U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | corporation |
corporation
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:98
The special areas of the budget that are of specific benefit to corporate America are literally too numerous to count, but there are some special programs benefiting corporations that usually prompt unconditional support from both parties. The military industrial complex is clearly recognized for its influence in Washington. This same group has a vested interest in our foreign policy that encourages policing the world, Nation building, and foreign social engineering. Big contracts are given to friendly corporations in places like Haiti, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf region. Corporations benefiting from these programs are unable to deal objectively with foreign policy issues, and it is not unusual for these same corporate leaders to lobby for troop deployments in worldwide military intervention. The U.S. remains the world’s top arms manufacturer and our foreign policy permits the exports to world customers subsidized through the Export-Import Bank. Foreign aid, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, IMF, World Bank, development banks are all used to continue bailouts of Third World countries heavily invested in by our corporations and banks. Corporations can get special tax treatment that only the powerful and influential can achieve. For instance, pseudo-free trade legislation like NAFTA and GATT and the recent Fast Track legislation shows how much big business influences both congressional leaders and the administration.
corporation
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:99
While crumbs are cast to the poor with programs that promote permanent dependency and impoverishment, the big bucks go to the corporations and the banking elites. The poor welcome the crumbs, not realizing how much long-term harm the programs do as they obediently continue to vote for a corporate-biased welfare state where the rich get richer and the poor get forgotten. Since generally both parties support a different version of interventionism, one should not expect the programs for the rich to be attacked on principle or cut in size. The result of last year’s legislative session should surprise no one.
corporation
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:3
In the attempt to help people in a welfare-warfare state, unfortunately the poor never seem to be helped. A lot of money is spent, but due to the monetary system that we have, inevitably, the middle class tends to get wiped out and the poor get poorer, and very often in the early stages the wealthy get wealthier. In the meantime, the corporations seem to do quite well. So we live in an age where we have a fair amount of corporatism associated with the welfare-warfare state in which we live.
corporation
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:7
Once again, these funds, whether they go to Southeast Asia or whether they go to Mexico, they never seem to help the little people; they never help the poor people. The poor are poorer than ever in Mexico, and yet the politicians and the corporations and the bankers even in this country get the bailout. This $18 billion is nothing more than another bailout.
corporation
Millennium Bug
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 13:2
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported unfavorably on the FDIC’s readiness. Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, US Senate, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems, testified on February 10, 1998 (Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank’s Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant) that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has not met its own “y2k-compliant” standards. According to GAO, the FDIC has not yet completed the assessment phase of the remediation process, despite its own standard that banks under the agency’s supervision should have completed this phase by the end of the third quarter of 1997.
corporation
Access To Energy
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 19:8
The capital required to build these things was supplied by the savings of tens of millions of people, who set aside part of the money they had earned and invested it in the free market in hopes of making a profit. It was also built by the profits retained by the corporations themselves. Capital alone did not, however, build the industries — people did. These people were led by unusual individuals whose love of science and technology dominated their personal lives and drove them and those around them to ever greater accomplishments.
corporation
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?
corporation
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:9
Even with all of Wall Street’s euphoria, Main Street still harbors deep concern for their financial condition and the future of the country. Many families continue to find it difficult to pay their bills, and personal bankruptcies are at a record high at 1,400,000 per year. Downsizing of our large corporations continue as many manufacturing jobs are sent overseas.
corporation
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:17
In other words, it’s comparable to a corporation stealing from its pension fund in order to show a better bottom line in its day-to-day operations. Government spending and deficits are not being brought under control. Tax rates are at historic highs, and all government taxation now consumes 50 percent of the gross national income.
corporation
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
corporation
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.
corporation
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
corporation
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit
corporation
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 79:14
So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists. There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.
corporation
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:6
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their products included in this program reveals the extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare. Many corporations have made a tidy profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding their competitors in the process. For example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal government is the largest purchaser of infant formula in the nation.
corporation
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:8
Any of my colleagues who doubt that these programs serve the interests of large corporations should consider that one of the most contentious issues debated at Committee mark-up was opposition to an attempt to allow USDA to purchase non-quote peanuts (currently the only peanuts available for sale are farmers who have a USDA quota all other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US) for school nutrition programs. Although this program would have saved the American taxpayers $5 million this year, the amendment was rejected at the behest of supporters of the peanut lobby. A member of my staff, who appropriately asked why this amendment could not pass with overwhelming support, was informed by a staffer for another member, who enthusiastically supports the welfare state, that the true purpose of this program is to benefit producers of food products, not feed children.
corporation
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.
corporation
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.
corporation
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:11
Lastly, critics of the bill convincingly argue that language within H.R. 2621 regarding “Foreign Investment” would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. H.R. 2621 attempts to eliminate artificial or trade-distorting barriers to trade-related foreign investment by reducing or eliminating exceptions to the principle of national treatment; free the transfer of funds relating to investments; reduce or eliminate performance requirements and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment and operation of investments; seeks to establish standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice; and provide meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes. It is argued that H.R. 2621 will congressionally activate the nearly completed Multilateral Agreement on Investment which covers 29 countries and forbids countries from regulating investment or capital flows and would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. The MAI requires governments to pay investors for any action that directly or indirectly has an equivalent effect of expropriation. The MAI would be enforceable through international tribunals similar to those of the World Trade Organization without the due process protections of the United States.
