the fees they are charged–what you have is amnesty.
     What is seldom discussed in the immigration debate, unfortunately, is the incentives the US government provides for people to enter the United States illegally. As we know well, when the government subsidizes something we get more of it. The government provides a myriad of federal welfare benefits to those who come to the US illegally, including food stamps and free medical care. Is this a way to discourage people from coming to the US illegally?
     Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
     There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico, and the prime minister of Canada, known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.” This somewhat secretive agreement–a treaty in all but name–aims to erase the borders between the United States, Canada, and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated!
     According to the pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners of America, the legislation also makes it easier to target gun dealers for prosecution. Even gun clubs could find themselves targeted under this immigration reform legislation.
     Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.
     I will continue to oppose any immigration bill that grants amnesty to illegals or undermines our liberty and sovereignty.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 June 2007 The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq
     Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.
     The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives.
     All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served.
     The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight.
     Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so.
     Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.
     This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other.
     Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq, yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.
     It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 June 2007 Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American
     Although action in the United States Senate this week has slowed passage of the amnesty bill, it is not yet dead as President Bush remains committed to this approach. That is why the President recently suggested that those of us who oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants are unpatriotic. Those of us who strongly oppose the new immigration reform bill before the Senate “don’t want to do what’s right for America,” the president said. I reject that assessment as unfair and inaccurate.
     Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws.
     To make matters worse, as I wrote in a recent column, some 120 of our best trained border guards are going to be sent to Iraq to help them with border enforcement! In addition, National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start on the Mexican border are scheduled to also be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
     This legislation purports to crack down hard at our borders, but as we have learned time and time again, you cannot address enforcement until you address incentives. That is why you cannot have border security with an amnesty program in place: the incentive of amnesty undermines any crack-down on border protection and in fact just makes work for our Border Patrol all the more difficult. Incentives in place to those who would come to the United States illegally will remain in place if this legislation is passed. Illegal immigrants will still receive federal assistance and free medical care and their children will still gain automatic citizenship after this bill is passed. We need to face the fact that securing our borders means more than legislation, or fences, or even more Border Patrol. It means removing incentives for people to come to the US illegally in the first place. That is why I will once again introduce an amendment to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship this coming week.
     Although the “reform” of immigration in the amnesty bill is enough to cause alarm, other highly troubling provisions are tucked away that will serve to undermine our sovereignty and weaken our civil liberties. According to the most recent version of the Senate bill, the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America is to be “accelerated.” It seems ironic that a project aiming to actually weaken US borders with Mexico and Canada would be added into a bill that purports to toughen border controls.
     Also, this bill will bring us closer to a national ID card, which without a doubt runs counter to American values and history and will punish American citizens without doing much to counter those who would come here illegally.
     I strongly disagree with the president that opposing this legislation is unpatriotic. I believe we have an obligation to reject any legislation that promises amnesty to those here illegally, and that undermines the sovereignty and privacy of American citizens.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 June 2007 Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
     Last week’s big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
     Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds–their tax dollars–than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
     The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
     So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
     Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
     So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 June 2007 Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
     The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
     On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
     In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.
     Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.
     Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents– often heavily-armed federal agents–to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
     If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.
     Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 July 2007 Recapturing the Spirit of Independence
     This week Americans will gather around the grill, attend parades and watch fireworks displays, all in the celebration of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. At the same time, we will have thousands of bureaucrats, troops and agents stationed in countries across the globe being paid by American tax dollars.
     On the anniversary of our declaring our own independence from the British, it is certainly appropriate that we reflect on the nature and spirit of independent nationhood. While our founding fathers were individual men in a historically unique situation, they posited that the principles upon which they rested our national independence were timeless.
     If we truly honor the men who brought about Independence Day, we would do well to spend at least as much time reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, and the principles upon which it is based, as we spend at the cookouts, parades, and fireworks displays. With the trend toward globalism that has been with us for the past century, we should be specifically thoughtful about how our celebration of independence can be made consistent with the policies that have been advocated by the American government–as well as many of the nation’s elite–or what we used to call the Eastern Establishment.
     I believe there is no way to square our nation’s traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing. The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.
     At the same time, if we allow the erosion of that idea, by ignoring it in certain instances, we will be contributing to its erosion in all times and nations, even our own. In this way our nation’s independence is linked with the independence of all nations. The sooner we realize this truth, and enact a foreign policy that is consistent with it, the sooner we will be able to recapture the spirit of independence.
     In addition, as our founding fathers understood, the idea of national independence is inseparable from that of constitutional republicanism. Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire. Recognizing these same protections is also the very best way to eliminate the need for civil wars and the violence of civil strife.
     Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 July 2007 Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance
     Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the President issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the President essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation–up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional–hence often refusing to enforce them.
     The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted. This approach is especially worrisome for several reasons.
     First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, thus upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances. Next, these statements grant the President power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch. Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enacted in order to avoid.
     Although these signing statements are at record high numbers, the problem is not with a single administration. Contrary to the claims of those who raise this issue for purely political purposes, the most significant challenge to liberty presented by these statements is that they can serve to further erode our constitutional republic.
     I have long been skeptical of the line item veto on spending bills for the same reason I oppose these signing statements. The legislature should not yield its authority to the executive. Our constitutional republic demands that all branches of government understand and respect our system and jealously guard their own prerogatives.
     In modern Washington nothing is more misunderstood, and less appreciated, than the genius of republicanism. Presidents issue signing statements that effectively “approve in part and reject in part,” laws of the land–even though there is no constitutional provision for such a process. In addition, Congress cedes its powers at the crucial moment when a decision on whether or not a war is to be fought will be made, only to then criticize the effort it could have used its powers to stop.
     In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and directly about the idea of elected representatives delegating their responsibility to other branches of government, saying in no uncertain terms that since such representatives had received their authority by delegation from the people–expressly for the use as representative–the legislature had to choose to either use the authority granted or return it to the people. In other words, there is to be no delegation of authority from the representatives to the executive branch of government.
     Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 July 2007 Globalism
     The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.
     Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”
     The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.
     We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy”–the underlying principle is globalism.
     Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.
     The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.
     Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.
     The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 July 2007 Exposing the True Isolationists
     Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.
     Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.
     In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.
     In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad.
     America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.
     Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.
     Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board?
     To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 July 2007 The Fear Factor
     While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
     Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
     The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.
     As Washington moves towards its summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
     It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.
     To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
     Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.
     Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.
     It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 August 2007 As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues
     These last few weeks the House has been in a rush to pass spending bills before August recess. In fact, visitors walking the hallways of Congress become immediately struck by the apparent spending battle between the “conservative Democrats” of the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition,” and the Republican Study Committee, or RSC, generally representing the more conservative bloc of Republican House members. Members of each of these groups place large posters on easels outside their offices. The purpose behind this seems clear, to point the finger at the opposite party for the current budget mess that continues to threaten America’s future.
     When Republicans had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, very little was done to stem the tide of federal spending. In fact, spending increased every year over the past decade. New programs such as “No Child Left Behind,” and entitlements like the Prescription Drug Benefit, were added at great cost to federal taxpayers.
     During this period, the Blue Dogs continued to make the rhetorical point of government financial misdeeds. Now that Democrats control the House, the RSC is highlighting the increases in spending and debt that will occur based on bills passed this year by the new majority.
     While both sides continue attempting to score political points, the country goes further and further into debt, because neither side is really willing to make the tough decisions necessary to halt the run away train of federal spending. Several Republicans go to the House floor with amendments to stop spending directed by Congress, often seeking to cut projects that total $100,000 or less. While it is true that hundreds of thousands can and do add up, the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq. At the same time, basically every spending bill that comes to the House Floor would have the majority spend more, even over and above the increases requested by the Administration.
     Current arguments over spending really have no connection to the idea of the overall reduction in the size and scope of government. The Democrats who argue that tax cuts are a form of spending are just as misleading as the Republicans who say they can make a serious dent by changing congressionally directed spending into administration directed spending.
     The federal government has a spending problem. Each year our current accounts balance gets worse and worse, and the amount of foreign held government debt has skyrocketed. Both Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, liberals and moderates, indeed nearly every single-member of the Washington political establishment, is addicted to one form of federal spending or another.
     Only when the American people absolutely demand that the spending spree be stopped, will their representatives in Washington stop using this issue as a political football to score public relations points, and finally face-up to the fact that we are a nation in a very precarious financial position, which demands real spending cuts in order to avoid bankrupting our next generation.