corporation
World Financial Markets
1 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world financial markets have been in chaos now for nearly a year and a half. The problem surrounding long-term capital investment is only one more item to add to the list. The entire process represents the unwinding of speculative investments encouraged by years of easy credit. By the way, Long Term Credit Management is not even an American corporation. It is registered in the Cayman Islands, I am sure for tax purposes.
corporation
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 105:3
Although derivatives are a relatively recent development in financial markets, their use by corporations, pension and mutual funds, financial institutions, governments and those involved in money management are clearly ascendant, according to the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies. The issue is not whether the government should ban or in some way restrict the prudent use of derivatives to hedge risk. Rather, the issue is one of disclosure, i.e., how best to provide increased transparency as our complex international financial system enters the 21st Century.
corporation
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:8
A more recent assault on privacy is a regulation proposed jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve, known as “Know Your Customer.” If this regulation takes effect in April 2000, financial institutions will be required not only to identify their customers but also their source of funds for all transactions, establish a “profile” and determine if the transaction is “normal and expected.” If a transaction does not fit the profile, banks would have to report the transaction to government regulators as “suspicious.” The unfunded mandate on financial institutions will be passed on to customers who would have to pay higher ATM and other fees and higher interest rates on loans for the privilege of being spied on by government-inspired tellers.
corporation
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:20
By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world.
corporation
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:73
When the foreign registered corporation long term capital management was threatened in 1998, that is, the market demanding a logical correction to its own exuberance with its massive $1 trillion speculative investment in the derivatives market, Greenspan and company quickly came to its rescue with an even greater acceleration of credit expansion.
corporation
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 25:9
Yesterday in the Washington Post an interesting article occurred on this subject, but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war.
corporation
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:3
There is 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. Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers’ dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way the system works.
corporation
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:16
There’s 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. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self defense— since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
corporation
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:12
The harmonization language in the last Congress’ Food and Drug Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
corporation
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:14
To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to “capture” the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers’ only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers’ after-tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of “free trade” espoused by the international trade organizations whose purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and captured to do the equivalent task domestically.
corporation
OPIC
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 83:4
No wonder on paper it looks profitable. And they say, well, the private companies will not insure some of these projects. That means it is probably risky. Why should the taxpayer assume the risk? Why should these corporations be protected with this corporate welfare?
corporation
OPIC
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 83:8
The little people are not coming to us today begging us to vote against this amendment. It is the corporations, the giant corporations, not our small mom-and-pop businesses. They are not coming and saying, please, please protect OPIC. No, it is the giant corporations that have been able to manipulate and get benefits from programs like this.
corporation
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 116, after line 5, insert the following: LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AND THE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEC. . None of the funds made available pursuant to this Act for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency, may be used to enter into any new obligation, guarantee, or agreement on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) each will control 5 minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
corporation
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:3
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export-Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our foreign competitors.
corporation
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:6
Just this past week we had the World Trade Organization rule against us saying that we grant $2 billion worth of tax benefits to our own corporations and they ruled that that was illegal. This is all done in the name of free trade.
corporation
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:12
Those institutions are not free trade institutions. They are managed trade institutions for the benefit of special interests. That is what this type of funding is for is for the benefit of special interests, whether it is our domestic corporation, which, indeed, I would recognize does receive some benefit.
corporation
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:13
Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have their defenders here.
corporation
Foreign Subsidies
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not really quite in the free market yet.
corporation
Foreign Subsidies
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 87:4
We take taxpayers’ money. We take taxpayers’ guarantee. We give them to those huge five corporations that do 67 percent of the business. We give them the money. But where do the goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese.
corporation
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:3
There’s 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. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ‘forced’ to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense — since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
corporation
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
corporation
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
corporation
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:12
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.
corporation
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!
corporation
Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws
8 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 114:7
Judge Jackson condemned Microsoft for being a “vigorous protector of its own self-interests.” Now this is to be a crime in America. To care for oneself and do what corporations are supposed to do, that is, maximize profits for stockholders by making customers happy, is the great crime committed in the Microsoft case.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:18
One would have to conclude from history as well as current conditions that the American Republic has been extremely successful. It certainly has allowed the creation of great wealth with a large middle-class and many very wealthy corporations and individuals. Although the poor are still among us, compared to other parts of the world, even the poor in this country have done quite well.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:64
Our system, which pays lip service to free enterprise and private property ownership, is drifting towards a form of fascism or corporatism rather than conventional socialism. And where the poor never seem to benefit under welfare, corporations become richer. But it should have been expected that once the principle of favoritism was established, the contest would be over who has the greatest clout in Washington.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:81
In the early stages, patients, doctors and hospitals welcomed these programs. Generous care was available with more than adequate reimbursement. It led to what one would expect, abuse, overcharges and overuse. When costs rose, it was necessary through government rulemaking and bureaucratic management to cut reimbursement and limit the procedures available and personal choice of physicians. We do not have socialized medicine but we do have bureaucratic medicine, mismanaged by the government and select corporations who usurp the decisionmaking power from the physician. The way medical care is delivered today in the United States is a perfect example of the evils of corporatism and an artificial system that only politicians, responding to the special interests, could create. There is no reason to believe the market cannot deliver medical care in an efficient manner as it does computers, automobiles and televisions. But the confidence is gone and everyone assumes, just as in education, that only a Federal bureaucracy is capable of solving the problems of maximizing the number of people, including the poor, who receive the best medical care available. In an effort to help the poor, the quality of care has gone down for everyone else and the costs have skyrocketed.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:86
In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:99
It is also advantageous for the politicians to ignore the negative effects from such a monetary arrangement, since they tend to be hidden and disseminated. A paper money system attracts support from various economic groups. Bankers benefit from the float that they get with the fractional reserve banking that accompanies a fiat monetary system. Giant corporations who get to borrow large funds at below market interest rates enjoy the system and consistently call for more inflation and artificially low interest rates. Even the general public seems to benefit from the artificial booms brought about by credit creation, with lower interest rates allowing major purchases like homes and cars.