Texas Straight Talk, 13 August 2007 High Risk Spending
     Last week this column addressed the train wreck that federal spending has become. To score political points politicians will make loud noise about fairly small matters such as earmarks, even while refusing to address the real problem. Namely, that our federal government is too big and does too much. Politicians prefer to pass a bill or create a program every time somebody points to a new social problem, this way they can tell their constituents how much they are doing to help. Instead of rationally explaining the proper role of government, politicians have attempted to play the role of friend, preacher, parent, social worker, etcetera–in essence, whatever any organized special interest can demand.
     Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington.
     One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur.
     You see, while waste, fraud and abuse are very easy to attack, it seems they are much more difficult to actually address within the current federal behemoth. For example, the General Accounting Office puts out a “high risk list” and describes this list as programs with “vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.”
     There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts, the list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous.
     What GAO is saying is that a problem exists, we have been aware of it for 17 years, and it is still not corrected. Of course, with the size and scope of federal activity, including attempting to rebuild societies in the middle east, and massively expanding federal involvement in education (along with thousands of other “programs”), it is small wonder that this list doesn’t really get addressed. Yet it does seem reasonable to ask “If you can’t stop waste in 6 federal programs after 17 years, how exactly will you improve local schools or foreign nations?”
     In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 August 2007 High Risk Credit
     As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.
     More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.
     The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
     In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.
     The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.
     We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.
     As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 August 2007 Aging Infrastructure
     The recent and tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota raises many questions in Americans’ minds about our aging infrastructure, and what is being done to maintain it. Questions such as: “Was I-35 an isolated accident or are we approaching days when crumbling bridges and bursting pipes will be regular features on the evening news?”
     The poor ratings on the inspection report of that bridge, and similar deficiency findings on as many as 25% of our bridges suggests the latter. Estimates on what it will cost to bring deficiencies in our infrastructure back up to par range from massive to astronomical.
     Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.
     As the so-called Highway Trust Fund is set to go bankrupt as early as 2009, private investment firms are gearing up for partnerships, which could be a positive step, if handled sensibly. What we need to avoid are items such as the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), which is phase 1 of the NAFTA Super Highway. The Spanish firm Cintra is set to take over toll collections after the TTC’s completion, however it is unclear that they’ll have any obligations for maintenance. The cost is being socialized, while the profit is privatized, effectively making the American people pay for it twice.
     Infrastructure, in a capitalist model, is an asset worthy of maintaining to ensure continuity of revenue. In a government controlled model infrastructure is nothing but a cumbersome liability. This should be taken into consideration when developing plans to keep our current infrastructure safe. Privatization should be used to encourage maintenance and safety, and where private companies truly invest and bear the upfront costs in return for ability to collect tolls or usage fees in some form. But public/private partnerships that look more like corporate welfare must be avoided.
     We should re-examine how we handle the taxes we collect for infrastructure and how we allocate that money. At the very least reins need to be put on the Highway Trust Fund. Funds collected from the gas tax should go into the Trust Fund–period.
     Even the most ardent liberal and passionate conservative can agree that when they pay gasoline taxes, the least they expect is a road and bridge system that won’t crumble beneath their feet. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 September 2007 Surrender Should not be an Option
     Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.
     In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the “mission is accomplished”, the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
     They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can’t be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.
     The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.
     The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
     The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn’t require they surrender their liberties.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 September 2007 Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin Washington is building for the US economy. Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way. A “pilot” program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States. Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns. Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.
     Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.
     The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don’t pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs–consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.
     Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can’t afford to lose that.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 September 2007 The Sunlight Rule
     Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Indeed some of the most malignant growth of our government has been nurtured under a cover of darkness.
     Literally, in the dark hours of the morning at the end of the year, it has become tradition for the Appropriations committee to rush the famous omnibus bill to the floor for a vote, mere hours after it is introduced. The vote took place at 4 am the last time an omnibus spending bill was before us. We had all of 4 hours to deliberate on almost 1400 pages of important legislation. My colleagues somehow found this acceptable, however, and the bill passed 212-206.
     The bill for the Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was also rushed to the floor with little time to examine the lengthy text of the legislation. If approved by the Senate this measure would increase taxes by an additional $53.8 billion over 5 years and further extend the federal government’s reach into the healthcare of American citizens. Similar processes were followed for raising the minimum wage, providing funding for stem cell research and implementing the 9-11 conference.
     Of course, the most well-known example of this phenomenon might be the Patriot Act. Legislators passed the 300+ page bill less than a day after it was introduced, many out of an urgency to do something. But we are sent to Washington to make informed decisions on public policy. The very least constituents expect is that their elected representatives read the legislation citizens will be subject to, and taxed for. And once they have read it, to weigh the constitutionality and the merits of the legislation. How can lawmakers possibly do that without reasonable time allotted?
     This has long been a concern of mine, and for this reason I have reintroduced The Sunlight Rule. (H.RES 63) This proposed rule stipulates that no piece of legislation can be brought before the House of Representatives for a vote unless it has been available to members and staff to read for at least ten days. Any amendments must be available for at least 72 hours before a vote. The Sunlight Rule provides the American people the opportunity to be involved in enforcing congressional rules by allowing citizens to move for censure of any Representative who votes for a bill brought to the floor in violation of this act.
     So far I have two co-sponsors. It is my belief that this simple new rule could greatly disinfect the House of the creeping, insidious growth, merely by shining the light on legislation before it is voted on. We need time to think before we enact. The American people deserve at least this much from their Congress.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 September 2007 The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
     After the current turmoil in the markets, I was hoping that new Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would see the big picture and act judiciously. Instead he signaled, with an aggressive rate cut, that we can expect a continuation of the monetary policies that got us here to begin with. Alan Greenspan released his memoir this week explaining his policies and decisions in the wake of the irrational exuberance they fueled. His successor should see that it is now time for a change of policy that addresses the root of our troubles. But instead of seeing an inflation problem, the Federal Reserve sees a liquidity problem, which is a little like extinguishing a forest fire with gasoline. In the wake of the rate cut, the Dow jumped and brokers cheered. Behind the headlines, however, the dollar quietly fell and was abandoned by more of the world in favor of more solid stores of wealth.
     The Fed does not act in a vacuum. Mr. Greenspan rightly criticizes Congress and the administration for abandoning principles of fiscal responsibility. However, monetary policy at the Fed did nothing solve money problems, but merely delayed impending crises by creating bubbles.
     In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card. We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending. Yet the market for US Treasury Bonds is rapidly shrinking as yield declines. Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq, not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost.
     Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but we are running out of sources to tap.
     Printing more money is the Fed’s typical answer, but we are on the verge of runaway inflation. We have printed so many dollars now that we are at parity with the Canadian dollar for the first time since 1976. Since the Fed stopped publishing M3, which tracks the total supply of dollars in the economy, we can’t even be sure how many dollars they are creating. Reported inflation is around 2%, but the method for calculating inflation changed in the 1980’s, largely at Mr. Greenspan’s urging. Private economists using the original method find actual inflation to be over 10%, which matches more closely the pain consumers in the real economy feel.
     The reality is that this type of manipulation of the markets masks where resources, or money, ultimately comes from. It comes from the taxpayer. The government doesn’t create Gross Domestic Product, they just limit and control how it is done. They then absorb much of the value produced in the economy through taxation and inflation, so they can squander our nation’s wealth with runaway spending.
     The Fed tries to keep up with government’s spending habits, but is sending inaccurate signals to mask bad monetary policy. Ultimately, we’ll get back on track financially only when government spending is held in check and the free market controls monetary policy, not the other way around.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 September 2007 Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous to Children
     This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.
     Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.
     With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.
     Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.
     As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.
     Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.
     We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 October 2007 Keeping Promises to Seniors
     With our country’s finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending. The predictable answer to the government’s voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in Iraq. Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon. We must keep these promises.
     An analysis of the Social Security “Trust Fund” shows we are not doing a credible job of keeping these promises. Official reports show the trust fund having assets of $2.1 trillion. In reality, those dollars are just IOUs the government is writing to itself when it borrows from the fund to spend on unrelated programs. There are no real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. This is similar to taking money out of your savings account, spending it, then replacing it with an IOU to yourself, and calling that IOU an asset.
     In addition, this money we owe to our seniors is not even included in official budget deficit figures. In fiscal year 2006 alone, $185 billion was borrowed from Social Security. The official deficit was reported to be $248 billion. The actual deficit for 2006 would be $433 billion when combining the two. This sort of accounting would land private sector executives in prison for fraud.
     Yet this is done every year by the federal government. The truth is that while politicians in Washington differ about what programs to spend Social Security money on, they are united in wanting to spend it on something other than benefits for seniors.
     This approach can continue only until Social Security stops running “surpluses” the government can raid. Trustees of Social Security estimate this will happen in 2017. At that time, the amount owed to the Trust Fund will be between $4 trillion and $5.2 trillion, depending on the economy.
     When that day of reckoning comes, there will no longer be “excess” payroll tax receipts available to prop up government spending, and the risk of financial crisis will be significant. Instead of forward thinking solutions, politicians are discussing alarming proposals, such as an agreement with Mexico to let their citizens collect social security money intended for our seniors. This would break the bank even sooner. But, current Members of Congress will no longer be in office to face the wrath of seniors and their families when the trust fund goes bankrupt. Instead, they will be retired and enjoying their own plush Congressional pensions.
     I have been working to reverse this trend. My Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219 would make sure this Trust Fund has real assets such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions so that in 2017 and beyond, Social Security payments would continue for those who are depending on them.
     Congress must take action now, so we can keep the promises we made to our seniors.