corporation
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:11
Bailing out foreign governments, financial corporations and huge banks can all be achieved without congressional approval. One hundred years ago when we had a gold standard, credit could not be created out of thin air, and, because a much more limited government philosophy prevailed, this could not have been possible. Today it is hard to even document what goes on, let alone expect Congress to control it.
corporation
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:14
The colonists and Founders clearly recognized that these are tariffs or taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign corporations. 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.
corporation
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:16
If our American companies and our American workers have to compete, the last thing they should ever be required to do is pay some of their tax money to the Government, to send subsidies to their competitors; and that is what is happening. They are forced to subsidize their competitors on foreign aid. They support their competitors overseas at the World Bank. They subsidize their competitors in the Export/Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
corporation
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:21
For instance, there has been a big fight in the World Trade Organization with bananas. The Europeans are fighting with the Americans over exportation of bananas. Well, bananas are not grown in Europe and they are not grown in the United States, and yet that is one of the big issues of managed trade, for the benefit of some owners of corporations that are overseas that make big donations to our political parties. That is not coincidental.
corporation
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:23
So this to me is important, that we try to be clear on how we define free trade, and we should not do this by accepting the idea that management of trade, as well as subsidizing trade and calling it free trade is just not right. Free trade is the ability of an individual or a corporation to buy goods and spend their money as they see fit, and this provides tremendous economic benefits.
corporation
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:33
We are currently under review and the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States because we have given a tax break to our overseas company, and they have ruled against us and said that this tax break is a tax subsidy, language which annoys me to no end. They have given us until October 1 to get rid of that tax break for our corporations, so they are telling us, the U.S. Congress, what we have to do with tax law.
corporation
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:21
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
corporation
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.
corporation
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:3
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
corporation
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 60:4
All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.
corporation
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. Speaker, those of us who warned of the shortcomings of expanding our military presence in Colombia were ignored when funds were appropriated for this purpose earlier this year. We argued at that time that clearly no national security interests were involved; that the Civil War was more than 30 years old, complex with three factions fighting, and no assurance as to who the good guys were; that the drug war was a subterfuge, only an excuse, not a reason, to needlessly expand our involvement in Colombia; and that special interests were really driving our policy: Colombia Oil Reserves owned by American interests, American weapons manufacturers, and American corporations anxious to build infrastructure in Colombia.
corporation
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:10
* The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.
corporation
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:15
* The United States is now rotating the goods that are to receive the 100 to 200 percent tariff in order to spread the pain throughout the various corporations in Europe in an effort to get them to put pressure on their governments to capitulate to allow American beef and bananas to enter their markets. So far the products that we have placed high tariffs on have not caused Europeans to cave in. The threat of putting high tariffs on cashmere wool is something that the British now are certainly unhappy with.
corporation
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:21
* The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business.
corporation
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:22
* The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting ‘free trade’ it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.
corporation
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:10
* We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it. We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our exempting a small portion of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ‘subsidy.’ We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy — no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its foreign income. Most EU countries don’t tax their corporations on foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a subsidy is ridiculous.
corporation
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with a decision to do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We have heard proponents of this FSC bill argue for tax breaks for U.S. exporters, which, of course, should be done. Those proponents, however, argue that this must be done to move the United States into compliance with a decision by the WTO tribunal. Alternatively, opponents of the bill, argue that allowing firms domiciled in the United States to keep their own earnings results in some form of subsidy to the “evil” corporations. If we were to evaluate this legislation based upon the floor debated, we would be left with the choice of abandoning U.S. sovereignty in the name of WTO compliance or denying private entities freedom from excess taxation.
corporation
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”
corporation
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:13
The United States is now rotating the goods that are to receive the 100 to 200 percent tariff in order to spread the pain throughout the various corporations in Europe in an effort to get them to put pressure on their governments to capitulate to allow American beef and bananas to enter their markets. So far the products that we have placed high tariffs on have not caused Europeans to cave in. The threat of putting high tariffs on cashmere wool is something that the British now are certainly unhappy with.
corporation
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:19
The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business. The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting “free trade” it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.
corporation
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
corporation
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:93
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the US taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations. Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man.
corporation
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:19
The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the foreign sales corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
corporation
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:21
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the U.S. taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations.
corporation
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:24
As patients have since discovered, the HMO — staffed by physicians employed by and beholden to corporations — was not much of a Christmas present or an insurance product. It promises coverage but often denies access. The HMO, like other prepaid MCOs, requires enrollees to pay in advance for a long list of routine and major medical benefits, whether the health-care services are needed, wanted, or ever used. The HMOs are then allowed to manage care — without access to dollars and service — through definitions of medical necessity, restrictive drug formularies, and HMO-approved clinical guidelines. As a result, HMOs can keep millions of dollars from premium-paying patients. HMO BARRIERS ELIMINATED
corporation
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:37
At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram
corporation
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:8
If Congress were to refuse to “harmonize” US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO “dispute resolution panel” could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to “harmonize” our regulations with the rest of the world. In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements!
corporation
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:13
The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice — even if the former is a consequence of the latter. By presenting themselves as members of an exporters’ club, trade negotiators lay themselves open to attack by those who claim that free trade only works to the benefit of corporations.
corporation
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 28:8
[Page: E648] GPO’s PDF doing alternative service. The only difference is that he would be getting a reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay. By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical engineering can get paid according to her market value because she does not have to do military service. NVhy should we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to corporations?
corporation
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:9
Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.
corporation
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:10
It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.
corporation
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:6
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has something to do with campaign finance reform. I am in favor of some reforms, that is, less control. People have the right to spend their own money the way they want; and when we have the problem of big corporations coming here and lobbying us, that is a secondary problem.
corporation
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:7
If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us.
corporation
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:8
Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us have some real campaign finance reform and let us get rid of the subsidies and the motivation for these huge corporations to come here and influence our vote. That is what the problem is. We do not need to get the money out of politics, we need to get the money out of Washington and out of the business of subsidizing special interests. That is where our problem is.
corporation
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:10
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big corporations.
corporation
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:14
Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer, but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big special interest corporations?
corporation
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:3
This paragraph is found in the bill which is called “foreign operations.” It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest trade, and I think that is wrong.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:5
Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:6
It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export- Import Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:8
This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a ripoff. The taxpayer suffers all of the risks.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:9
Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal going for large corporations.
corporation
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
corporation
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:43
Likewise, an imperialistic foreign policy can only be supported by inflation and high taxation. This policy compounds the threat to liberty, because all too often our leaders get us involved in overseas military adventurism in which we should have no part. Today that danger is greater than ever before, as we send our dollars and troops hither and yon to areas of the world most Americans have no knowledge or interest in. But the driving force behind our foreign policy comes from our oil corporations, international banking interests and the military-industrial complex, which have high-stake interests in the places our troops and foreign aid, are sent.
corporation
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:17
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 unfortunately is an acceptable practice. Obeying the restraints placed in the Constitution is seen as archaic and insensitive to the people’s needs. But far too often the claims of those responding to 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. One group supports federalizing tens of thousands of airport jobs to increase union membership, while another says we should subsidize corporate interests and keep the jobs private.
corporation
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services committee should reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support- rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.
corporation
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:6
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12-15% of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.
corporation
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:8
We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bailjumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.
corporation
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.
corporation
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:3
The one thing I agree with him entirely on is that the problem exists. There is no doubt there is a huge influence of money here in Washington, and even in my prepared statement I mention how corporations influence our foreign policy and that something ought to be done about it; but campaign finance reform goes in exactly the wrong direction. It just means more regulations, more controls, telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress and how they can campaign. That is not the problem.
corporation
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:5
I agree we have a problem, but I believe the resistance could be here without much change. The ultimate solution to the need for campaign finance reform comes only when we have a constitutional- type government, where government is not doing the things they should be doing. There is a logical incentive for corporations and many individuals to come to Washington, because they can buy influence and buy benefits and buy contracts. The government was never meant to do that.
corporation
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:65
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our “friendship” with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today’s circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict.
corporation
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:2
I fear that many of my well-meaning colleagues are reacting to media reports portraying Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. It is a mistake for Congress to view the Enron collapse as a 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.
corporation
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:6
Therefore, if Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron.
corporation
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:7
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
corporation
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:9
Enron similarly benefited 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 of my colleagues 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 DC-based politicians of both parties. 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.
corporation
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:10
The only constituency for the IMF are the huge multinational banks and corporations. 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.
corporation
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:36
This special status of the dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse. Since our bubble can last longer due to our perceived military and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic powerhouse of the world, we’re able to borrow more than anyone else. Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums, as our current account deficit soars out of sight. The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend, even in recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen. Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more borrowing.
corporation
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:8
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. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense- since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power- such as between labor and business- is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
corporation
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:9
All That Glitters Is Not Gold By Kelly Patricia O’Meara Insight Magazine March 4, 2002, edition Even though Enron employees and the company’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, have destroyed mountains of documents, enough information remains in the ruins of the nation’s largest corporate bankruptcy to provide a clear picture of what happened to wreck what once was the seventh-largest U.S. corporation.
corporation
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $37 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.
corporation
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. 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.
corporation
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:3
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large, multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
corporation
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:3
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes 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. 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. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. 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. Sure, some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own?
corporation
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:2
The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support — rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.
corporation
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:7
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12–15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations; it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.
corporation
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:14
Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored, and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control- and the American people lose.
corporation
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:6
Government regulations also harm investors by inducing a sense of complacency. Investors are much less likely to invest prudently and ask tough questions of the companies they are investing in when they believe government regulations are protecting their investments. However, as mentioned above, government regulations are unable to prevent all fraudulent activity, much less prevent all instances of imprudent actions. In fact, as also pointed out above, complex regulations create opportunities for illicit actions by both the regulator and the regulated, Mr. Chairman, 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 disclosures rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything?