Texas Straight Talk, 14 October 2007 Taxing Ourselves to Death
     This past week, Congress had an opportunity to permanently repeal the death tax by amending the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 to include language that ends the estate tax forever. This would have been a good provision in an overall bad bill. 212 Democrats were enough to keep this spectre looming on the horizon if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed in 2011. The bill passed without this silver lining and now we face big in increases taxes and penalties in the next five years.
     The underlying attitude behind this bill, and the estate tax, is what I find so distressing about tax policy in this country today–that being a growing disregard for property rights, which are so important to the American dream.
     The basic tenets of the American dream are that through hard work and ingenuity, you can earn a better life for yourself, and you can give your children a better start than you had. Surveying American history this vision has played out through steady economic progress and growth from one generation to the next. Our prosperity now is our reward for hard work and achievement in the past. Today we are the strongest economy in the world, and have much to be proud of, but Congress doesn’t seem to understand that we did not tax our way here.
     Conversely, a nation certainly can tax its way out of prosperity, and that’s one danger I see with this bill, and with policies like the death tax.
     The death tax punishes one of the greatest and ultimate satisfactions of achieving the American dream–the knowledge that your life’s work is an investment in your family’s future. Instead of being able to focus on hard work, however, death tax provisions keep countless estate planners working countless hours helping Americans negotiate through complicated tax laws just to keep the fruits of their life’s work out of the squandering hands of government.
     Other anti-property rights provisions in the Tax Collection Responsibility Act make desperate last attempts to extract the most amount of revenue possible from expatriots on their way out the door. A telling signal that a country is taxing itself to death is capital flight and expatriation. When successful Americans no longer feel their property is secure from government thieves, and they have too much to lose by staying, they vote with their feet and go elsewhere. This country is poorer for the loss of that citizen’s investment here, but it is their right to keep and enjoy what they have built up. How dare Congress or the IRS try to deny them that? And what message does that send to the next generation of young entrepreneurs?
     It is troubling to me that this country is chasing away wealth, while entitlements recklessly grow. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and we are making strides towards destroying prosperity but expanding the welfare state. This is a dangerous and untenable trend.
     186 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted with me last week to kill the Death Tax. It is my hope that we will get another chance in the future to end this punitive and un-American tax for good.


Texas Straight Talk, 21 October 2007 Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, Both.
     A few months back, I wrote back-to-back weekly messages regarding globalism and isolationism. In writing those columns, I focused on the fact that our nation’s interventionist foreign policy was precisely what was isolating us from other countries.
     Turkey’s recall of their U.S. ambassador in the wake of last week’s resolution, passed in the House Foreign Affairs Committee in condemnation of Turkey, is a perfect example of what I wrote in those columns, as well as what I have been saying for years.
     The House has passed similar resolutions for years, praising some foreign countries or political groups while chastising others. It is my policy to vote against resolutions of this sort whenever they have the impact of placing our country in the middle of an internal political problem of some other nation, or involving us in some regional conflict. In fact, this is almost always the specific intent of resolutions of this sort. Often, I am the only Member of Congress to vote against these resolutions.
     Some have questioned these votes, arguing that they are meaningless statements of opinion. However, I have always been more skeptical, and careful, about voting for these measures. Last week’s reaction by Turkey, a long term ally and NATO member, shows that Congress should be a lot more restrained in sticking our government’s nose into the affairs of other nations.
     Even though I am no fan of the war in Iraq, keeping positive relations with Turkey is important to protecting our troops who have been sent to fight this war. We are likely to need cordial relations with Turkey so that we can get our troops out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible, when the time comes.
     As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my office has been contacted both by the White House and the Turkish Embassy. They know I oppose these types of interventionist resolutions and they know I will not support the current resolution. They also know full well that this particular resolution will only serve to strain an important international relationship our country should be seeking to strengthen.
     In this instance, the problem is that many of my colleagues in Congress are more interested in seeking to score political points and proclaim their moral superiority, instead of worrying about our nation’s best interests. Also, in most of these situations, those who oppose the resolution regarding Turkey all-too-often fail to realize that similar resolutions dealing with other nations have the exact same effect. Namely, they isolate our country from the rest of the world.
     Even if other countries do not take the rather extreme step of recalling their ambassador, this kind of meddling by Congressional resolution almost always serves to offend governments and political leaders in other counties.
     Last week’s events make clear that Congress, and our foreign policy establishment, must reconsider the entire policy of interventionism if we are to avoid further isolation of our nation.

Texas Straight Talk, 28 October 2007 Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
     Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