corporation
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:12
Of course, while the supporters of increased regulation claim Enron as a failure of “ravenous capitalism,” the truth is Enron was a phenomenon of the mixed economy, rather than the operations of the free market. Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export- Import (Ex-Im) Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) subsidies. These programs make risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. While they purport to help developing nations, Ex-Im and OPIC are in truth nothing more than naked subsidies for certain politically-favored American corporations, particularly corporations like Enron that lobby hard and give huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Rather than finding ways to exploit the Enron mess to expand Federal power, perhaps Congress should stop aiding corporations like Enron that pick the taxpayer’s pockets through Ex-Im and OPIC.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:2
One thing I am convinced of over the years from looking at bad agencies of government, tinkering on the edges does not do a lot of good. Members might ask why am I tinkering here? Why do I want to tell corporations what to do? I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises, but this is different because they are getting taxpayer money. That is different than if they were just a corporation making it on their own.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:3
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:4
What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys. What happens so often when government gets involved is there are unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade; but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big difference.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:3
In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:6
Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded “assistance” from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron’s inevitable day of reckoning.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:7
Eximbank’s use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer.
corporation
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:8
It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.
corporation
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 52:5
History and economic law are on the side of the gold. Paper money always fails. Unfortunately, though, this occurs only after many innocent people have suffered the consequences of the fraud that paper money represents. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax levied more on the poor and those on fixed incomes than the wealthy, the bankers, or the corporations.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at that particular article too often any more.
corporation
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:5
The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets squeezed. The funds are taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big corporations. Many times it doesn’t even do that.
corporation
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:21
Expatriation is not tax evasion. All corporations, regardless of where they’re based, pay tax to the IRS on all profits they earn in the United States. This is true of U.S.-based companies, and it’s true of all foreign-based companies- including those that expatriate. All that changes is that expatriating companies no longer have to pay taxes on income earned outside America’s borders. Since worldwide taxation is misguided tax policy, this is a positive result. Indeed, every tax reform plan, including the flat tax, is based on this common-sense principle of “territorial” taxation.
corporation
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:70
I’m sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.
corporation
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:5
Nixon was right- once- when he declared "We’re all Keynesians now." All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.
corporation
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:2
I hope Congress understands the historical significance of this bill. Once again, as when we created the ETI ("extraterritorial") tax regime in 2000, we are acting at the behest on an international body. We are changing our domestic laws, and changing the way we tax domestic parent corporations on the activities of their subsidiaries operating wholly outside of the U.S., because an international body demands it. The WTO appellate panel has spoken, and their will trumps Congress. Yet we were assured in 1994 that our membership in the WTO would never diminish American sovereignty.
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:3
The Europeans argue, quite correctly, that we treat some foreign-source corporate earnings preferentially, i.e. we exempt from tax a portion of the earnings of foreign sales corporations (FSCs). This is not, however, an argument for abolishing the FSC — it is an argument for adopting a territorial tax system like many of our European critics!
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:5
The FSC, created by Congress in 1984 under IRC sections 921-927, provides needed relief from the subpart F anti-deferral rules for the foreign subsidiaries of our domestic corporations. FSCs make it possible for U.S. corporations to better compete with companies incorporated in territorial-system nations — which is to say companies that generally pay no corporate tax at all on the foreign-source income of their subsidiaries. I urge the committee to reconsider repealing the FSC, an entity utilized by several corporations in my district that employ thousands of people, including Marathon Oil, Dow Chemical, and British Petroleum. Since competing legislation recently introduced in this committee seeks to encourage American manufacturing and exports, it is imperative that any manufacturing deduction (for "qualified production activities") include income derived from the production of finished energy products — refined gasoline, liquefied natural gas, etc.
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:8
The impact of U.S. tax rules on the international competitiveness of U.S. multinationals is much more significant an issue than it was forty years ago. Today, foreign markets provide an increasing amount of the growth opportunities for U.S. businesses. At the same time, competition from multinationals headquartered outside of the United States is becoming greater. Of the world’s 20 largest corporations, the number headquartered in the United States has declined from 18 in 1960 to just 8 in 1996. Around the world, 21,000 foreign affiliates of U.S. multinationals compete with about 260,000 foreign affiliates of foreign multinationals.
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:10
First, about half of OECD countries have a territorial tax system under which a company generally is not subject to tax on the active income earned by a foreign subsidiary. By contrast, the United States taxes income of a U.S.-controlled foreign corporation either when repatriated or when earned in cases where income is subject to U.S. anti-deferral rules.
corporation
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to craft a final bill (or conference report) that satisfies the WTO without punishing those U.S. corporations that have relied on the FSC structure to maintain their international competitiveness. I also urge the committee to use this debate as a springboard for wholesale reform of our international tax rules.
corporation
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:50
A noninterventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today’s foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. Yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.
corporation
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:2
However this bill raises several question of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of HR 4600 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.
corporation
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
corporation
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:7
Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! Since 1999, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, according to the latest available figures, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export- Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
corporation
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:4
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
corporation
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:2
However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.
corporation
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 41:2
It has now been fashionable to bash France and Germany and other friends if they are less enthusiastic for the war than we think they should be. Yet foreign corporations provide millions of jobs for American citizens. French companies alone employ over 400,000. There is a practical reason why offending the French and others may backfire on us.
corporation
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:4
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year.