     The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba’s dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US, and are “awash” with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.
     In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for “multibillions” of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!
     The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.
     It’s time to stop talking solely in terms of what’s best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let’s stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans–which is not our government’s responsibility–and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being–it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.
     Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 November 2007 Tax Reform Promises Treats, Delivers Tricks
     Representative Charles Rangel’s recently announced plan to address the impending Alternative Minimum Tax’s application to middle-class Americans demonstrates limited economic understanding.
     The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) began in the late 1960’s because 155 wealthy taxpayers had become savvy enough with loopholes that they managed to avoid income taxes altogether. Very few Americans avoided taxes completely this way, nonetheless, policy was enacted that now threatens 25 million Americans.
     Rangel’s plan boasts loudly about repealing the AMT, but under the Democrats’ pay-as-you-go rules, actual tax cuts are not allowed. Congress must replace any tax revenue reduction with an increase somewhere else, and of course, there are no rules preventing tax hikes. Thus, a new 4% surtax on incomes over $150,000 for singles and $200,000 for couples is proposed to “pay for” the estimated lost revenue. This simultaneously raises $36 billion MORE than simply leaving the AMT alone, and creates a huge new marriage penalty tax. It won’t be long before $150,000 is an average income, and middle class taxpayers will again face the situation we see coming today from inflation and the AMT. Overall, the Rangel tax plan is estimated to increase taxes by $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
     With the leadership in Congress calling for this massive tax hike, spending levels promising to absorb all that and then some (thanks to our ambitiously misguided foreign policy), as well as the Federal Reserve’s again cheapening the dollar, American taxpayers are wondering where their purchasing power went. We are working harder than ever before, as our standard of living falls.
     The founding fathers never saw taxation as a method to direct social behavior or enforce equality. Equality to them was equality under the law, not equality of outcome, or income. It was not the founding fathers’ job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses. The founders sought to provide only protection of property and civil liberties such that job creation could happen naturally and peacefully in a stable, prosperous environment. They never sought to take from the rich to give to the poor, or rob Peter to pay Paul. But today, the top 5% of earners in this country pay over half of all income taxes collected, but only bring in a third of the income. One third of Americans pay nothing or receive subsidies from government.
     Tax policy should not be based on the premise that government owns you and allows you to keep some arbitrary amount of your labor. Thus, the AMT should be repealed. The estate tax should be repealed. Capital gains taxes should be repealed. The income tax should be repealed. We don’t need to overhaul or adjust tax policy, we need to scrap the whole thing and start over.
     But this message is not getting through to the leadership of Congress. Congress has ensnared itself in rules so that the only changes in tax policy allowed are increases, while the administration is obsessed with spending, especially spending us into oblivion by spreading this dead-end war when we should be coming home.
     If Washington can only do wrong, then let’s hope for gridlock, until a more sensible Congress is in office. Sometimes a do-nothing Congress is a lot better than the alternative.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 November 2007 Entangling Alliances
     In the name of clamping down on “terrorist uprisings” in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf’s recent re-election.
     Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion.
     Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by “reviewing Pakistan’s foreign aid package” and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.
     By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his “allowance,” courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.
     So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy.
     Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
     When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 November 2007 The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
     Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
     Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including “hidden costs” such as interest on the money we’re borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
     One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
     If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.
     What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.
     But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they aren’t killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.
     The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas. That’s 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq, but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.
     Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get. Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 November 2007 Pain at the Pump
     This past week Americans traveled approximately 2 billion miles to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and loved ones. While you cannot put a price on time with family, Americans sure felt the pain of higher fuel prices at the gas pump. It is time to take an honest look at the government’s direct and indirect role in inflating those prices.
     Taxation is the most direct way government increases Americans’ cost at the pump. The national average price of gas now is well over $3.00 per gallon now, $4 in some areas. Federal taxes take 18.4 cents, while state and local taxes average another 28.5 cents per gallon. That’s an average of 47 cents per gallon Americans are paying just for government, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Less directly, our loose monetary policy gives taxpayers double jeopardy at the pump, simultaneously increasing prices and undermining purchasing power. Wages always lag behind price increases, making average Americans feel as though they can never quite keep up, never quite get out of debt. Not to mention the ripple effect of higher diesel costs on the trucking industry. When trucking and shipping is more expensive, everything is more expensive.
     The indirect costs government imposes on gas prices are much more serious. A major bottleneck that causes gas prices to surge is our very meagre and vulnerable refinery capacity due mostly to regulatory red tape. Environmental regulations and litigation have kept our existing refinery capacity barely adequate. In fact, no new refineries have been built since the 70’s and these are operating at capacity, which makes our gasoline market especially vulnerable as demonstrated by skyrocketing gas prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when many coastal oil facilities were brought to a halt. In addition, many foreign refineries don’t have the ability to produce the specialized blends of gasoline mandated by our government, and therefore 90% of our gasoline is refined in the United States under extreme regulatory burden. When our domestic refineries are damaged or jeopardized, there are few options other than soaring prices or long lines.
     I’ve introduced The Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415) to deal with some of these issues. My bill would suspend Federal fuel taxes when prices rise above $3.00 a gallon, giving some immediate relief at the pump. It would also repeal misguided legislation that causes more investment in attorneys and nuisance litigation than in actually producing affordable gasoline and strengthening our refining capacity. Also, it would open up ANWR for oil exploration and repeal the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling.
     Much of government intervention in the oil industry in the past has been counter-productive and has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for every mile Americans can still afford to travel to be with family. I am working hard in Congress to reverse the costly trend of government interference and return markets, including oil markets, to true economic freedom.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 December 2007 On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
     Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.
     We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.
     Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled “not relevant” to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.
     The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.
     I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation–we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.
     The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 December 2007 Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don’t
     The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.
     Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.
     The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms–and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.
     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.
     Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 December 2007 The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility in Government
     As the year draws to a close, the battle over spending in Washington is heating up. The Democrats want to expand government healthcare, while the President has vetoed the second attempt to expand SCHIP.
     The latest version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program would have expanded the entitlement program and raised taxes, just as the earlier version did and the President showed fiscal restraint with his veto.
     Reducing our entitlement programs here at home is not against saving the children, as the rhetoric goes, it is about saving the country’s economy. The fact is we have huge trade imbalances, massive deficits, and a $9 trillion national debt, which balloons to $60 trillion if unfunded future liabilities in social security and other promises we have made to Americans are included.
     We are at a crucial point in history right now. We must think very carefully about our next moves. There is coming a time, if we continue on this path, when all that our tax dollars and government revenues will be able to do is pay interest on the mountain of debt we have compiled in the past few decades. That will mean no government programs or services of any kind will be funded, yet future generations of Americans will still struggle under a crushing tax burden with nothing to show for it. That is why fiscal restraint and common sense with the budget are so vitally important in government.
     The difference now is that our printing presses at the Federal Reserve are getting worn out as we have expanded our money supply to the breaking point with yet another rate cut this week. As the dollar falls, it is losing its reserve currency status as many countries are shifting to the Euro or the Chinese yuan or other currencies. The more that trend continues, the weaker we become on the world stage. Those foreign governments and entities that enabled us to spend so much for so long are wearing thin and cutting us off.
     The truth is our enemies won’t need a nuclear weapon to harm us if we keep spending phantom dollars at the current rate. In fact, they won’t need to do anything but sit back and watch as we spend ourselves into oblivion. Historically, empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the direction we are headed. We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late.
     I applaud the President for his veto of the SCHIP expansion bill. It is a step in the right direction. But it is just one small step. What our economy needs right now is to go full gallop away from the tax and spend policies that have gotten us into this mess.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 December 2007 On the Omnibus Spending Bill
     This week Congress finished work on its final spending package for the year. This “Omnibus” bill contains many of the spending bills that did not get passed throughout the year. Last minute changes made by the Senate mean President Bush is likely to sign the legislation into law.
     What this bill means is lots more of Washington spending your money. And, with a year of talking and fighting about earmarks, we did not see a significant change in that area either.
     Especially disconcerting is the overseas spending. Let me point to just one example. In that portion of the bill for military construction, there were nearly one billion dollars in earmarks for spending overseas. Again, this is just in the portion for military construction projects.
     One dozen foreign countries will benefit from this taxpayer sponsored largess. Equally bad, we are building these new military facilities overseas while we continue to close our military bases here at home designed to defend the United States. During the most recent round of base closures, I introduced legislation that would halt base closures here in the United States while our men and women are engaged in combat missions in the Middle East.
     How odd is it that while this legislation failed to pass, we are now earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars for bases in countries such as Bahrain and Qatar? Our policy is gone awry, is costing us billions here, and billions there, totaling trillions of dollars when added up. Yet the last key piece of legislation passed by Congress this year does absolutely nothing to even begin to address this problem. In fact, as I have suggested here, it only exaggerates the problem.
     If this is Washington’s idea of the spirit of Christmas and charity then it is a sick joke. This holiday season we should be more concerned about the less fortunate here in our own country. People are facing the possibility of losing their homes because of a mortgage crisis brought on by inflation, businesses are being pushed into bankruptcy by a burdensome regulatory state, and the tax code makes it hard for many people to afford basics like medical care, gasoline, and educational expenses for their children.
     America is a generous country, at this time of year that is more visible than ever. But, in this case, charity truly must start at home. We need to stop these overseas earmarks and put those dollars to work here in this country.
     We need to dredge our own ports and river mouths. We need to build bridges in America instead of constructing multi-billion dollar facilities abroad. And, most importantly, we need to allow people to keep their own resources so they can afford life’s necessities, as well as the ability to support the charities of their own choosing.
     In the true spirit of Christmas charity Washington should have given back to hardworking taxpayers their own earnings.
     Despite the recent actions of Congress, I do hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and safe travels.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 December 2007 On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
     Last week I highlighted the irony of sending nearly $1 billion overseas in military earmarks as we close down bases here at home to save money. Our government’s flawed foreign policy troubles me this week especially.
     Benazir Bhutto’s assasination was a great tragedy. Pakistan is now more than ever teetering on chaos. And all the money we have sent Musharraf has inadvertently drawn a target on our backs.
     Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator. The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter.
     The trouble is the average Pakistani will have little doubt regarding Bhutto’s death, regardless if it was orchestrated by Musharraf or not. At this point It is almost irrelevant who was responsible or how she died. The perception is what will fuel the anger. My great fear is their anger towards Musharraf’s military regime will be targetted towards his enablers–the United States.
     This is the problem with our government involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends’ enemies become our enemies. How many times have we armed BOTH sides of a conflict because of this? There is little for us to gain from this policy, and simultaneously a lot of trouble we get ourselves into. It is not a rational or intelligent way to interact with the world.
     The administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy–sending money or sending bombs. Our founding fathers knew a better way–to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship, allow travel and open communication. We should neither initiate violence, nor take sides in conflicts that are none of our business. The American taxpayers are working hard enough to support their families here at home. If an American wants to send money overseas for a conflict or cause, let them, but do not slap Americans in the face by forcefully sending their children’s college money abroad to subsidize despotic foreign governments. Our children should be going off to college, not going off to more senseless foreign wars.
     I was deeply saddened to hear of Benazir Bhutto’s death. My hope is that we can change our foreign policy moving forward and truly make strides this year toward peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

Texas Straight Talk, 6 January 2008 No Sunlight on the Omnibus
     One Christmas tradition Congress could do without is the broken process of passing the annual Omnibus Spending Bill, which we recently did right before the holiday recess.
     Every December Congress fights and argues over spending and never seems to be able to pass the necessary appropriations until the very last minute. There is panic and threats of government shut downs and reduction in essential services. And they always threaten the essential services, as if there is no waste they could possibly eliminate instead. This past December, right on cue the administration warned about dire civilian defense department layoffs if the money didn’t come soon.
     And so at the very last minute the Omnibus was rushed through in a whirlwind, just in time to save the day. Members of Congress had less than 24 hours to read the nearly 3,500 page bill before a vote was taken. The bill was supposedly much too important to waste time reading it.
     I feel differently. I feel the important bills are the ones we should take especial care to closely examine.
     However, we are led to believe that if the Omnibus bill failed, horrible things would have happened. But the situation is a setup that ensures our government spending balloons every year just as the elites and special interests dictate. The vast majority of Members of Congress don’t actually know what the money is being spent on until after passage and by then it is too late.
     To address this flawed and corruptible process I have proposed a very simple change called the Sunlight Rule, which mandates that bills be presented to Congress and staff for review in their final form no less than 10 days before they come to the floor for a vote. This would allow the representatives of the American people time to read the bills before having to make a decision on them. Every now and then you hear criticisms of congressmen and women for not reading the bills. That is a problem, however in cases like the Omnibus spending bills, a few hours is not nearly enough time to comb through and evaluate the hundreds of pages they contain. The rules do not currently specify any amount of time that must be allotted for Congress to read or deliberate any legislation before a vote. That needs to change.
     Congress should read the bills. But to do that requires an appropriate amount of time. More appropriately phrased, Congress should be ALLOWED to read the bills. And no member of Congress should, in good conscience, vote affirmatively on a bill they haven’t fully analyzed.
     I am hoping that in the New Year more of my colleagues will resolve to take a stand for honesty and due diligence in representing the people of this country and that we can enact the Sunlight Rule. With it, we will be a wiser, more open Congress and our decisions in Washington will be more deliberative and fully informed as they ought to be.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 January 2008 Legislative Forecast for 2008
     Congress is re-convening this coming week and I would like to take this opportunity to give my legislative forecast for the coming year. Here are a few things we can expect to see from Washington.
     First and foremost, we will see ramped up spending for the warfare/welfare state. There is no resolution or end in sight on the Iraq occupation. While the American people try repeatedly to communicate to Washington that enough is enough, there still remains little political will in Washington to bring the troops home. The war will continue to require mountains of taxpayer and newly printed dollars, and our economy will sink under the burden. If we are manipulated into a second war, the effects on our economy will be truly devastating. Welfare and entitlement programs will also be ramped up as the economy flounders and budgets in American households are strained.
     This leads me to my next forecast of more federal bailouts for the housing sector. Efforts by the Federal Reserve to stave off recession will have the net effect of only blowing the bubble bigger, making the crash that much more painful when it inevitably comes. The malinvestments caused by easy credit in the housing industry will be prolonged by more easy credit. New programs and laws will be enacted to prop up housing, all with a falling dollar, devalued by continued foreign interventions. The crisis in the housing market will spread and I’m afraid we are in for some rough economic times.
     Moreover, the government will require more money than ever this year, and as funding options run out, taxes will go up. Expect stealth tax increases on consumer goods, perhaps airline tickets or cigarettes, and increased government fees here and there. Ironically total revenues will probably fall due to a weakened economy. The new programs started to “help” the country will require extra money wherever the government can squeeze it out of you, unfortunately it will be at exactly the moment you can least afford it. Since the Democrats enacted “pay-as-you-go” rules for new legislation, cutting taxes to give relief during recession will be bureaucratically next to impossible. In spite of that, I will continue the uphill battle for tax relief.
     Last, I expect, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary, we will see more federal control of education as Congress prepares to reauthorize No Child Left Behind.
     If this is indeed the agenda of Congress, let us hope that there is not nearly enough time to accomplish it all this year.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 January 2008 Constitutional Responses to Terrorism
     It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.
     My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.
     Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia, student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia. Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.
     A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 January 2008 Economic Stimulus Concerns
     This past week in Washington there has been much talk about the economy. It seems by their actions the leadership and the Fed is finally willing to admit we have a problem, and we need to do something about the economic mess we are in. This is a good thing. However, they are still not being honest about the root cause of our impending crisis and want to deal only with symptoms, not the disease.
     There are some positive aspects of the highly lauded economic stimulus package that has been negotiated. I am in favor of taxpayers getting some of their money back, however temporary tax cuts and one-time rebates will not “fix” the economy. What we desperately need right now is real deep significant tax cuts that are enabled by big spending cuts and reduction of government waste that is so rampant. Unfortunately, too many in Washington still believe we can spend our way into prosperity, which does not work and never has.
     Countries build wealth through robust economic environments, in which jobs are created and businesses can operate at a profit and grow. When taxes bleed away profits and burdensome regulation hamstrings operations, our businesses and our jobs go overseas. The United States must foster a competitive business environment once again.
     There are a few ideas out there for economic stimulus that I do support, such as making permanent President Bush’s tax cuts. I have also signed on as one of 49 original cosponsors of the Economic Growth Act of 2008 which will provide actual economic stimulus through private sector tax relief and job-creating business incentives. This plan features
     � Full immediate expensing for major business asset investments
     � Reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% to be aligned with average rates in Europe
     � Indexing the capital gains tax for inflation
     Cutting and simplifying the corporate capital gains rate
     Enactment of these dramatic tax cuts will free up money so employers can start hiring again. I would like for the unemployed to have the satisfaction of having a job again so the standard of living of the American family will go up. And even more than a one-time miniscule rebate check, I want you to keep more of your own money in the first place.
     Sending out checks and cutting interest rates yet again is merely a shot in the arm when in actuality, the economy needs major surgery. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to provide major tax relief to the American people.