corporation
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:49
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post , and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
corporation
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $46.7 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.
corporation
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. 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.
corporation
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:3
But in looking at the particular bill, one of the specific reasons why I oppose it, is I came to Congress opposing all welfare. Some people oppose welfare for the poor, but they support welfare for the rich. Others support welfare for the rich, but not for the poor; and some people support both kinds of welfare. I do not support any kind of welfare. This bill is needed to stop the indirect welfare through regulation for the rich and the pharmaceutical corporations. This is corporate welfare. That is one of the strong reasons why I am opposed to that.
corporation
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:4
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! From 1999-2002, the United States government provided approximately $2,172,220,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the United States’ current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals approximately $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,972,220,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!
corporation
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:39
That’s why the Fed screams about a coming deflation, so it can continue the devaluation of the dollar unabated. The politicians don’t mind, the bankers welcome the business activity, and the recipients of the funds passed out by Congress never complain. The greater the debt, the greater the need to inflate the currency, since debt cannot be the source of long-term wealth. Individuals and corporations who borrow too much eventually must cut back and pay off debt and start anew, but governments rarely do.
corporation
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:44
Our current monetary system makes it tempting for all parties, individuals, corporations, and government to go into debt. It encourages consumption over investment and production. Incentives to save are diminished by the Fed’s making new credit available to everyone and keeping interest rates on saving so low that few find it advisable to save for a rainy day. This is made worse by taxing interest earned on savings. It plays havoc with those who do save and want to live off their interest. The artificial rates may be 4, 5, or even 6% below the market rate, and the savers- many who are elderly and on fixed incomes- suffer unfairly at the hands of Alan Greenspan, who believes that resorting to money creation will solve our problems and give us perpetual prosperity.
corporation
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:60
Liberals foolishly believe that they can control the process and curtail the benefits going to corporations and banks by increasing the spending for welfare for the poor. But this never happens. Powerful financial special interests control the government spending process and throw only crumbs to the poor. The fallacy with this approach is that the advocates fail to see the harm done to the poor, with cost of living increases and job losses that are a natural consequence of monetary debasement. Therefore, even more liberal control over the spending process can never compensate for the great harm done to the economy and the poor by the Federal Reserve’s effort to manage an unmanageable fiat monetary system.
corporation
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:61
Economic intervention, financed by inflation, is high-stakes government. It provides the incentive for the big money to “invest” in gaining government control. The big money comes from those who have it- corporations and banking interests. That’s why literally billions of dollars are spent on elections and lobbying. The only way to restore equity is to change the primary function of government from economic planning and militarism to protecting liberty. Without money, the poor and middle class are disenfranchised since access for the most part requires money. Obviously, this is not a partisan issue since both major parties are controlled by wealthy special interests. Only the rhetoric is different.
corporation
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:2
I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.
corporation
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect Federal subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 alone.
corporation
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the Government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.
corporation
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:4
Mr. Speaker this reconstruction of Iraq – that we are making but a down-payment on today – is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to “rebuild” Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted - as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various “non-government organizations” that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the “right” way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we’re in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for "women’s leadership programs" (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the "U.S. share" of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles).
corporation
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003 2003 Ron Paul 115:11
Congress can also improve America’s competitive position by ending the practice of forcing American workers to subsidize their foreign competitors through organizations such as the Export-Import Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I have introduced the Steel Financing Fairness Act (H.R. 3072) to accomplish this goal. H.R. 3072 prevents taxpayer funds from being sent to countries, such as China, that subsidize their steel industries. Of course, our ultimate goal should be to end all taxpayer subsidies of foreign corporations and governments.
corporation
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:12
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value uses of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot obtain market funding reduce economic efficiency and decrease living standards. Yet, Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
corporation
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 15:3
Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party — such as the taxpayers or a corporation with “deep pockets.”
corporation
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
corporation
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:11
The invisible economic costs are enormous but generally ignored. A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American. Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit, however. Now the grand scheme of physically rebuilding Iraq using American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with political connections.
corporation
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad. If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied.
corporation
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:2
Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill’s spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international or military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
corporation
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:11
The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy. Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating. The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government- as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on. This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the goodies. But surprise- it doesn’t happen. The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and other necessities. The freebies never come.
corporation
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 1
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. PAUL: Title II of the bill is amended by striking the item relating to “MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION”. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
corporation
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 1
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 57:8
When Paul Applegarth, the chairman of the corporation for the Millennium Challenge Account was before our committee, I asked him a question. I said, are there any American companies that will benefit by this type of program? I actually was pretty shocked with his answer, because he was very blunt. He said, I certainly hope so. In other words, even our American corporations benefit from programs like this.
corporation
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 2
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 59:3
At the same time, we know that our corporations will also participate in these programs. So the money once again leaves the people of this country, many times the poor, and goes to these foreign aid programs which subsidize certain governments, solidifying powers of certain politicians, which then allows fungibility of their other funds to do other things and then encourage business partnerships between government and business which is not free markets, which literally is undermining the move that I think is intended and that is to improve the conditions of other countries.
corporation
Financing Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 60:5
Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China. Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong with a system like that.
corporation
Financing Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 60:6
There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations, we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen.
corporation
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!
April 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 39:3
Many of the major problems stem from section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial statements. It also requires that outside auditors “attest to” the soundness of the internal controls used in preparing the statements-- an obvious sop to auditors and accounting firms. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board defines internal controls as “controls over all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.” According to John Berlau, a Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the definition of internal controls is so broad that a CEO possibly could be found liable for not using the latest version of Windows! Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures.
corporation
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!
April 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 39:6
The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions should be resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders, and by state and local regulations. Let me remind my colleagues who are skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud: the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter. My colleagues also should keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting financial crimes
corporation
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 105:3
Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party — such as the taxpayers or a corporation with “deep pockets.”
corporation
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 107:3
Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing national debt, my legislation is financed through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign aid programs, which subsidize large corporations and even American businesses’ overseas competitors such as the Export-Import Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite trade with countries such as Communist China. It is time for the Federal Government to begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary programs that benefit powerful special interests in order to met our constitutional responsibilities to ensure America’s first responders can effectively respond to terrorists’ attacks.
corporation
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 64, after line 12, insert the following new section: SECTION 117. ELIMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO BORROW FROM TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. (a) FANNIE MAE. — Section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended by striking subsection (c). (b) FREDDIE MAC. — Section 306 of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1455) is amended by striking subsection (c). (c) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS. — Section 11 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by striking subsection (i). The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
corporation
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:87
Too much is at stake. Corporations, bureaucrats, lobbyists and politicians have grown accustomed to the system and have learned to work within it to survive. Only when the trough is empty will the country wake up. Eliminating earmarks in the budget will not solve the problem.
corporation
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:89
Considering the war had nothing to do with our national security, we are talking big bucks being wasted in lining the pockets of well-connected American corporations. Waste, fraud, stupidity, and no-bid contracts characterize the process; and it is all done in the name of patriotism and national security. Dissenters are accused of supporting the enemy. Now, this is a ripoff that a little tinkering with House rules and restraints on lobbyists won’t do much to solve.
corporation
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:100
The prime beneficiaries of a paper money system are those who use the money early, governments, politicians, bankers, international corporations and the military industrial complex. Those who suffer most are the ones at the end of the money chain, the people forced to use depreciated dollars to buy urgently needed goods and services to survive. And guess what? By then, their money is worth less, prices soar, and their standard of living goes down.
corporation
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:54
The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
corporation
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:62
Interestingly, the cost of oil and gas is actually much higher than we pay at the retail level. Much of the DOD budget is spent protecting “our” oil supplies; and if such spending is factored in, gasoline probably costs us more than $5 a gallon. The sad irony is that the military efforts to secure cheap oil supplies inevitably backfire and actually curtail supplies and boost prices at the pump. The waste and fraud in issuing contracts to large corporations for work in Iraq only adds to price increases.
corporation
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the public outrage over the Jack Abramoff scandal presented Congress with an opportunity to support real reform by addressing the root cause of the corruption: the amount of money and power located in Washington, D.C. A true reform agenda would focus on ending federal funding for unconstitutional programs, beginning with those programs that benefit wealthy corporations and powerful special interests. Congress should also change the way we do business in the House by passing the Sunlight Rule (H. Res. 709). The Sunlight Rule ensures that members of the House of Representatives and the American public have adequate time to read and study legislation before it is voted upon. Ending the practice of rushing major legislation to the House floor before members have had a chance to find out the details of bills will do more to improve the legislative process and restore public confidence in this institution than will imposing new registration requirements on lobbyists or making staffers waste their time at an “ethics class.”
corporation
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.
corporation
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:3
The vast majority of Ex-Im Bank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own efforts without relying on the American taxpayers.
corporation
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:4
In fact, according to journalist Robert Novak, Enron itself received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded assistance from Ex-Im. The taxpayer-provided largess no doubt helped postpone Enron’s inevitable day of reckoning. It is not only bad economics to force working American small businesses and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of large corporations; it is also immoral.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:4
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1257 gives the Securities and Exchange Commission the power to force publicly traded corporations to consider shareholders’ votes on nonbinding resolutions concerning the compensation packages of CEOs. Giving the SEC the power to require shareholder votes on any aspect of corporate governance, even on something as seemingly inconsequential as a nonbinding resolution, illegitimately expands Federal authority into questions of private governance.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:5
In a free market, shareholders who are concerned about CEO compensation are free to refuse to invest in corporations that do not provide sufficient information regarding how CEO salaries are set or do not allow shareholders to have a say in setting compensation packages.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:6
Since shareholders are a corporation’s owner, the CEO and the board of directors have a great incentive to respond to shareholders’ demands. In fact, several corporations have recently moved to amend the ways they determine executive compensation in order to provide increased transparency and accountability to shareholders.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:7
Some shareholders may not care about CEO compensation packages. Instead, they may want to devote time at shareholder meetings to reviewing corporate environmental policies and ensuring the corporation has family- friendly workforce policies. If H.R. 1257 becomes law, the concerns of those shareholders will take a back seat to corporations attempting to meet the demands of Congress.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:12
In addition to repealing laws that prevent shareholders from exercising control over corporations, Congress should also examine United States monetary policy’s effects on income inequality. When the Federal Reserve Board injects credit into the economy, the result is at least a temporary rise in incomes. However, those incomes do not rise equally. People who first receive the new credit — who in most instances are those already at the top of the economic pyramid — receive the most benefit from the Fed’s inflationist polices. By the time those at the lower end of the income scale experience a nominal rise in incomes, they must also contend with price inflation that has eroded their standard of living. Except for the lucky few who take advantage of the new credit first, the negative effects of inflation likely more than outweigh any temporary gains in nominal income from the Federal Reserve’s expansionist polices.