Texas Straight Talk, 3 February 2008 Paving Paradise
     The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to be secure against all unreasonable seizures. My home state of Texas is unfortunately planning on some very unreasonable seizures of land with the monstrous Trans Texas Corridor highway project. The TTC plans call for a highway to cut through about 4,000 Texas miles, and with separate rail lines for passenger and freight, a multi-lane highway with separate truck lanes, utility and cable easements, this highway could be as wide as 1200 feet across. In the end this project would consume something like half a million acres of land in Texas. However, since the exact path of the road has not been determined, it is putting much more acreage in jeopardy, and in limbo.
     Taking land is destructive enough. But the perpetual threat of taking an undetermined amount of land is hanging over the heads of millions of Texans and putting their lives at a standstill. Land is a store of wealth and a source of stability. This highway project is tragically threatening that for so many Texans.
     The principle of private property is the cornerstone to a free and prosperous society. In situations where a colossal government land grab is a distinct possibility, investment or improvement becomes more risky with an uncertain future and tends not to happen. How do you sell land that may or may not be taken by the government at some point in the not too distant future? Who would buy it? How do you cultivate or build on, or even near, land that may or may not be paved over and turned into a massive, noisy thoroughfare in a few years?
     Even more insulting is the distinct possibility that, while the road will collect tolls and fees, making a private foreign firm billions of dollars in revenue, the costs of building it could be heavily borne by taxpayers. So the costs will be socialized and the profits privatized. Public-private partnership indeed!
     From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the ‘Trans-Texas Corridor’.” I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.
     We should be focusing on guarding and securing our borders for the protection of the American people. Instead we are paving the way for more and more people to cross the border as comfortably as possible. And taking the family farm to do it. It is an absolute outrage.

Texas Straight Talk, 10 February 2008 Second Amendment Battle in DC
     As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”
     Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society. Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people’s access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law. Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to. Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
     Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation’s capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC’s gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court’s decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
     However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia’s gun laws are a “reasonable” infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
     This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

Texas Straight Talk, 17 February 2008 If We Subsidize Them...
     For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American “melting pot”. We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences.
     Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can’t deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn’t be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
     One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.
     We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can’t afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn’t make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14^th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia, France, and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can’t or won’t address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
     Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.

Texas Straight Talk, 24 February 2008 Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
     One major concern I discussed a few weeks ago regarding the Trans Texas Corridor is where the land will come from. Another concern is where the money will come from. Official government websites for the TTC assure that public-private partnerships will shield the taxpayer from bearing too much of the cost burden, but a careful reading shows the door is definitely open to public funding sources, while at the same time there is no doubt of the intention to charge tolls on the road.
     Taxpayers already pay for their transportation system through hefty gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, and other fees. They have every right to expect the roads they have already paid for to be properly maintained and toll-free.
     However, private foreign corporations have flocked to this country eager to participate in toll collection on our poorly managed toll roads, and they make a lot of money doing so. Taking over the management and maintenance of an existing toll road is one thing. Converting taxpayer built roads into cash cows for big corporations is quite another. Using eminent domain to take privately owned land, and taxpayer funding to build a highway that is designed to bring in private revenue is nothing short of highway robbery.
     Cintra/Zachry, a private Spanish firm, is poised to make billions from TTC tolls. Yet my fear is that as planning progresses, more and more public burden will creep into the process, and more profit will be pledged to the private corporation. The costs will be socialized and the profits will be privatized.
     And to add insult to injury–private lands will be taken for this road which will be, for all intents and purposes, a private business. The government should not use the power of eminent domain to seize and redistribute land for the benefit of a private company. This is wrong and unconstitutional. Cintra Zachry should negotiate with each individual land owner and go through the normal private land acquisition process to start its new business. If mutual agreements can be reached, fine. If not, government force is not appropriate. Our government should protect property rights, not facilitate theft.
     Toll roads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or even bond funding that pledge future tax dollars. Taxpayers should not have to pay additional fees for something they have already paid for. Eminent domain should absolutely not be used for private businesses. This public-private partnership has all the makings of the worst of both worlds. I am doing my part at the Federal level in Congress to limit the damage to the taxpayer. I introduced a bill in that prohibits the use of federal funding for any part of the TTC and I will continue to push for this bill, and other bills protecting property rights, taxpayers rights and our national sovereignty. The government should not fund and enforce private efforts like this and thumb their nose at land owners and taxpayers.

Texas Straight Talk, 2 March 2008 Hope for the Economy
     It is becoming harder and harder for Washington and the mainstream media to ignore the ripple effect the collapse of the housing bubble is having on the economy. Inflation is up, cost of food is up, oil and gold are up, foreclosures are up, unemployment is up, government spending is at record highs, its seems that the only thing down is the value of the dollar. The middle and lower classes are getting squeezed as prices jump and wages stay flat.
     Though it is good that Washington is acknowledging the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug, I always get nervous at their ideas of solutions. A proper solution requires an honest, in-depth look at the root of the problem.
     What the government needs to stop doing is taxing Americans literally out of house and home in the wake of the housing debacle. We should not take money from taxpayers to bail out bad businesses. At the same time, we need to make sure that America can get back to work by easing taxes and regulations on good businesses and allow them to function and prosper. Also there a lot of tax cuts and tax reforms we could be making to ease the burden on the American people.
     I have many bills in Congress that address the high taxes Americans pay, but one in particular–my Tax-Free Tips Act–should be a no-brainer at a time like this. This legislation would exempt gratuities earned by service sector workers from income tax liability. A tip is a small gift and there is no contractual requirement to give it, yet if someone leaves a restaurant without tipping, the IRS will still estimate how much they should have been tipped and tax the waiter based on that, should they perform an audit. This is patently wrong.
     People working these jobs are the backbone of our economy, and they often support a family or put themselves through school on this money. They are already taxed on their base wages through withholding. They should not be taxed on tips. We do not need to put this kind of pressure on our service workers.
     To really fix the economy and get it back on track, though, a sea change, not a quick-fix attempt, is needed. I was very pleased and encouraged that on Friday the Wall Street Journal published my letter to the editor addressing some of our economic problems. The message is getting out because people are demanding answers. The American people are strong, resourceful, hard working and determined. Because of this we can get through these tough economic times, but our leaders need to understand how we got here in the first place. Continuing the same flawed policies that got us here will only prolong the agony.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 March 2008 Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
     Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President’s requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.
     Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption. Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds. If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run. For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change. Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.
     The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund–for example–family planning facilities that perform abortions?
     In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were. They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.
     Africans should decide what is best for Africa. American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money. Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.
     The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems. It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress. It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.
     These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided. The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent. The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom. The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets. Perhaps then Africa’s leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States, and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 March 2008 Making a Recession Great
     House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55%. The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It’s not just that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich. They want to raise taxes on everybody.
     The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion. The Democrats’ budget gives the President all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.
     Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. Over half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.
     The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction. While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend over $3 trillion of your money in various ways. While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place. Many so-called “Iraq War critics,” criticize this administration rather than truly opposing the decades old policies that led to war. They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home. The American people want peace. Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it. Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved.
     This spending spree is exactly the wrong policy for an economy on the brink of recession. History has shown that all empires eventually crumble under a worthless currency and with an exhausted military. Since too many of our nation’s leaders haven’t taken the time to learn from history, we are seeing mistakes repeated through recently enacted policies such as the new House budget.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 March 2008 On Five Years in Iraq
     Five years ago last week, the US military’s “shock and awe” campaign lit up the Baghdad sky. Five years later, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly four thousand Americans dead, we should pause and reflect on just what has been gained and what has been lost.
     From the beginning, the march to war was paved with false assumptions and lies. Senior administration officials claimed repeatedly that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. They claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They manipulated the fear of the American people after 9/11 to further a war agenda that they had been planning years before that attack. The mainstream media was complicit in this war propaganda.
     Nearly ten years ago, long before 9/11, I requested the time in opposition to the fateful Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, where I then stated on the Floor of the House of Representatives, “I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation.” Less than five years later we were invading Iraq.
     Five years into the invasion and occupation of Iraq, untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead; some two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees; and the Iraqi Christian community–one of the oldest in the world–has been decimated more completely than even under the Ottoman occupation or the rule of Saddam Hussein.
     On the US side, nearly four thousand Americans have lost their lives fighting in Iraq and many thousands more are horribly wounded. Our own senior military officers warn that our military is nearly broken by the strain of the Iraq occupation. The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed by the volume of disability claims from Iraq war veterans.
     A study by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that the cost of the war in Iraq could be at least $3 trillion. The economic consequences of our enormous expenditure in Iraq are beginning to make themselves known as we fall into recession and possibly worse.
     Iraq war supporters claim that the “surge” of additional US troops into Iraq has been a resounding success. I am not so confident. Under the “surge” policy the United States military has trained and equipped with deadly weapons those Iraqi militia members against whom they were fighting just months ago. I fear by arming and equipping opposing militias we are just setting the stage for a more tragic and dangerous explosion of violence, possibly aimed at US troops in Iraq. There is no indication that the Iraqi government has made any political progress whatsoever.
     The sooner we withdraw the better. The invasion and continued US occupation has strengthened both Iran and Al-Qaeda in the region. Continuing down the road of a failed policy will only cost more money we do not have and more lives that should not be sacrificed. Interventionism has produced one disaster after another. It is time we return to a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasizes peaceful trade and travel and no entangling alliances. We can begin by withdrawing from Iraq immediately.