corporation
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:15
Instead of imposing new laws on private companies, Congress should repeal the laws that have weakened the ability of shareholders to discipline CEOs and boards of directors that do not run corporations according to the shareholders’ wishes. Congress should also examine how fiat money contributes to income inequality. I therefore request that my colleagues join me in opposing H.R. 1257 and instead embrace a pro-freedom, pro-shareholder, and pro-worker agenda of free markets and sound money.
corporation
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 56:3
What is most annoying about the World Bank are the criticisms alleging that the Bank and its actions demonstrate the negative side of free-market capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The World Bank is not an organization devoted to capitalism, or to the free market, but to state-run corporate capitalism. Established and managed by a multitude of national governments, the World Bank promotes managed trade, by which politically connected individuals and corporation enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.
corporation
TRIBUTE TO GULF COPPER & MANUFACTURING
14 February 2008 2008 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 27, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce will present its business of the year award to Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corporation, Gulf Copper, in recognition of the many contributions that it has made to the Galveston community. I am pleased to join my friends from the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in paying tribute to Gulf Copper.
corporation
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:4
The problems shrimpers face are compounded by foreign competitors who are taking advantage of the government-created vulnerabilities in the American shrimp industry. Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors through international agencies such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the International Monetary Fund! In fact, United States taxpayers have provided over $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers since 1999.
corporation
CONGRATULATIONS TO BASF FREEPORT ON THEIR 50TH ANNIVERSARY
10 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the BASF Corporation’s Freeport, Texas facility. Freeport is located in Brazoria County in my congressional district. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate the management and employees of BASF Freeport on 50 great years, and thank the people of BASF Freeport for their contributions to Freeport’s economy.
corporation
Earmark Declaration
19 November 2008 2008 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638): Requesting member: Ron Paul. Bill number: H.R. 2638. Account: Rdt&E Defense Health Program. Legal name of requesting entity: Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation. Address of requesting entity: PO Box 2290, 302 Midway Road, Freeport, TX 77542–2290. Description of request: The project earmarks $3,000,000 for a Department of Defense lead study of vanadium to assess the health safety and risks of military and civilian workers exposed to vanadium through work in military applications.
corporation
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:5
So this is how out of control our problem is. Sure, there is a lot of debt in the economy, and once a government or a corporation gets an excessive amount of debt, it is never paid for. So, yes, we can transfer the debt to others.
corporation
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:13
The Treasury gets hundreds of billions, which is huge, of course, and then we neglect to talk about the Federal Reserve, where they are creating money out of thin air, and supporting all their friends and taking care of certain banks and certain corporations. This, to me, has to be addressed.
corporation
Sanctions on Iran, Part 3
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 106:10
Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran’s petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the US economy if it is actually enforced?
corporation
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
29 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
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?
corporation
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
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.
corporation
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
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).
corporation
Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens
31 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens
31 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
"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.
corporation
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Lavish pay and benefits have no merit
19 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 19 July 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
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.)
corporation
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Floor Votes Reviewed
06 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The most blatant example of the World Trade Organization undermining US sovereignty was the recent ruling rejecting US tax breaks to US companies doing business overseas. The European Union charged that the Foreign Sales Corporation program established in 1984 is now an "illegal subsidy," and the WTO appellate panel supported this position. Despite the fact that the US unfairly taxes corporations for profits earned overseas, unlike our foreign competitors, this program was meant to compensate to some degree for this unfairness built into our tax code. Nevertheless the WTO, in a ridiculous ruling, claimed that allowing a company to keep more of its own money through lower taxes is a "subsidy" -- something given at the behest of government.
corporation
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
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."
corporation
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
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 1st deadline to change our tax laws.
corporation
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
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?
corporation
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 13 ... Cached
o $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.
corporation
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
I focus on the Constitution when voting on trade issues. This approach leads me to always oppose trade subsidies, as there is no enumerated power that gives Congress authority to send your money abroad to help big corporations sell their products. The current system allows the most powerful interests, with the largest political lobbies, to prevail in the Congressional pork subsidy game. So the biggest corporations tend to get bigger, while smaller competitors face a very uneven playing field. This is not free trade, but rather government-mangaged trade epitomized by international bodies like NAFTA and the WTO. As noted Austrian economist Murray Rothbard explained, we don't need government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-managed trade always means political favoritism. Merit, rather than politics, should determine which companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out of the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans.
corporation
Business as Usual in Washington?
29 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 October 2001 verse 12 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
12 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
17 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 December 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Argentine Default and the IMF
14 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 January 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
corporation
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Why Is There So Much Money In Politics?
04 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 February 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 10 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Gold, Dollars, and Federal Reserve Mischief
10 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 10 June 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
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.
corporation
A Stay of Execution for the Death Tax
17 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 17 June 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
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.
corporation
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
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!
corporation
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
12 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Inflation- Alive and Well
08 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
“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.”
corporation
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Zero Down for the American Dream
21 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The Sausage Factory
01 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 01 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Will the Estate Tax ever be Repealed?
24 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 24 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 14 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
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?
corporation
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
corporation
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
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.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.