Texas Straight Talk, 30 March 2008 On Money and Government
     These past few weeks have provided an unfortunate opportunity to discuss inflation. The dollar index has reached new all-time lows. The total money supply, M3, as calculated by private sources, is growing at a disturbing 17% rate. The Fed is pumping dollars into the economy at an alarming rate. Just recently the Fed announced new loan auctions totaling $100 billion. That is new money created from thin air. If these money auctions, combined with the bailout of Bear Stearns, continue to be the trend, we are in for some economic stormy weather. The explanation lies in understanding the basics of money, and why it is dangerous to give government and big banks control over it.
     First, money is not wealth, in and of itself. You cannot create more wealth simply by creating more money. Wall Street bankers cry out for more liquidity, but what is really needed is more value behind the dollar. But the value, unfortunately, isn’t there.
     You see, the Fed creates new money and uses it to purchase securities from banks. Flush with funds, these banks seek to put this money to use. During the Fed’s expansionary period, much of this money went to home loans. Through a combination of federal government inducements to lend to risky borrowers, and the Fed’s supply of easy money, the housing bubble took shape. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to purchase and securitize mortgages, while investors, buoyed by implicit government backing, rushed to provide funding. Money that could have been invested in more productive, less risky sectors of the economy was thereby malinvested in subprime mortgage loans.
     The implicit guarantee from the Fed is quickly becoming explicit, as those institutions deemed “too big to fail” are bailed out at taxpayer expense. Wall Street made a killing during the housing bubble, reaping record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, these same firms are trying to dump their losses on the taxpayers. This approach requires more money creation, and therefore debasement of all dollars in circulation.
     The Federal Reserve, a quasi-government entity, should not be creating money or determining interest rates, as this causes malinvestment and excessive debt to accumulate. Centrally planned, government manipulated economies always fail eventually. The collapse of communism and the failure of socialism should have made this apparent. Even the most educated, well-intentioned central planners cannot plan the market better than the market itself. Those that understand economics best, understand this reality.
     In free markets, both success and failure are options. If government interventions prevent businesses, like Bear Stearns, from failing, then it is not truly a free market. As painful as it might be for Wall Street, banks, even big ones, must be allowed to fail.
     The end game for this policy of monetary inflation is that the money in your bank account loses purchasing power. So, by keeping failing banks afloat, the Fed punishes those who have lived frugally and saved. The power to create money is a power that should never be granted to government. As we can plainly see today, the Fed has abused this power, and taxpayers are paying the price.

Texas Straight Talk, 7 April 2008 The Emerging Surveillance State
     Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
     Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.
     The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.
     We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?
     In communist East Germany, one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.
     We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.
     The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

Texas Straight Talk, 13 April 2008 Bailing Out Banks
     There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about the Federal Reserve and the actions it has taken over the past few months. Many media pundits have been bending over backwards to praise the Fed for supposedly restoring stability to the market. This interpretation of the Fed’s actions couldn’t be further from the truth.
     The current market crisis began because of Federal Reserve monetary policy during the early 2000s in which the Fed lowered the interest rate to a below-market rate. The artificially low rates led to overinvestment in housing and other malinvestments. When the first indications of market trouble began back in August of 2007, instead of holding back and allowing bad decision-makers to suffer the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve took aggressive, inflationary action to ensure that large Wall Street firms would not lose money. It began by lowering the discount rates, the rates of interest charged to banks who borrow directly from the Fed, and lengthening the terms of such loans. This eliminated much of the stigma from discount window borrowing and enabled troubled banks to come to the Fed directly for funding, pay only a slightly higher interest rate but also secure these loans for a period longer than just overnight.
     After the massive increase in discount window lending proved to be ineffective, the Fed became more and more creative with its funding arrangements. It has since created the Term Auction Facility (TAF), the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF). The upshot of all of these new programs is that through auctions of securities or through deposits of collateral, the Fed is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars of funding into the financial system in a misguided attempt to shore up the stability of the system.
     The PDCF in particular is a departure from the established pattern of Fed intervention because it targets the primary dealers, the largest investment banks who purchase government securities directly from the New York Fed. These banks have never before been allowed to borrow from the Fed, but thanks to the Fed Board of Governors, these investment banks can now receive loans from the Fed in exchange for securities which will in all likelihood soon lose much of their value.
     The net effect of all this new funding has been to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system and bail out banks whose poor decision making should have caused them to go out of business. Instead of being forced to learn their lesson, these poor-performing banks are being rewarded for their financial mismanagement, and the ultimate cost of this bailout will fall on the American taxpayers. Already this new money flowing into the system is spurring talk of the next speculative bubble, possibly this time in commodities.
     Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable.

Texas Straight Talk, 20 April 2008 The Double Trouble of Taxation
     Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15^th deadline to file their returns. Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice–once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money. Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.
     The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous. Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000. The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance. That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects. Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!
     Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place. The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations. These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by. Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration. This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.
     Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it. There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.
     I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax. It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent. Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.
     With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15^th of April every year.

Texas Straight Talk, 27 April 2008 Politicizing Pain
     K.K. Forss does not claim medical marijuana solves all his problems. His pain from a ruptured disc in his neck is debilitating. He is unable to go to work or to the First Baptist Church he used to attend because of the pain and muscle spasms. Taxpayers through Medicare spend over $18,000 a year on his various medications. Half of those drugs are strong narcotics. The other half address the various side-effects brought on by the first half, such as nausea, heartburn, heart palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and muscle spasms.
     No, marijuana would not completely address all his pain, but it made a tremendous difference in the quality of his life when he tried it for over a year. It helped him regain 38 pounds he had lost. It calmed his muscle spasms and helped him sleep. In short, it alleviated many side effects and greatly reduced his need for other expensive medications. Mr. Forss estimates that being allowed to use medical marijuana would save taxpayers at least $12,000 a year in medications he would no longer need. He would also be able to work occasionally and attend some church services.
     Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain. Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer. More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain. But over-reaching government gets in the way.
     K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen. Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it. K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal. However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
     In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.
     The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues. This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.
     The bottom line is that K.K. Forss should be treated as a free American. Mr. Forss is one of many who would like to use marijuana medicinally because it helps him. Politicians and bureaucrats have no right to interfere.

Texas Straight Talk, 4 May 2008 Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
     In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline. For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.
     Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold.
     Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits. It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.
     Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.
     The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.

Texas Straight Talk, 11 May 2008 Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
     The House passed two bills attempting to rehabilitate the housing and mortgage market this week. There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of criticism and blame for the bad decisions, and rightly so. Lenders and banks do share much of the blame for the overheated market. Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever. Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering.
     However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government. But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly. Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces. This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.
     These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions. One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure. HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes. Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills. It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.
     The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some. We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them. It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future. Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows–by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer. The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.

Texas Straight Talk, 18 May 2008 The Economy: Another Casualty of War
     This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq, and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs. The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package. Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy. At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.
     The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency. For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas–but bases here at home! Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid–all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet. Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.
     Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war. The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace. The taxpayer loses and government grows.
     The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control. Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy. We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from South Korea, Germany, and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed. Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire. The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.
     Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week. However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction. Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

Texas Straight Talk, 25 May 2008 Salute to Veterans
     Most of my efforts on Capitol Hill are focused on reducing the federal government’s size and scope, but I make an exception for a very important group of people. Our nation’s men and women in uniform commit a selfless act of patriotism when they take up arms in defense of our country. As a veteran myself, I salute all those currently serving, or who have served in our armed forces. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude for their sacrifices, their courage, their time away from friends and family, and the dangers they undertake. This Memorial Day we honor our soldiers and vets, we remember those who never came home, or who have since passed on. Above all, we acknowledge our respect for all who have served in the military.
     Congress has considered several bills this past week that would affect veterans. Many of the measures are very positive. I applaud efforts to shore up health care for veterans, and make sure that veterans know about the services available to them. I strongly support improving educational opportunities for veterans. I also believe a pay raise is well-deserved, and long overdue for our men and women in uniform. These benefits constitute their pay for serving our country.
     What I do not support is inserting immoral, unconstitutional provisions into veterans’ bills. For example, HR 6081 the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, in addition to providing important tax benefits for soldiers, sends the IRS after civilians who move overseas. This method of funding is actually a slap in the face to our soldiers who vow to keep us free. Afterall, how free are we, if we are not really free to leave? Congress should not use the military as an excuse to behave tyrannically.
     I was pleased with several of the veterans bills passed this past week, but more needs to be done. There are many other bills that should be passed dealing with veterans health care, how we treat disabled vets, and forgiving debts to the United States of fallen soldiers. We need to keep in mind younger generations who will someday face the choice of whether or not to enlist. They are watching to see how well we keep our promises. As it stands, our military is being rapidly depleted and exhausted by the continued, unconstitutional wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. This problem must be addressed.
     This Memorial Day, I thank all our soldiers who have fought so bravely for our country. I will continue to work hard in Congress to ensure they are treated with dignity, and receive the compensations they have been promised and deserve. They have given their best for this nation, and we should respond in kind.

Texas Straight Talk, 1 June 2008 Farm Bill
     Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.
     The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.
     Third world countries also lose with these continued government manipulations. Agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction, which leads to foreign food aid as a form of dumping. By “dumping” government-created agricultural surpluses, agrarian economies are artificially kept in a constant state of economic depression. The would-be third world farmer cannot compete with “free” grain, thus he and his countrymen remain perpetual beggars rather than competitive producers. Also, by keeping food prices high, we keep more of our own citizens dependent on government food stamps, instead of paying fair market prices for food.
     Free trade helps farmers and consumers much more than this convoluted system of subsidies, surpluses and central planning. Newly opened markets would create increased demand for what we produce. There is absolutely no reason we trade with China, yet not with Cuba. With energy and transportation prices as high as they are, opening up trade with a country as close as Cuba just makes sense. The recent power shift from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the somewhat positive steps he has taken, provides an opportunity to lift the embargo.
     Removing unreasonable, confiscatory tax policies would also make good farm policy. We need to permanently repeal the estate tax, which would again take a devastating 55% cut of family farms upon death of an owner. This tax will force the sale of many family farms, and further huge corporate agriculture.
     Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers, should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work. With commodity and food prices on the rise, Congress had an opportunity to scale down government controls and taxpayer funding of agriculture. Instead, despite the warning sent by an 18% approval rating, Congress stubbornly opted for more of the same.

Texas Straight Talk, 9 June 2008 Rising Energy Prices and Falling Dollars
     Oil prices are on the minds of many Americans as gas hits $4 a gallon, and continues to surge. How high can prices go? How can we solve these problems? What, or who, is to blame?
     Part of the answer lies in understanding bubbles and monetary inflation, but especially the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling inflation through interest rate manipulation, however, many fail to realize that creating money, and therefore inflation, is really its only tool. When the Federal Reserve inflates the dollar as drastically as it has in the past few decades, the first users of the newly created money go in search of investments for their dollars. They must invest this money quickly and aggressively before it loses value. This causes certain sectors to expand beyond what would naturally occur in the free market. Eventually the sector overheats and the bubble bursts. Overinvestment in dotcoms eventually led to a collapse of the NASDAQ. Next we had the housing bubble, and now we are seeing the price of oil being bid up in the creation of another new bubble. Investors are now looking to commodities like oil, for stability and growth as they pull capital out of real estate. This increased demand for investment vehicles related to oil contributes to driving up the price of the actual product.
     If the Fed continues with its bubble blowing policies of the past, the new commodities bubble will continue to grow, gas prices will continue to go up, as the value of your dollars go down. We will see an overinvestment in these commodities as solutions are desperately sought for a supply shortage, which is only part of the problem. Make no mistake, though, this is not the free market at work. Government manipulations have added levels of complication and unintended consequences to the marketplace.
     This is not the time for members of Congress to take political potshots at each other, or to imagine that the free market is somehow to blame. This is the time to understand and fix problems. That begins with making sure the decision makers have a firm grasp on the causes of the problems and possible effects of their decisions. This is absolutely crucial if we want to get it right this time. That is why I am in the process of calling for hearings on Capitol Hill on how the falling value of the dollar affects energy prices.
     Governments need to get out of the way and let the people get back to work so that we can get our economy back on stable footing. Our destructive regulatory environment, confiscatory tax policies, and managed, rather than free trade have chased many businesses overseas. The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work. The important thing now is to get the diagnosis absolutely correct so we can administer the appropriate treatment and move on to a healthier economic future. To do this it is absolutely necessary to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money.

Texas Straight Talk, 16 June 2008 Iraq or the Economy?
     What is the importance of the war in Iraq relative to other current issues? This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy. The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations. War is an all-encompassing governmental activity. The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America’s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government.
     The cost of this particular war is enormous, and therefore its of great importance. There is no single issue that is more important at this particular time. The war has, of course, made us less safe as a nation and damaged our credibility with allies and hostile nations alike. Moreover, years of growing deficits have been spurred on by the high price tag of war, and the decision to pay that price primarily by supplemental spending rather than traditional “on-budget” accounting.
     War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities. It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation. I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States.
     All war, but most particularly war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways. Obviously, many of the young people who are in the military literally give their blood, and sometimes their lives, fighting in wars of this type. Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations. Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on. No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.
     As people are continually asked to choose whether our nation’s teetering economy or the failed foreign policy of the past several decades is most important as we look forward, it is well for those of us who understand that these two issues are closely linked, to continue to explain this fact to our fellow citizens. To fix the problem requires a proper diagnosis.

Texas Straight Talk, 23 June 2008 A Major Victory for Texas
     I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project. A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement.
     Public outcry was cited as the main reason for this decision. I was very impressed to learn that the TxDOT received nearly 28,000 public comments on this matter, and that some 12,000 Texans attended the 47 public hearings held earlier this year. They could not ignore this tsunami of strong public opinion against the proposed plans. I was especially proud of how informed my constituents became on the subject, and how eloquently and respectfully they spoke and conducted themselves, considering how upsetting the plans were for our communities in Texas.
     This is a major victory for the people of Texas, and a reminder of what we can accomplish with civic involvement. The informed and active citizen truly is a force to be reckoned with, as we have seen with the defeat of this proposal. We must keep fighting the good fight, and remain ever diligent against the encroachments of big government. We must do this if we wish to maintain our traditional standard of living in this country. As tempting as it may be to simply live our lives with no regard to government, apathy will inevitably be punished by ever more government intrusion. That is what this fight was all about. We can win if we stick together.
     However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The bittersweet aspect of this victory is that we had to fight at all. We took time away from family and friends, doing other things, to attend these meetings, inform others, write letters, post signs and submit our complaints, and we should not have had to. Government should let us be, if we are peaceful citizens, harming no one. In a perfect world, government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the people without overwhelming pressure of this kind. This is not a perfect world. Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time. But this will not be the last time citizen efforts and involvement will be required. We still face many unreasonable encroachments of big government today, from confiscatory, economy-strangling taxation to creeping disregard of the right of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights, to thousands of nuisance bureaucratic regulations interfering with our every day lives. We have drifted far from what the founding fathers envisioned for this nation. Last week was just one victory towards getting back on the right path. We must continue to hold politicians’ feet to the Constitutional fire. If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future.
     It is a never-ending battle, but it must be fought, and can be won. I am proud to stand with my constituents in this fight, and in the other fights we have ahead of us.